What did you believe before Open Theism?

[JudgeRightly]

I guess that you have it right and shame on Don Stewart and the Blue Letter Bible. They should be reprimanded for putting false material in print.

Blue Letter Bible is not Scripture.

Don Stewart is not Scripture.

If Don Stewart misrepresents Open Theism, then yes, he is wrong. That should not be controversial.

How can you say that God is wise and has infinite knowledge and then turn around a say the opposite. Either God is all wise and has infinite knowledge or He doesn't. Make up your mind. It is one or the other, not both.

I have not said the opposite.

I affirm that God is wise.
I affirm that God’s understanding is infinite.

What I deny is your added claim that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

You keep treating those as the same claim. They are not.

God knows reality perfectly as it is. If a future free act is not yet settled, then God knows it as what it is: a real possibility, not a settled certainty.

You want scripture. Here you are:

1. Psalm 139:1–6​

The Lord knows all there is to know about me. Psa, 139:1 states the theme of the whole psalm (you have searched me and known me), and Psa.139:2–6 develop that further as a general assertion: God knows all of my activities, all of my words, even my inmost thoughts. The response (Psa. 139:6) is, such knowledge is too wonderful for me, i.e., beyond my ability to comprehend (see note on “too marvelous,” Psa, 131:1–2).

Psalm 139 says God searched David and knew him. Amen.

It says God knew David’s sitting, rising, thoughts, path, lying down, ways, and words before they were on his tongue. Amen.

That is God’s intimate knowledge of David. It does not say every future free act of every person already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

And the language actually works against your view. “You have searched me and known me” is relational and investigative language. It presents God as knowing David personally and thoroughly, not as reading David off a prewritten database from eternity past.

So Psalm 139 proves God knows David deeply. It does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act.

2. Proverbs 15:3​

The eyes of the LORD is a major theme in Proverbs: the Lord knows the actions and hearts of all, so he is neither pleased with nor fooled by one who offers sacrifices while continuing in the way of wickedness (Prov. 15: 8–9, Prov. 15:11, Prov. 15:26, Prov. 15:29).

Proverbs 15:3 says the eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good. Amen.

But that language fits the Open View better than yours. If every future act is already exhaustively settled and known before it happens, why does God need to “keep watch” on the evil and the good?

The verse presents God as actively observing what men are doing. It does not present Him as merely watching men act out an eternally settled script.

So Proverbs 15:3 does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge. It presents God as watching, discerning, and judging men in real time.

3. Jeremiah 1:5​

God is completely sovereign. He knows all things even before they happen, so he knew Jeremiah even before he was formed in his mother’s womb. God’s plan for Jeremiah was that he be consecrated, or “set apart,” for preaching God’s word. Jeremiah’s ministry is to be a prophet to the nations, not just to Israel (Jer. 25:1–14; Jer. 46:1–Jer. 51:64).

Jeremiah 1:5 says God knew Jeremiah, consecrated him, and appointed him as a prophet. Amen.

But “before I formed you in the womb” does not have to mean “before conception” or “before creation.” A child exists before he has recognizable bodily form. In the earliest stage after conception, the child is real, living, and genetically distinct, even though he is not yet visibly formed.

So God knowing Jeremiah before forming him in the womb does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act. It shows God knew Jeremiah from the beginning of his life and appointed him for a prophetic role.

And that makes sense. DNA determines many foundational realities about us, though it does not morally choose for us. God could know Jeremiah personally from conception, know what kind of man he was forming, and appoint him as a prophet without every future free act of every person being eternally settled.

God appointing Jeremiah to a prophetic role does not prove every future free act of every person is already settled.

Also, notice that you quoted the ESV Study Bible note saying “God is completely sovereign” and “He knows all things even before they happen.” That is commentary, not the verse.

The verse says God knew Jeremiah and appointed him.

It does not say exhaustive settled foreknowledge.

4. Luke 12:6–7​

The observations about sparrows and the hairs of your head show God’s providential care over the smallest details of life. Of more value signals a “lesser to greater” argument: if A (the lesser) is true, then how much more B (the greater) must be true. That is, if God even cares about sparrows, how much greater is his care for every one of his own children, whose value is so much greater (cf. vv. 22–31; see also note on Matt. 6:26). Fear not. Fear of God (Luke 12:5) results in not needing to fear anyone or anything else.

Luke 12 teaches God’s care. Amen.

God knows the sparrows. God values His people. God can number the hairs of our head.

Wonderful.

But none of that says every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

God’s providential care does not require a frozen future. In fact, the whole point of the passage is comfort in the present: God sees, values, remembers, and cares. That fits Open Theism perfectly.

5. Psalm 33:13–14​

God’s gaze discerns all. The Lord sits enthroned high over the earth, but that does not make him distant; rather, he is so great that he observes all the deeds of mankind. Further, his eye . . . is on those who fear him, to care for them as a people (v. 18) and as individuals (Ps.33:19).

Psalm 33 says the Lord looks from heaven and sees the children of men. Amen.

Again, this is God observing mankind and their deeds. That is present observation and righteous judgment.

It does not say every future free act is already settled before it happens.

In fact, the language of God looking, seeing, observing, and watching fits the biblical picture of a living God engaged with His creation. It does not sound like the classical idea of God timelessly knowing a fully settled future.

6. Isaiah 40:13–14​

God alone established the creation. He is uniquely powerful and wise, so he is worthy of his people’s trust (cf. Job 38–41; Rom. 11:34).

Isaiah 40:13–14 teaches that God is not dependent on human instruction.

Amen.

No man created God. No man taught God justice. No man gave God understanding. God is not sitting in heaven needing mankind to educate Him.

But that is a general claim about God’s unmatched wisdom and independence, not an absolute claim that God never listens, responds, considers, or receives counsel in any sense.

Scripture repeatedly shows men reasoning with God, pleading with God, interceding before God, and even appealing to God’s reputation among the nations. Abraham interceded for Sodom. Moses pleaded with God after Israel sinned with the golden calf. Moses appealed to how Egypt would perceive God if He destroyed Israel. And God relented.

So Isaiah 40 does not mean God never interacts with men or responds to what they say. It means God is not dependent on man as His teacher.

