ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[RobE]

Not sure how you can take intentional action without deciding to do so first.

You can't. I just wanted to point out as you did in a previous post that action and decision are separate issues. This would allow me to point out that God foreseeing the action in no way would disallow the contingency of the decision and would satisfy your definition of free will.

Well, if you can only do one thing, then you aren't free to do anything else. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

This would seem simple. The problem comes in since free will doesn't require you to do anything else. It only requires you to be able to do the thing you want to do.

So, God isn't free to sin. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that we foreknow that God isn't free to sin and we also know that God is all-powerful which would tell us that God is able to sin if He wanted to. The two seem to contradict each other. The question becomes is God able to do otherwise where sinning is involved. God is the ultimate free will agent capable of doing anything within His own power. Certainly we are able to sin and God is able to do anything we can. Yet, He is unable to sin. According to your definition of free will, then God is unrighteous because of His inability to do otherwise where sinning is involved. That is if you believe that righteousness is achieved through the rejection of sin through a free will choice.

I considered this line of reasoning and realized that God must remain righteous even though He hasn't the ability to do otherwise. This brought me to the conclusion that doing otherwise is not a necessary component of freedom within our will.

To be honest, I don't get how you can call being a robot "free".

I'm not sure what this means or why you wrote it. Maybe a little elaboration.

Rob

 

[RobE]

Rob,

Do you ever make a choice?

Yes or No

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I'm including this post script because without it, there is no way Rob would have ever understood the point of this post. Think it through Rob. Do you ever make a choice? Yes or No

Yes, I chose to answer this post and never considered doing otherwise. Did I want to or should I have attempted to do otherwise. Looking back, I realize I would never had done otherwise.

Maybe with this answer I never really had a choice after all. I'll think about it tommorrow. :chuckle:

Now for my question, Clete....

If I hadn't answered this post would that have actually been doing otherwise or would the choice ultimately have been an illusion? (Because answering the post would have then been defined as the 'otherwise' in that alternate situation).

Rob

p.s. Why is it always yes or no? Why not yes and no once in a while? Or maybe neither. :chuckle: Just a jest.

 

[RobE]

Perhaps if I could really understand that objection we could make more progress. I will not deny that God makes use of considerable knowledge of our character in understanding how we will respond to things. I in fact believe that this is what lies behind Jesus' prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and his prediction of Peter's denial of Christ three times. I do not think these are based on absolute forknowledge but simply the observations of an intellegent person who is sees the forces in play in the circumstances of Israel, and who clearly saw weakness of Peter. Our sinful habits makes us extremely predictable and in that regard I believe God knowledge of what we will do is rather extensive. I just don't think He cheats by looking ahead in time to see what will actually happen. If you wish to say that the future does not actually exist to be looked at, that is basically saying the same thing, because God's decisions to do things a certain way are indistinguishable from the laws of the universe.

We might be able to make more progress, but we would need to spend a lot of time discussing and coming to a concensus on Grace. We probably don't have enough life left in us.

Well you need to be more specific. I cannot say that I read Patman's posts throroughly. I respond to posts that intrigue my interest and that may be a biased and unfair filter, but what can I say. His enthusiastic and agressive endorsement of Open Theism is clearly not something that I am not 100% in alignment with.

Well, Patrick, is a man of God. His intentions are noble, righteous, and he certainly is a man of integrity. There are a couple of things that are hard for me to discuss with him because of our long history together here on TOL. He is convinced that a foreknowing God is a God of evil. That is something we will eternally disagree with. God, when considering the creative act, must have foreknown that evil was at least an option from His own design. Patrick believes if this were true then God would have created without any chance of evil coming into the picture.

But I also do not agree with calling all atheists the enemies of God. Communists and Nazis yes. These are decidedly anti-Christian. But a lot of atheists I have talked to are much more properly described as Christians with issues.

As I have found. Some Christians are christians without thought. The atheists I have encountered(not all) have been men of thought and descrimination.

No my first post here is on February 26th after I dropped out of the excessively Catholic dominated christianforums.com. I was responding to your quote of Jim Hilston's rhetoric which I found inflamatory and unreasonable.

Hilston posted it out of years of frustration with trying to reasonably discuss the issues with open theists(per him). I certainly find it inflammatory, but as of today it stands unanswered. The reasonableness hasn't been explored as far as I know.

During my time in that forum I also carefully considered all five points of Calvinism and was forced to conclude that I reject them all, although I came very close on eternal security, agreeing with it at first and then changing my mind. the argument for it seems logical but I finally decided that it was wrong for pragmatic reasons and somewhat blasphemous.