And it certainly does not say every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

7. Romans 11:33–34​

As he concludes his setting forth of God’s great plan in the history of salvation (chs. 1–11), Paul breaks forth into praise. God’s wisdom and ways are far beyond the understanding of human beings, and hence he deserves all the glory.

Amen.

God’s wisdom and knowledge are deep. His judgments are unsearchable. His ways are past finding out.

No Open Theist denies that.

But again, this does not say every future free act is already settled. It says God’s wisdom, knowledge, judgments, and ways are beyond us.

That supports humility before God. It does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge.

The words of Isa. 40:13 teach that no human being knows the mind of the Lord apart from revelation, and no one can serve as God’s adviser.

Again, as a general rule, amen.

No man is God’s teacher. No man instructs God in justice. No man gives God understanding. God is not dependent on human counsel.

But if you make that an absolute claim that God never listens to men, never considers what they say, and never responds to their intercession, then you have a problem with the rest of Scripture.

Abraham interceded for Sodom.

Moses pleaded with God after the golden calf and appealed to what Egypt would say.
God relented.

That does not mean men are wiser than God or that God needs teachers. It means the living God is relational and actually interacts with men.

So Isaiah 40:13 does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge. It teaches God’s unmatched wisdom and independence. It does not erase the passages where God listens, responds, relents, and changes His declared course.

Likewise the majestic words of Job 41:11 are a reminder that no one ultimately gives anything to God. Instead, everything humans have is a gift from God (1 Cor. 4:7).

No one puts God in debt. Amen.

No one gives God something He did not first make possible.

Everything men have ultimately comes from Him.

But that has nothing to do with exhaustive settled foreknowledge.

Job 41:11 teaches God’s supremacy, ownership, and independence. It does not say every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

Again, you are taking a passage about one thing and trying to make it prove something else.

8. Hebrews 4:12–13​

word of God. Usually this phrase in Hebrews refers to the message of salvation (13:7; cf. 4:2), but here the “word” is pictured as God’s personal utterance, living, active, sharp, piercing, and discerning (v. 12), with eyes that expose (v. 13). The Word of God then acts as God himself, so that one’s innermost thoughts and intentions are exposed. This happens constantly in Christians’ lives.

Hebrews 4 says no creature is hidden from His sight, and all are naked and exposed before Him. Amen.

That is about God’s penetrating knowledge and judgment of creatures. He exposes hearts, thoughts, and intentions.

That fits the Open View perfectly. God is not ignorant of present reality. He searches, exposes, judges, and discerns.

But Hebrews 4 does not say every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens. It says nothing is hidden from God’s sight.

9. Acts 2:23​

Peter combines a clear affirmation of God’s sovereignty over world events and human responsibility for evil deeds. Although Jesus was delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, showing that God had both foreknown and foreordained that Jesus would be crucified, that still did not absolve of responsibility those who contributed to his death, for Peter goes on to say, “you crucified and killed” him. Though one may not understand fully how God’s sovereign ordination of events can be compatible with human responsibility for evil, both are clearly affirmed here and in many other passages of Scripture (cf. notes on 3:13–16; 3:17; 4:27; 4:28). by the hands of lawless men. Peter also places responsibility on the Gentile officials and soldiers who actually crucified Jesus.

Acts 2:23 proves God had a definite plan concerning Christ. Amen.

Open Theism does not deny that.

God can plan, promise, prophesy, and accomplish the crucifixion of Christ without every future free act of every person being settled from eternity past.

The cross was God’s plan. That does not make all of history a prewritten script.

Also, the verse says Christ was delivered up according to God’s definite plan and foreknowledge. It does not say every free act of every person is exhaustively foreknown as settled.

Again, you are taking a specific text about God’s redemptive plan in Christ and expanding it far beyond what it says.

10. 1 John 3:20​

whenever our heart condemns us. Whenever one has an inward conviction of sin. It is vital in such times to have a living faith; the proposition that God is greater than our heart grants us assurance that he has forgiven us through the atoning work of Christ.

1 John 3:20 says God is greater than our heart and knows all things. Amen.

But “knows all things” has to be read in context.

The context is assurance when our heart condemns us. God knows the truth about our hearts better than we do.

And if you want to make “knows all things” mean exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act, then you have a problem, because 1 John 2:20 says believers “know all things” too.

Obviously that does not mean believers have exhaustive settled foreknowledge.

So “knows all things” is contextual language. In 1 John 3:20, it means God knows the truth of our hearts and standing before Him. It is not a proof text for your doctrine.

After all ten verses, you have still not shown the disputed point.

You have shown that God searches, sees, knows hearts, observes deeds, appoints prophets, cares for sparrows, numbers hairs, needs no counselor, judges men, exposes thoughts, planned the cross, and knows the truth of our hearts.

Amen to all of that.

What you have not shown is where Scripture says every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

RD. As for posts 107 and 108, why don't we let people choose what they want to believe. They are going to do that anyway.

You are certainly proving that point.

But this is a debate forum. If you make claims, expect those claims to be challenged.

The scriptures have been put in your face and you refuse to accept what they say. How can you expect people to believe what you say if you don't properly interpret scripture?

Bright Raven, the scriptures have been put in your face and you refuse to accept what they say. How can you expect people to believe what you say if you don't properly interpret scripture?

The problem is that you keep confusing Scripture with your interpretation of Scripture.

You have quoted passages that say God searches, sees, knows hearts, observes deeds, appoints prophets, cares for sparrows, planned the cross, and knows our hearts better than we do.

Amen to all of that.

What you have not shown is where Scripture says every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

God already knew what Abraham would do.

Still just an assertion.

Genesis 22 says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said, “now I know.”

Your claim reverses the passage. You say God already knew before the test. The text says “now I know” after Abraham obeyed.

I already showed you that.

No, you didn't.

You pointed to the promise through Isaac. That proves God would keep His promise through Isaac. It does not prove God already knew Abraham would reach for the knife.

The promise was never the thing being tested. Abraham was.

Would Abraham obey, or would he withhold his son?

Genesis 22:12 answers that directly:

“Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

You are an intelligent person. Don't stoop to name calling. It is unbecoming of you.

Then stop dodging the argument.

You don't believe what I say

Correct. I do not believe it merely because you say it.

You need to demonstrate it from Scripture.

so I am not going to try to convince you.

So you're giving up?

Taking your ball and going home?

You made the claim. You accused others of denying Scripture. You cited outside authorities, study notes, and proof texts. But when pressed on Genesis 22:12, you retreat back to “God already knew” without showing where the passage says that.

I have just come to the conclusion that you deny what scripture says.

Try looking in a mirror and saying that.

Genesis 22:12 says “now I know.”

You say “God already knew.”

One of those is what Scripture says. The other is your doctrine talking.

Try post 102

Addressed.

Post 102 did not prove what you claim. It only repeated your assertion and appealed to the promise through Isaac.

What don't you understand about; He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It's pretty easy to see that the promises come through Isaac.

Of course the promises came through Isaac.

No one denied that.

The promise through Isaac proves God would keep His promise through Isaac. It does not prove God already exhaustively knew Abraham would reach for the knife.

And again, the relevant alternative is not Isaac dying and staying dead. The relevant alternative is Abraham refusing to obey before reaching for the knife.

That is what the test was about.

Would Abraham obey, or would he withhold his son?

Genesis 22:12 gives the result:

“Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

So yes, the promises came through Isaac.

But the text still says “now I know.”

DUDE, It is not history. It is and was the plan of God. Duh.

No one denies that God had a plan.

That is the confusion you keep falling into.

God planning to bring the promise through Isaac does not mean every future free act of every person was already settled before it happened.

God can have a plan.
God can keep His promise.
God can bring about what He intends.
God can make Isaac the line of promise.

None of that proves God already knew Abraham would reach for the knife as an exhaustively settled fact.

Genesis 22 was not a test of whether God had a plan. It was a test of Abraham.

Would Abraham obey, or would Abraham withhold his son?

The text gives the result:

“Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

So yes, God had a plan concerning Isaac.

But the text still says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said, “now I know.”

 

[Bright Raven]

Blue Letter Bible is not Scripture.

Don Stewart is not Scripture.

If Don Stewart misrepresents Open Theism, then yes, he is wrong. That should not be controversial.



I have not said the opposite.

I affirm that God is wise.
I affirm that God’s understanding is infinite.

What I deny is your added claim that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

You keep treating those as the same claim. They are not.

God knows reality perfectly as it is. If a future free act is not yet settled, then God knows it as what it is: a real possibility, not a settled certainty.



Psalm 139 says God searched David and knew him. Amen.

It says God knew David’s sitting, rising, thoughts, path, lying down, ways, and words before they were on his tongue. Amen.

That is God’s intimate knowledge of David. It does not say every future free act of every person already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

And the language actually works against your view. “You have searched me and known me” is relational and investigative language. It presents God as knowing David personally and thoroughly, not as reading David off a prewritten database from eternity past.

So Psalm 139 proves God knows David deeply. It does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act.



Proverbs 15:3 says the eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good. Amen.

But that language fits the Open View better than yours. If every future act is already exhaustively settled and known before it happens, why does God need to “keep watch” on the evil and the good?

The verse presents God as actively observing what men are doing. It does not present Him as merely watching men act out an eternally settled script.

So Proverbs 15:3 does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge. It presents God as watching, discerning, and judging men in real time.



Jeremiah 1:5 says God knew Jeremiah, consecrated him, and appointed him as a prophet. Amen.

But “before I formed you in the womb” does not have to mean “before conception” or “before creation.” A child exists before he has recognizable bodily form. In the earliest stage after conception, the child is real, living, and genetically distinct, even though he is not yet visibly formed.

So God knowing Jeremiah before forming him in the womb does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act. It shows God knew Jeremiah from the beginning of his life and appointed him for a prophetic role.

And that makes sense. DNA determines many foundational realities about us, though it does not morally choose for us. God could know Jeremiah personally from conception, know what kind of man he was forming, and appoint him as a prophet without every future free act of every person being eternally settled.

God appointing Jeremiah to a prophetic role does not prove every future free act of every person is already settled.

Also, notice that you quoted the ESV Study Bible note saying “God is completely sovereign” and “He knows all things even before they happen.” That is commentary, not the verse.

The verse says God knew Jeremiah and appointed him.

It does not say exhaustive settled foreknowledge.



Luke 12 teaches God’s care. Amen.

God knows the sparrows. God values His people. God can number the hairs of our head.

Wonderful.

But none of that says every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

God’s providential care does not require a frozen future. In fact, the whole point of the passage is comfort in the present: God sees, values, remembers, and cares. That fits Open Theism perfectly.



Psalm 33 says the Lord looks from heaven and sees the children of men. Amen.

Again, this is God observing mankind and their deeds. That is present observation and righteous judgment.

It does not say every future free act is already settled before it happens.

In fact, the language of God looking, seeing, observing, and watching fits the biblical picture of a living God engaged with His creation. It does not sound like the classical idea of God timelessly knowing a fully settled future.



Isaiah 40:13–14 teaches that God is not dependent on human instruction.

Amen.

No man created God. No man taught God justice. No man gave God understanding. God is not sitting in heaven needing mankind to educate Him.

But that is a general claim about God’s unmatched wisdom and independence, not an absolute claim that God never listens, responds, considers, or receives counsel in any sense.

Scripture repeatedly shows men reasoning with God, pleading with God, interceding before God, and even appealing to God’s reputation among the nations. Abraham interceded for Sodom. Moses pleaded with God after Israel sinned with the golden calf. Moses appealed to how Egypt would perceive God if He destroyed Israel. And God relented.

So Isaiah 40 does not mean God never interacts with men or responds to what they say. It means God is not dependent on man as His teacher.

And it certainly does not say every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.



Amen.

God’s wisdom and knowledge are deep. His judgments are unsearchable. His ways are past finding out.

No Open Theist denies that.

But again, this does not say every future free act is already settled. It says God’s wisdom, knowledge, judgments, and ways are beyond us.

That supports humility before God. It does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge.



Again, as a general rule, amen.

No man is God’s teacher. No man instructs God in justice. No man gives God understanding. God is not dependent on human counsel.

But if you make that an absolute claim that God never listens to men, never considers what they say, and never responds to their intercession, then you have a problem with the rest of Scripture.