I certainly reject all five points of Calvinism as well. My foray into its teaching have left me with a respect for the Calvinist's approach to the issues we are discussing here. I find their insights on divine government and the ideas which certainly make God the Alpha and Omega in all things compelling. My rejection began with T since I hold to the Catholic teaching that man is basically good as created. Eternal security I rejected on the basis of the scriptures and the warnings of Paul to 'not fall away'. Irresistable Grace was another point which would remove man from a cooperative effort in the salvation process and the removal of choice(which I saw as a rejection of love).

Jim Hilston is a calvinist and if you contact him, I'm sure you will be more than happy with the kind and respectful answers you get from him. He's just not so kind and respectful with the people on TOL because of the history.

Anyway, let me know if there is anything specific that I can directly answer for you. I would be more than happy to. Just keep in mind that I am from Missouri and grew up partly in Arkansas. All in the Ozarks. My brain works slower than my tongue in many instances. Sometimes it takes 100 times to digest the truth that I'm hearing. My age also plays a role in that I'm more set in my ways these days, but I will consider if I hear what you are trying to say. It's the hearing which causes the problem, both physically and mentally.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[Lon]

Hey Lonster which one are you?

That line from "Hook" just popped into my head "You are a very bad man. Run home Jack!"

 

[Lon]

A. Do you believe that God has EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge?

Lonster's answer... "A. Yeah"

B. Do you believe that there has ever been a time when God did not have EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge?

Lonster's answer... B. No, if it is true, He'd always have to have had it.

C. Do you believe that God's foreknowledge is accurate?

Lonster's answer... C. Yes

OK, very good. Now if God has exhaustive foreknowledge and He has always had it (an eternity ago) and that foreknowledge is accurate, NOTHING can ever happen in any other way other than the way it happens as contained within God's accurate EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge, AGREE?

True. You never answered a question: How much foreknowledge 'does' He have in OV?

If not exhaustive, is it at least 'extensive?'

LOL Patman, it was a science page. Wiki indeed

If it works on Einstein's notepad, shouldn't there at least be an openess to God's possiblities?

 

[patman]

LOL Patman, it was a science page. Wiki indeed

If it works on Einstein's notepad, shouldn't there at least be an openess to God's possiblities?

I have this growth on my face...

:thumb:

I should have that looked at.

:chuckle:

Sigh.. Ok, enough kidding around. It is never, ever, ever never-ever a good idea to base any theology on scientific theory. Theories come and go, even theories that lead to intention are still theory. And all this shall pass.

Do you at least see how if time exists as an object, something one can travel, would mean that God created time?

 

[Clete]

Yes, I chose to answer this post...

This is nearly the only thing you said that was relevant to the discussion.

and never considered doing otherwise.

Totally irrelevant.

Did I want to or should I have attempted to do otherwise.

Couldn't be more irrelevant.

Looking back, I realize I would never had done otherwise.

Wrong subject: Therefore - Irrelevant.

Maybe with this answer I never really had a choice after all. I'll think about it tommorrow. :chuckle:

Since I don't think you're funny: Irrelevant.

Now for my question, Clete....

If I hadn't answered this post would that have actually been doing otherwise or would the choice ultimately have been an illusion? (Because answering the post would have then been defined as the 'otherwise' in that alternate situation).

This is the closest you got to saying anything that is on topic.
Actually you had at least four alternatives...

1: Responding to my question with "Yes"
2: Responding to my question with "No"
3: Responding to my question with something other than "Yes" or "No" (Perhaps an infinite number of possibilities here.)
4: Not responding to my question at all. (This one is technically included in number three but I chose to give it its own number and could have chosen not to.)​

The only question that is relevant to whether you chose to answer "yes" (which you probably already regret having done) freely, is whether it was within your own power to have chosen any one of these other options. Whether you wanted too or not is irrelevant; whether you did or not is irrelevant; the question is whether or not it was within your power to have done other than you did.

p.s. Why is it always yes or no? Why not yes and no once in a while? Or maybe neither. :chuckle: Just a jest.

It's never simply Yes or No, that was the whole point of my post.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

You can't. I just wanted to point out as you did in a previous post that action and decision are separate issues. This would allow me to point out that God foreseeing the action in no way would disallow the contingency of the decision and would satisfy your definition of free will.

I didn't say that they were separate issues. I just said that the decision wouldn't have to be immediately followed by the action decided.