Abraham interceded for Sodom.

Moses pleaded with God after the golden calf and appealed to what Egypt would say.
God relented.

That does not mean men are wiser than God or that God needs teachers. It means the living God is relational and actually interacts with men.

So Isaiah 40:13 does not prove exhaustive settled foreknowledge. It teaches God’s unmatched wisdom and independence. It does not erase the passages where God listens, responds, relents, and changes His declared course.



No one puts God in debt. Amen.

No one gives God something He did not first make possible.

Everything men have ultimately comes from Him.

But that has nothing to do with exhaustive settled foreknowledge.

Job 41:11 teaches God’s supremacy, ownership, and independence. It does not say every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

Again, you are taking a passage about one thing and trying to make it prove something else.



Hebrews 4 says no creature is hidden from His sight, and all are naked and exposed before Him. Amen.

That is about God’s penetrating knowledge and judgment of creatures. He exposes hearts, thoughts, and intentions.

That fits the Open View perfectly. God is not ignorant of present reality. He searches, exposes, judges, and discerns.

But Hebrews 4 does not say every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens. It says nothing is hidden from God’s sight.



Acts 2:23 proves God had a definite plan concerning Christ. Amen.

Open Theism does not deny that.

God can plan, promise, prophesy, and accomplish the crucifixion of Christ without every future free act of every person being settled from eternity past.

The cross was God’s plan. That does not make all of history a prewritten script.

Also, the verse says Christ was delivered up according to God’s definite plan and foreknowledge. It does not say every free act of every person is exhaustively foreknown as settled.

Again, you are taking a specific text about God’s redemptive plan in Christ and expanding it far beyond what it says.



1 John 3:20 says God is greater than our heart and knows all things. Amen.

But “knows all things” has to be read in context.

The context is assurance when our heart condemns us. God knows the truth about our hearts better than we do.

And if you want to make “knows all things” mean exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act, then you have a problem, because 1 John 2:20 says believers “know all things” too.

Obviously that does not mean believers have exhaustive settled foreknowledge.

So “knows all things” is contextual language. In 1 John 3:20, it means God knows the truth of our hearts and standing before Him. It is not a proof text for your doctrine.

After all ten verses, you have still not shown the disputed point.

You have shown that God searches, sees, knows hearts, observes deeds, appoints prophets, cares for sparrows, numbers hairs, needs no counselor, judges men, exposes thoughts, planned the cross, and knows the truth of our hearts.

Amen to all of that.

What you have not shown is where Scripture says every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.



You are certainly proving that point.

But this is a debate forum. If you make claims, expect those claims to be challenged.



Bright Raven, the scriptures have been put in your face and you refuse to accept what they say. How can you expect people to believe what you say if you don't properly interpret scripture?

The problem is that you keep confusing Scripture with your interpretation of Scripture.

You have quoted passages that say God searches, sees, knows hearts, observes deeds, appoints prophets, cares for sparrows, planned the cross, and knows our hearts better than we do.

Amen to all of that.

What you have not shown is where Scripture says every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.



Still just an assertion.

Genesis 22 says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said, “now I know.”

Your claim reverses the passage. You say God already knew before the test. The text says “now I know” after Abraham obeyed.



No, you didn't.

You pointed to the promise through Isaac. That proves God would keep His promise through Isaac. It does not prove God already knew Abraham would reach for the knife.

The promise was never the thing being tested. Abraham was.

Would Abraham obey, or would he withhold his son?

Genesis 22:12 answers that directly:

“Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”



Then stop dodging the argument.



Correct. I do not believe it merely because you say it.

You need to demonstrate it from Scripture.



So you're giving up?

Taking your ball and going home?

You made the claim. You accused others of denying Scripture. You cited outside authorities, study notes, and proof texts. But when pressed on Genesis 22:12, you retreat back to “God already knew” without showing where the passage says that.



Try looking in a mirror and saying that.

Genesis 22:12 says “now I know.”

You say “God already knew.”

One of those is what Scripture says. The other is your doctrine talking.



Addressed.

Post 102 did not prove what you claim. It only repeated your assertion and appealed to the promise through Isaac.



Of course the promises came through Isaac.

No one denied that.

The promise through Isaac proves God would keep His promise through Isaac. It does not prove God already exhaustively knew Abraham would reach for the knife.

And again, the relevant alternative is not Isaac dying and staying dead. The relevant alternative is Abraham refusing to obey before reaching for the knife.

That is what the test was about.

Would Abraham obey, or would he withhold his son?

Genesis 22:12 gives the result:

“Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

So yes, the promises came through Isaac.

But the text still says “now I know.”



No one denies that God had a plan.

That is the confusion you keep falling into.

God planning to bring the promise through Isaac does not mean every future free act of every person was already settled before it happened.

God can have a plan.
God can keep His promise.
God can bring about what He intends.
God can make Isaac the line of promise.

None of that proves God already knew Abraham would reach for the knife as an exhaustively settled fact.

Genesis 22 was not a test of whether God had a plan. It was a test of Abraham.

Would Abraham obey, or would Abraham withhold his son?

The text gives the result:

“Now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

So yes, God had a plan concerning Isaac.

But the text still says God tested Abraham, Abraham obeyed, and then God said, “now I know.”

What I deny is your added claim that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

Make up your mind. You state the following:

I affirm that God’s understanding is infinite.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What I deny is your added claim that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

Make up your mind. You state the following:

I affirm that God’s understanding is infinite.

“Infinite understanding” is not the same claim as “every future free act already exists as a settled fact.”

You are treating those as identical, but they are not.

Understanding is comprehension, wisdom, discernment, judgment, and the ability to know reality truly. God’s understanding is infinite. Amen.

But that does not mean future free choices are already settled facts. That is an additional claim you are importing into the phrase.

God can have infinite understanding without the future being a frozen list of completed facts.

So again, the question is not whether God’s understanding is infinite. I affirm that.

The question is whether “infinite understanding” means “exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act.”

You keep assuming yes.

You have not shown that from Scripture.

 

[Bright Raven]

“Infinite understanding” is not the same claim as “every future free act already exists as a settled fact.”

You are treating those as identical, but they are not.

Understanding is comprehension, wisdom, discernment, judgment, and the ability to know reality truly. God’s understanding is infinite. Amen.

But that does not mean future free choices are already settled facts. That is an additional claim you are importing into the phrase.

God can have infinite understanding without the future being a frozen list of completed facts.

So again, the question is not whether God’s understanding is infinite. I affirm that.

The question is whether “infinite understanding” means “exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act.”

You keep assuming yes.

You have not shown that from Scripture.

What is infinite knowledge and understanding. I guess that that would depend on your understanding of infinity. What is yours?

 

[Right Divider]

What I deny is your added claim that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

That is exactly the opposite of what we are saying.
That is what YOU are saying.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That is exactly the opposite of what are saying.
That is what YOU are saying.

He's quoting what I said outside the quote tags.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What is infinite knowledge

The Bible does not say “infinite knowledge” in Psalm 147:5.

It says:
“Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.”

So you are already changing the wording.

Knowledge and understanding are related, but they are not identical. The verse is not making a technical philosophical claim about exhaustive settled foreknowledge. It is praising God’s greatness, power, wisdom, and understanding.

and understanding.

God’s understanding is beyond measure.

That is the sense of the passage. His understanding is not limited like ours. He is not foolish, confused, shortsighted, ignorant of reality, or unable to judge rightly. He understands perfectly. He knows what He knows truly. He sees what He sees rightly. He judges with perfect wisdom.

But that still does not mean every future free act already exists as a settled fact.

That is the part you keep adding.

I guess that that would depend on your understanding of infinity. What is yours?

I am not importing a modern mathematical definition of “infinity” into the verse.

Psalm 147 is poetic praise. It is not a technical philosophy textbook.

The point is that God’s understanding is immeasurable, beyond counting, beyond searching out, and greater than man can comprehend.

Amen.

But “immeasurable understanding” does not equal “the future is exhaustively settled.”

If a future free act has not happened and is not yet settled, then it is not a settled fact to be known as a settled fact. God understands it as what it is: a real possibility.

That is not a defect in God’s understanding. That is God understanding reality truthfully.

 

[Bright Raven]

it says infinite understanding.

Psalm 147:5

Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite. (KJV)

And you should know that knowledge is a synonym of understanding.

 

[Bright Raven]

From The gospelcoalition.org An Essay by Jon M. Frame

Openness Theology and Divine Omniscience

DEFINITION​

Openness theology, a modern theological movement that is essentially a resurgence of the Socinian heresy condemned by the church in the 16th century, denies the orthodox doctrine of God’s omniscience, the belief that God knows all things exhaustively before they happen.

SUMMARY​

Scripture teaches God’s omniscience, that is, that God knows himself and all things in creation exhaustively and from eternity past. This is a function of God’s lordship over all things. God’s knowledge of all things extends to the past, present, and future, encompassing even the actions of free agents. This does not destroy the freedom of humanity, but instead defines it more carefully as a compatibilist freedom rather than a libertarian freedom. Humans are not free to do anything without constraint but are constrained by their desires, circumstances, natures, and, ultimately, God. Openness theology denies all of this; where Arminian theology only denies that we have compatibilist freedom in favor of libertarian freedom, Openness theology denies that God even knows what we will do. Openness theologians argue that it is logically inconsistent to say that God knows in advance what someone would freely do in a libertarian sense. Openness theology is not new but is essentially a relabeled Socianism, a heresy that was condemned in the 16th century.
Scripture affirms that God’s knowledge of himself and of the world is exhaustive:
Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure. (Ps. 147:5)
(Peter) said to (Jesus), “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.” (John 21:17)
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Heb. 4:12–13)
For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. (1 John 3:20)
God knows all about the starry heavens (Gen. 15:5; Ps. 147:4; Isa. 40:26; Jer. 33:22) and the tiniest details of the natural world (Pss. 50:10–11; 56:8; Matt. 10:30). God’s knowledge is absolute knowledge, and so it elicits religious praise (Ps. 139:17–18; Isa. 40:28; Rom. 11:33–36). Wicked people often think that God will not notice what they do, but they will find that God does know, and that he will certainly condemn their sin (Ps. 10:11; 11:4; 73:11; 94:7; Isa. 29:15, 40:27; 47:10; Jer. 16:17–18; Ezek. 8:12). To the righteous, however, God’s knowledge is a blessing of the covenant (Exod. 2:23–25; 3:7–9; 1 Kgs. 18:27; 2 Chron. 16:9; Pss. 33:18–20; 34:15–16; 38:9; 145:20; Matt. 6:32). He knows what is happening to them, he hears their prayer, and he will certainly answer.
God knows everything because he is the Lord of all. He made the heavens and the earth, and he knows his own plan for its history (Eph. 1:11). He has control over all things (Rom. 11:36), his judgments of truth have ultimate authority (John 17:17), and he is present everywhere to observe what is happening (Ps. 139). The theological term omniscience refers to God’s exhaustive knowledge of himself and of the creation.