This would seem simple. The problem comes in since free will doesn't require you to do anything else. It only requires you to be able to do the thing you want to do.

Choose to do. There are many instances when you want to do many things, but only choose one.

The big deal is that we foreknow that God isn't free to sin and we also know that God is all-powerful which would tell us that God is able to sin if He wanted to.

Again, equivocation. We know on principle that God isn't free to sin. We don't FOREKNOW God's every action the way that EDF presupposes that God knows ours. You might want to go look up equivocation in a good logic textbook.

The two seem to contradict each other. The question becomes is God able to do otherwise where sinning is involved. God is the ultimate free will agent capable of doing anything within His own power. Certainly we are able to sin and God is able to do anything we can. Yet, He is unable to sin. According to your definition of free will, then God is unrighteous because of His inability to do otherwise where sinning is involved. That is if you believe that righteousness is achieved through the rejection of sin through a free will choice.

Well, once we clear up your logical errors, this isn't a problem anymore. (Not to mention the fact that you conclude that because God can't sin, that he's unrighteous. That would be the first clue to anyone actually paying attention. No, this isn't my logic.)

I considered this line of reasoning and realized that God must remain righteous even though He hasn't the ability to do otherwise. This brought me to the conclusion that doing otherwise is not a necessary component of freedom within our will.

Well, your logic is flawed.

I'm not sure what this means or why you wrote it. Maybe a little elaboration.

Rob

Well, if all you can do is what you were either predestined to do, or all you can do is what your nature has programmed you to do, then you're nothing more than a robot claiming free will.

Muz

 

[Nathon Detroit]

True. You never answered a question: How much foreknowledge 'does' He have in OV?

How do you answer a question like that?

Uh.... a ton?

If not exhaustive, is it at least 'extensive?'

God knows everything knowable.

I would say that qualifies as even more than "extensive".

 

[themuzicman]

Think about God knowing all possible courses of the future, and how His actions would affect those possible courses.

Muz

 

[RobE]

The two seem to contradict each other. The question becomes is God able to do otherwise where sinning is involved. God is the ultimate free will agent capable of doing anything within His own power. Certainly we are able to sin and God is able to do anything we can. Yet, He is unable to sin. According to your definition of free will, then God is unrighteous because of His inability to do otherwise where sinning is involved. That is if you believe that righteousness is achieved through the rejection of sin through a free will choice.

Well, once we clear up your logical errors, this isn't a problem anymore. (Not to mention the fact that you conclude that because God can't sin, that he's unrighteous. That would be the first clue to anyone actually paying attention. No, this isn't my logic.)

Oh, but it is per your previous post.

Musicman,

I would like to focus the conversation on premise #9 and the presupposition which comes with it.

1. We infallibly foreknow that God will never do otherwise in the case of refraining from evil.

2. The fact that we foreknow this (according to premises #1-#8) means that God is unable to do otherwise.

3. Premise #9 would then state that God's will is not free when considering to do evil or not.

T = God would refrain from sin in the future.

(1) Yesterday we infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday we believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday we believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then God cannot do otherwise than refrain from sin in the future. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, God cannot do otherwise than refrain from sin in the future. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when God refrains from evil in the future, he doesn't do it freely. [8, 9]​

Are you able to see my equivocation better in this form?

Yes, but it doesn't matter.

1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]​

Premise #9 is invalid if we are able to find one exception to the definition. If you refuse to at least acknowledge this line of reasoning, then I would have to ask you to prove that premise(s) #5 and #6 are valid. My claim for them is that necessary knowledge does not transfer necessity to a yet contingent action.

Rob

 

[RobE]

This is nearly the only thing you said that was relevant to the discussion.

I guess you wish to avoid this subject. :chuckle:

Totally irrelevant.

You really want to escape it.

Couldn't be more irrelevant.

That must be a bad one.:rain:

Wrong subject: Therefore - Irrelevant.

:shut:

Since I don't think you're funny: Irrelevant.

:doh:

This is the closest you got to saying anything that is on topic.

:thumb:
Actually you had at least four alternatives...

1: Responding to my question with "Yes"
2: Responding to my question with "No"
3: Responding to my question with something other than "Yes" or "No" (Perhaps an infinite number of possibilities here.)
4: Not responding to my question at all. (This one is technically included in number three but I chose to give it its own number and could have chosen not to.)​

:first:

The only question that is relevant to whether you chose to answer "yes" (which you probably already regret having done) freely, is whether it was within your own power to have chosen any one of these other options.

Or not. All those irrelevant statement were trying to point out that in the end(or future if you prefer) I will only choose what I want to choose and nothing else.