God’s Knowledge of the Future​

His omniscience includes knowledge of the past, present, and future. His knowledge of the past and present is clear from the texts cited above. Scripture is equally clear in teaching God’s knowledge of the future. Note, for example, this part of the definition of prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:21–22:
And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’ – when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.
In this passage, part of the work of the prophet (appointed by God to bring his word to the people) is to foretell the future. If he claims to foretell the future, and that prophecy fails, then the people may conclude that he is a false prophet. The assumption behind this provision is that God knows the future, and therefore any true prophet will predict the future accurately.
Knowledge of the future is not only the test of a true prophet. It is also the test of a true God. In the contest between Yahweh, Israel’s lord, and the false gods of the ancient Near East, a major issue is which God knows the future. This is a frequent theme in Isaiah 40–49, a passage that focuses on the sovereignty of Yahweh over against the absurd pretensions of the false gods:
Set forth your case, says the LORD; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. (Isa. 41:– 23)
True prophets announce the future: not only momentous events like the coming of the Messiah (Isa. 9:6–7; 11:1-9), but also very concrete and specific events of the near future (1 Sam. 10:1–11). These passages indicate that God has a knowledge in advance, even of free human decisions. That is also true of prophecies that indicate the broad structure of human history. An example is God’s promise to Abraham:
Then the LORD said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” (Gen. 15:13–16)
This general prediction presupposes an indefinite number of more specific future facts: that Abraham will have many descendants, that they will migrate to lands with unfriendly rulers, that the rulers of the nations will afflict them, that these afflictions will end after four hundred years, and so on. These events result from many free human decisions: by the rulers, by Abraham’s offspring, by the Amorites, and so on. This prophecy of great redemptive-historical events is also a prediction of many free actions by many people. The biblical picture here is that God knows the future exhaustively, meticulously, in every detail.
The prophetic prediction of free human actions is found in many other passages (see Gen. 27:27–29, 39–40; 49:11; Num. 23–24; Deut. 32:1–43; 33:1-29; 1 Sam. 23:11; 1 Kings 13:1–4; 2 Kings 8:12). God knows everything we will say or do, before we say or do it (Ps 139:4, 16). He knew the prophet Jeremiah before his conception (Jer. 1:5). That implies that he knew in advance who would marry whom in Israel, and all the various combinations of sperm and egg that would lead to the conception of this one individual. Many free human decisions led to Jeremiah’s conception, and the lord knew them all.
In the New Testament, Jesus teaches that his Father knows the day and hour of his return (Mark 13:32). But that day will not come until after other events have taken place—events that depend on free human decisions (13:1–30). Jesus also predicted that Judas would betray him (John 6:64; 13:18–19), though Judas certainly made his wicked decision freely and responsibly.

Openness Theology​

The view of divine omniscience summarized above has been the traditional view of orthodox Christianity—Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. But some within the church have questioned it. Among these were Lelio (1525-62) and Fausto (1539-1604) Socinus. Robert Strimple describes their view as follows, contrasting it with Arminianism:
Arminianism denies that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass but wishes nevertheless to affirm God’s foreknowledge of whatever comes to pass. Against the Arminians, the Socinians insisted that logically the Calvinists were quite correct in insisting that the only real basis for believing that God knows what you are going to do next is to believe that he has foreordained what you are going to do next. How else could God know ahead of time what your decision will be? Like the Arminians, however, the Socinians insisted that it was a contradiction of human freedom to believe in the sovereign foreordination of God. So they went “all the way” (logically) and denied not only that God had foreordained the free decisions of free agents but also that God foreknows what those decisions will be (see “What Does God Know?” in The Coming Evangelical Crisis, 140-41).
In the later part of the twentieth century, a movement sprung up, associated with Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, Gregory Boyd, John Sanders and others, called by such names as “open theism,” “free will theism,” and “openness theology.” Strimple compares their teaching to that of the Socinians:
(The Socinian doctrine) is precisely the teaching of the “free will theism” of Pinnock, Rice, and other like-minded “new model evangelicals.” They want their doctrine of God to sound very “new,” very modern, by dressing it up with references to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in physics and to the insights of process theology (although they reject process theology as a whole…). But it is just the old Socinian heresy rejected by the church centuries ago.
As Strimple suggests, openness theology sees itself primarily as a defense of human free will. There are various understandings of human freedom in theological discussion. One view, called “compatibilism,” asserts that we are free whenever we can do what we want to do. To be free is to act according to what you desire. On this view, it doesn’t matter whether your decision is caused or necessitated. The term “compatibilism,” in fact, indicates that freedom is compatible with causes and constraints. As long as you can choose to do what you want to do, your choice is free.
The other meaning of freedom commonly discussed in theology is “libertarian” freedom. On a libertarian basis, your decisions are free only insofar as they are not caused or constrained by anything at all. If your choice is made necessary—by your own desire, your nature, your inclinations, someone else’s power over you, or even God—your decision is not free. Libertarian freedom is sometimes called “incompatibilism,” because it is incompatible with any kind of causation.
Now in ordinary life, our usual concept of freedom is compatibilist. As long as we can do what we want to do, we believe that we are free. It would never occur to us to think that being compelled by our own desires removes our freedom (except, perhaps, in cases where our desires are obsessive). That is also the concept of freedom taught in Calvinist theology and, as this author believes, in Scripture. In Scripture, we can be free even when our actions are determined by our own desires, our nature (significantly, our heart: Matt. 15:18–20; Luke 6:45), our circumstances, or by God. God’s sovereign determinations are, of course, all important. According to the Bible, God controls everything that happens (Rom. 11:36; Eph. 1:11), but that fact does not detract from our freedom and responsibility. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to oppress the Israelites (Rom. 9:17–18), but that divine judgment did not take away Pharaoh’s freedom and responsibility.
Openness theology, however, denies that compatibilist freedom is “real” freedom. It insists that libertarian freedom, freedom from all causation, is the only freedom worthy of the name, and therefore the only possible basis of moral responsibility. Arminian theology also champions libertarian freedom. But Arminianism tries to combine libertarian freedom with a strong view of God’s omniscience. In particular, Arminians, like Calvinists, believe that God knows the future exhaustively.
But open theists, like the Socinians, point out that if God knows the future in all its details, then the future is certain. And if the future is certain, then there can be no libertarian freedom. All of our actions are constrained, if God knows them in advance. So openness theology takes a step beyond Arminianism. It not only affirms libertarian freedom as Arminianism does, but it denies that God knows in advance all the details of the future. In open theism, the (libertarian) free actions of human beings are inherently unknowable, because nothing makes them happen, not even God. So God cannot be omniscient in the traditional orthodox sense. He is ignorant of what any free agent will do in the future.
This is a startling view in a Christian context. Open theists try to relieve some of the sharpness of it by emphasizing that God, like human pundits, has the ability to project present trends in the future, so as to make a good guess as to what will happen next week, or years from now. But it is hard to imagine how such celestial punditry could explain the detailed predictions of biblical prophets, centuries before their fulfillment. And it is hard to imagine how we can fully trust a God who is ignorant of the course of our lives. A God who is ignorant of the world he has made is certainly less than the Lord of the Bible.

 

[Right Divider]

The Definition of Omniscience​

You define omniscience as the exhaustive knowledge of all things before they happen. This definition assumes the future exists as a settled, unchangeable reality that God observes like a completed movie. If the future consists of actual choices made by free agents, then those choices do not exist to be known until they are made. Omniscience means God knows all that is knowable. If a free choice is not yet a fact, not "knowing" it as a fact does not limit God's power. It reflects the nature of time and reality.
The scriptures you cite, such as Psalm 147:5 and 1 John 3:20, state that God’s understanding is infinite and that he knows all things. These verses do not define "all things" as a pre-written script of every human decision. They affirm that God knows everything that exists, including every secret of the human heart and every detail of the physical universe.

The Logic of Free Will and Compatibilism​

You argue for compatibilism, suggesting humans are free even if their actions are determined by their desires or by God. This makes human responsibility a performance rather than a choice. If God knows with absolute certainty that you will choose a specific path tomorrow, you cannot choose otherwise. A choice that cannot be different is not a choice. It is an effect of a cause.
Scripture portrays God interacting with people in real time. In the KJV PCE, God frequently tests people to see what is in their hearts. For example, in Genesis 22:12, after Abraham prepares to sacrifice Isaac, God says:

And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

If God possessed exhaustive, settled foreknowledge of Abraham's choice from eternity past, the phrase "for now I know" would be deceptive. God interacts with human agency as a real factor in history.

The Nature of Prophecy and Foreknowledge​

You claim that prophecy requires a settled future. Prophecy often demonstrates God’s power to bring his will to pass rather than his ability to see a fixed timeline. When God predicts the rise of an empire or the birth of a King, he is not a passive observer. He is the sovereign actor who ensures these events occur.
In Isaiah 41:23, God challenges false idols:

Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.

God distinguishes himself because he can declare his intentions and then execute them. He also knows the current state of every human heart perfectly. He knows what a person will say before they say it, as Psalm 139:4 states, because he understands their character, motives, and the present influences upon them. He does not need a pre-settled future to predict behavior when he has exhaustive knowledge of the present.

Trust and the Living God​

You suggest that a God who does not know the future exhaustively is "less than the Lord of the Bible" and cannot be trusted. The opposite is true. A God who navigates a dynamic world and responds to the genuine choices of his creatures is more capable than a God who merely watches a script he wrote.
In the current dispensation, God works through his word and the agency of believers. He expects you to make real decisions that have real consequences. If every move is already certain, prayer and choice become empty exercises. Trusting God means trusting his character and his ability to handle any situation that arises, not just trusting that he has seen the end of a movie.
Open theism is not a resurgence of Socinianism. It is an attempt to take the biblical descriptions of God’s relationality, his responses to prayer, and his genuine "changing of mind" (Exodus 32:14) at face value. It presents a God who is truly alive and engaged with a creation that is not yet finished.

 

[Bright Raven]

Open Theology is the resurgence of a heresy. Doesn't that bother you?

 

[Right Divider]

Open Theology is the resurgence of a heresy. Doesn't that bother you?

Bright Raven is a confused liar... that concerns me greatly.

You didn't read a single word of post #130, did you?

 

[Bright Raven]

Didn't have to , I read #129. I'll not be debating any more about a heretical doctrine.

 

[Right Divider]

Didn't have to ,

It's nice that you accidentally admit that you have your ears plugged and don't even care what anyone else says. And you think that you're "debating"?

What a stubborn, head in the sand guy you are.

I read #129. I'll not be debating any more about a heretical doctrine.

You were not debating anything. You simply regurgitate what you read on websites that you already agree with.

It's very easy of take one side of a story when that's the ONLY side that you have ever listened to.

It reminds me of this scripture:

Prov 18:13 (AKJV/PCE)​

(18:13) He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him.​

You have not listened to a single thing that we've said and yet you think that you know the correct answer. That is a folly and a shame on YOU.

---

The Nature of Divine Knowledge​

You can define omniscience as God knowing every existing fact. This includes the present state of your heart and every event that has occurred in history. If you make a choice tomorrow, that choice does not exist as a fact today. God knows the future as a set of possibilities. He knows exactly what will happen if you choose one path and what will happen if you choose another. This perspective maintains that God's understanding is infinite while acknowledging that the future is not a fixed event.

God's Interactions in Time​

The Bible describes God experiencing events as they happen. You can see this in Genesis 22:12 when Abraham prepares to offer his son.

And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

The statement "for now I know" indicates that God observed a specific action and confirmed a fact in time. If the outcome were a settled certainty since the beginning, the phrase would be inaccurate. You also find evidence of this in Exodus 32:14 when the LORD changed his mind after Moses prayed. The text says he "repented of the evil which he thought to do." These examples show that your actions and prayers have a genuine impact on how God responds to you.

---

Foreknowledge and Relationship​

The word foreknowledge in the Bible often describes a relationship rather than a data set of future events. In Romans 8:29, the KJV PCE identifies the objects of this knowledge.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

This verse focuses on the people God knew before. It does not list their future actions. To know someone in a biblical context involves a personal connection or a choice to set love upon them. This type of foreknowledge centers on God's commitment to his people and his plan for their ultimate destiny.

---

Human Responsibility and Choice​

If your decisions are the result of causes God set in motion, your choices are not your own. You are simply following a sequence that was determined before you were born. For you to be responsible for your behavior, you must have the ability to choose between different options. The Bible frequently commands you to make decisions. It tells you to "choose life" and to believe the gospel. These instructions are meaningful only if you have the agency to respond. If you must choose one specific path because it is certain, the command to choose is a formality.

---

Sovereignty and Competence​

You do not need a fixed future to believe in a sovereign God. A God who handles the free choices of billions of people while ensuring his purposes are met is capable and powerful. He manages a dynamic world in real time. He is confident in his ability to respond to any situation that arises. This view emphasizes that God is the Almighty who works with a free creation to bring about his will.

 

[Bright Raven]

Bright Raven is a confused liar... that concerns me greatly.

You didn't read a single word of post #130, did you?

Be concerned about yourself . You are the one following heresy

 

[Right Divider]

Be concerned about yourself . You are the one following heresy

Goodbye herecy hunter

 

[JudgeRightly]

it says infinite understanding.

Psalm 147:5

Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite. (KJV)

Correct. It says “infinite understanding.”

It does not say “infinite knowledge,” and it certainly does not say “exhaustive settled foreknowledge of every future free act.”