Whether you wanted too or not is irrelevant;.....

Want, will, and other synonyms.

whether you did or not is irrelevant;....

I've never actually not done something. If I abstained then that is doing something in and of itself; therefore, the irrelevancies.

....the question is whether or not it was within your power to have done other than you did.

But foreknowledge doesn't foresee what I might of done. It foresees what I do. The fact that it is foreknown doesn't interfere with my abilities---it simply reports on my actions after I enact my want.

It's never simply Yes or No, that was the whole point of my post.

At least one of us had a point, that's good!!! :jolly:

Clete,

I'm in a great mood today. I appreciate your response to my post, as always. Have a great evening or day(in case you decided not to get on the site tonight).

Rob

 

[Lon]

How do you answer a question like that?

Uh.... a ton?

God knows everything knowable.

I would say that qualifies as even more than "extensive".

Right, but it 'seems' to me this definition is only 'knowledge' and not 'fore'knowledge which is probably more of a confusion than "foreknowledge vs. exhaustive foreknowledge" in our discussions.

The problem is our respective understanding of future and God's ability to see it clearly. Again I point to future visions (not dreams, but actually seeing a future event) as evidence that God sees future reality. I'm still not clear where OV stands on this perspective.

 

[Clete]

Or not. All those irrelevant statement were trying to point out that in the end(or future if you prefer) I will only choose what I want to choose and nothing else.

You still don't get it! Why do you want what you want?

Saying that I do what I want is exactly the same thing as saying I chose to do it. You are making a false dichotomy between wanting and choosing. You make a list of your wants and you'll have a list of choices you've made.

I've never actually not done something. If I abstained then that is doing something in and of itself; therefore, the irrelevancies.

Precisely the reason why it is entirely irrelevant. No one is stupid enough to have needed this pointed out to them Rob. My dead dog understand this.

But foreknowledge doesn't foresee what I might of done. It foresees what I do.

It foresees what you are going to do (future tense - not present tense).

The fact that it is foreknown doesn't interfere with my abilities---it simply reports on my actions after I enact my want.

Why do you want what you want? Foreknowledge, if it is exhaustive, includes your wants too, Rob! And as such, you don't get to choose those either! At best all you've done is moved the problem back a step from action to motive. But just as running is an act of the body, motives are the actions of the mind and spirit. And make no mistake about it, we choose our motives (i.e. our wants/desires).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Right, but it 'seems' to me this definition is only 'knowledge' and not 'fore'knowledge which is probably more of a confusion than "foreknowledge vs. exhaustive foreknowledge" in our discussions.

The problem is our respective understanding of future and God's ability to see it clearly. Again I point to future visions (not dreams, but actually seeing a future event) as evidence that God sees future reality. I'm still not clear where OV stands on this perspective.

Well....

God knows everything knowable.

That would include:

- everything He plans to do (that's foreknowledge).
- everything we plan to do at any given moment (that's foreknowledge)
- all the possible and impending variables that might affect our choices and our ability to do our will i.e., weather, physical and mechanical limitations that we cannot foresee, other peoples will/plans and intentions etc. and on and on (that's foreknowledge)

Knowing everything knowable grants God an incredible degree of foreknowledge.

Yet all the parts of God's knowledge that have to do with foreknowledge are flexible from His perspective. After all.... He is in control of His own faculties wouldn't you agree? God isn't a slave to His foreknowledge is He?

For instance... if God plans to do something do you believe He is free to change His plans? Or is He stuck in His foreknowledge?

 

[Bob Hill]

Does God know everything that will happen in the future as well as the present and past?
We know that God knows everything. It tells us in1 John 3:20, For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

Wouldn’t that be the most boring thing God could ever have?

If man has any free agency - can make any choices not totally predestined by God, then, those future free acts would be unknowable.

These questions are ridiculous since the Bible doesn’t say anywhere that God knows the future, or God doesn’t know the future.

The Bible does show that our almighty God did not know some of the future events of the somewhat free agent, man. God showed that man has some free will, because God didn’t know for sure what the future actions of a man would be in all cases. One of the earliest and best examples is Gen 22:9-12,15-17.

Gen 22:9-12, 15-17 Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. 10 And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” So he said, “Here I am.” 12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” 15 Then the Angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son; 17 “blessing I will bless you,.

Now I know. Now God knows. Did God know before He said, “Now I know”?

No! He did not know!!