Knowledge is information.
Understanding is an ability.

They cannot be the same thing.

A man can possess information without understanding it. Students do that all the time. They can memorize facts, dates, formulas, or vocabulary and still not understand what those things mean or how they relate to each other.

Understanding involves comprehension, discernment, wisdom, judgment, and the ability to rightly perceive the meaning and relation of things.

Psalm 147:5 says God’s understanding is infinite. Amen. His wisdom, discernment, comprehension, and judgment are beyond measure.

But that is not the same as saying every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

And you should know that knowledge is a synonym of understanding.

Sorry, but you don't get to just declare that two related but different words are synonyms and then build doctrine on that substitution. That's not how things work.

From The gospelcoalition.org An Essay by Jon M. Frame

Why should I spend time answering another article you pasted when you have already admitted you are not willing to read what we write in response?

You do not get to come onto a debate forum, preach at everyone, dump articles from websites that agree with you, and then refuse to engage when your claims are challenged.

That is not debate.

That is drive-by preaching.

You have appealed to GotQuestions, Merriam-Webster, Geisler, Blue Letter Bible, Crossway, and now The Gospel Coalition. But when we answer your arguments from Scripture, you either ignore the answer or retreat to “heresy.”

If you want to discuss the issue, then discuss it.

Make an argument in your own words.

Deal with Genesis 22:12.
Deal with Genesis 2:19.
Deal with Exodus 32:14.
Deal with Jonah 3:10.
Deal with Jeremiah 18.

But do not paste another article and then act as though the article has settled the matter for you. And especially do not refuse to read the replies while expecting everyone else to read your cut-and-paste material.

Open Theology is the resurgence of a heresy.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Calling it heresy is not an argument.

That is just another label you are using to avoid dealing with the text.

You have not shown from Scripture that every future free act already exists as a settled fact before it happens.

You have not explained why Genesis 22:12 says “now I know.”
You have not explained why Genesis 2:19 says God brought the animals to Adam “to see what he would call them.”
You have not explained why Scripture says God relented.
You have not explained Jeremiah 18, where God says He changes His declared course depending on what men do.

So no, I am not bothered by you repeating the word “heresy.”

I would be bothered if you actually made a biblical argument and I could not answer it. But so far, all you have done is paste outside authorities and repeat labels.

Doesn't that bother you?

Real heretics generally don't care that his heresy is heresy.

Your question assumes that what we believe is heresy, rather than establishing it.

We actually care about what we believe. It's WHY we're Open Theists. We are trying to let Scripture describe God as Scripture describes Him, rather than forcing the text into later philosophical categories.

And until you can establish OT as heresy, calling it heresy is just name-calling with a theological vocabulary.

And so far, you have not established that.

You have quoted men who agree with you.
You have repeated labels.
You have appealed to tradition.

But you still have not dealt honestly with the passages that do not fit your doctrine.

Didn't have to , I read #129.

Then you just admitted what I said above.

You are only reading the side you already agree with and refusing to read the answers.
That is exactly the problem.

Scripture has something to say about that:

He who answers a matter before he hears it,It is folly and shame to him.

Bible Gateway passage: Proverbs 18:13 - New King James Version

He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him.

www.biblegateway.com

You answered without hearing.

Doesn't that bother you?

I'll not be debating any more about a heretical doctrine.

You were not debating it in the first place.

You were pasting outside authorities, calling Open Theism heresy, and then refusing to engage the replies.

That is not debate. That is drive-by preaching.

If you want to stop, that is fine. But do not pretend you refuted anything.

You asked for answers. Answers were given.
You asked for Scripture. Scripture was given.
You asked for argument. Argument was given.
Then you refused to read it and retreated to “heresy.”

That is not a victory. It is an exit.

Be concerned about yourself. You are the one following heresy

The one who should be concerned is you.

You are a fool who admitted you did not need to read the answer because you had already read the side you agreed with. Scripture says that is folly and shame.

You asked for Scripture. Scripture was given.
You asked for explanation. Explanation was given.
You asked for argument. Argument was given.
Then you refused to read all of it and went back to repeating “heresy.”

That is not defending the truth. That is answering a matter before hearing it.

That is foolishness.

You are a fool.

Doesn't that bother you?

 

[Bright Raven]

Goodbye herecy hunter

Heresy finder is more appropriate. See you you poor lost soul. You are the one who can't see truth. Your're trapped in a 16th century heresy

 

[Bright Raven]

Heresy finder is more appropriate. See you you poor lost soul. You are the one who can't see truth. Your're trapped in a 16th century heresy

Heresy finder is more appropriate. See you you poor lost soul. You are the one who can't see truth. Your're trapped in a 16th century heresy

JR posted You are a fool.

Isn't there scripture that says don't call another fool or be in danger of Hells fire?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Heresy finder is more appropriate. See you you poor lost soul. You are the one who can't see truth.

So after refusing to read the answer, you now declare someone a “poor lost soul.”

That is rich.

You were given Scripture, explanation, and argument. You admitted you did not need to read it because you had already read the side you agreed with.

That is not “finding heresy.” That is answering before hearing.

Your're trapped in a 16th century heresy

You keep repeating this as though labeling something “heresy” settles the matter.

It does not.

You have not established that Open Theism is heresy. You have only quoted men who already agree with you and then refused to read the replies.

JR posted You are a fool.

Correct. You, Bright Raven, are a fool.

And that was not random name-calling. It was tied directly to Proverbs 18:13.

You admitted you did not read the answer before responding.

Scripture says:

He who answers a matter before he hears it,It is folly and shame to him.

Bible Gateway passage: Proverbs 18:13 - New King James Version

He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him.

www.biblegateway.com

Which is exactly what you did.

That makes you, according to scripture, a fool.

Doesn't that bother you?

Isn't there scripture that says don't call another fool or be in danger of Hells fire?

Yes, Matthew 5:22 warns against calling a brother “Raca” or “you fool” in unrighteous contempt.

But Scripture also repeatedly identifies fools as fools. Proverbs is full of it.

The issue is not whether the word “fool” can ever be used. The issue is whether the rebuke is true and righteous.

You answered a matter before hearing it.

Scripture calls that folly and shame.

Doesn't that bother you, Bright Raven?