In Christ, my Lord and Savior,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

If God didn't know whether Abraham would withhold his son or not, which was very short term, how would He know things in the future? I realize that God could make everything happen just like He wanted it to be, but we see that He didn't do that.

Bob Hill

 

[mitchellmckain]

Well, Patrick, is a man of God. His intentions are noble, righteous, and he certainly is a man of integrity. There are a couple of things that are hard for me to discuss with him because of our long history together here on TOL. He is convinced that a foreknowing God is a God of evil. That is something we will eternally disagree with. God, when considering the creative act, must have foreknown that evil was at least an option from His own design. Patrick believes if this were true then God would have created without any chance of evil coming into the picture.

Well yes the problem of evil is somewhat central to the whole issue of free will versus absolute foreknowledge. When God created life, He created the possibility of evil. Every parent does the same thing. Their will to love their child justifies what they do. But Genesis chapter 6 is entirely at odds with the idea that God created man with the knowledge that man would be utterly depraved and evil. Furthermore I am absolutely opposed to the even the possibility that evil is necessary for good. Yes God can turn the evil actions of men toward a greater good. That is the power of God. But it is insane to think that the good of God depends on such evil actions of men. God does good in spite of the evil of men NOT because that evil empowers God in any way! Granted that God will allow certain people to continue in their sin as part of a greater plan (such as pharoah and Judas). But the choices which led to their predictable patterns of behavior were theirs. I will however deny that God planned their choices and behavior from before they were born, or that God would EVER need someone to do evil as part of a plan for greater good. The situational (consequetialist) ethics that the ends justify the means which such a belief supports is intolerable.

However, in response to the question of whether I agree with Patrick, let me go off on different tangent. It is quite popular among evangelical and fundamentalist Christians to say that groups like the Mormons or Jehova Witnesses worship a different Jesus - a different God because their theology is wrong. I think this is entirely the same kind of thing as saying that you worship an evil God because you believe in absolute foreknowledge. Both of these claims are not ony unsupportable they are idolatrous in the making a substitution of the living God who is a person(s) with a theological concept. I was making precisely the same objection against Jim Hilston's post. So if Patrick was making such idolatrous accusations against you then throwing John Hilston's post back at him was in some sense just. I have used this kind of reflection tactic against people myself but I have tried to make it absolutely clear that that is what I am doing, for I do not think that one should emulate the bad behavior of others.

So no, I do not agree with Patricks formulation of the arguement. I would say that absolute foreknowledge leads both Patrick and I to the inescapable conclusion that God is responsible for evil and since we cannot believe in such a God, we cannot believe in absolute foreknowledge. But in your case you do not see the same connection. We worship the same all powerful, all knowing, transcendant God, but our puny understandings of this God cause us to squabble like dogs over a tiny scrap of meat.

 

[mitchellmckain]

Well....

God knows everything knowable.

That would include:

- everything He plans to do (that's foreknowledge).
- everything we plan to do at any given moment (that's foreknowledge)
- all the possible and impending variables that might affect our choices and our ability to do our will i.e., weather, physical and mechanical limitations that we cannot foresee, other peoples will/plans and intentions etc. and on and on (that's foreknowledge)

Knowing everything knowable grants God an incredible degree of foreknowledge.

Yet all the parts of God's knowledge that have to do with foreknowledge are flexible from His perspective. After all.... He is in control of His own faculties wouldn't you agree? God isn't a slave to His foreknowledge is He?

For instance... if God plans to do something do you believe He is free to change His plans? Or is He stuck in His foreknowledge?

YES! That is the very point about which the Open Theists here are arguing. For if God can get "stuck in His forknowledge" then what about us? It is not just about whether God is free to make decisions but us as well. Does God make all the decisions or do human beings have any free will. If God makes all the decisions then all the responsibility for those decisions belongs to Him. If you believe in any human free will no matter how puny and limited in scope then God's foreknowledge is not absolute.

 

[themuzicman]

​

Oh, but it is per your previous post.

​

1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]​

Premise #9 is invalid if we are able to find one exception to the definition. If you refuse to at least acknowledge this line of reasoning, then I would have to ask you to prove that premise(s) #5 and #6 are valid. My claim for them is that necessary knowledge does not transfer necessity to a yet contingent action.

Rob

You've already acknowledged that God may not freely violate His own Word. Thus, once God has declared something, whether it be what He will do, or what He will NOT do, He has constrained Himself to doing it, and when He does it, He is compelled to do what He has said He would do. That's no longer a free action.

Further, I think I know what the ''E' stands for in your name: Equivocation. You do it frequently, but never acknowledge that it happens.

Muz