Theology Club: Did God know that man would sin?

[Desert Reign]

Actually, Nang, I can show you any number of places where Calvin grossly distorts the meaning of the Bible. Since you want to make this personal, then my personal question to you is just how far do you want to go in following him?

 

[Nang]

Actually, Nang, I can show you any number of places where Calvin grossly distorts the meaning of the Bible. Since you want to make this personal, then my personal question to you is just how far do you want to go in following him?

It seems you desire to provoke me, cause trouble, and distract from this thread by going off topic with an irrelevant question, which I choose not to answer in order to stay within the rules of this forum.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Christ is the foundation of the Church. The "world" is never used to mean the Church. If you mean that His work on the Cross made it possible for the new (physical) world to be made then you are wrong as well because nowhere does the Bible say that God will need to lay another foundation for the world to come. The world to come will be built on the current foundation.

A foundation” of anything is the stabilizing base upon which any kind of structure rests. This could be applied to a dwelling, a temple, a Dynasty which is founded upon a king (e.g.,“House of David”) or nation (“The House of Israel”) which is rests on a common culture and history, the Church or the planet. When it is used in the phrase is “foundation of the WORLD” it is referring specifically to the the creation of matter which formed the geological substrata of the planet (Genesis 1:1-2). There are abundant examples of this in scripture.

Job 38: 4-6
Psalm 102:25-.
Isa 48:13 .
Zec 12:1
Matthew 13:35
Hebrews 1:10-12 .

It is the same today. When an individual speaks of something happening at the "foundation of the earth” we naturally assume he was speaking of something that took place at the beginning of this world not to something that WILL happen at some point in the future at the construction of some NEW world. It points to the past; not the future. The only way the phrase could be construed to mean anything else is if a qualifying word were added such as the world NEW.

Isa 65:17-19
Rev.21:1-3 1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them

When the Bible says there will be a NEW earth it does not mean that God will make entirely new planet but that He is planning a massive renovation of the current one. The Greek word “new” used in this the passage, KAINOS, means “new or renewed,” not new in existence. Had the John wanted to say the earth was absolutely new he would have used the word NEOS which means “new in existence.”

To remodel the earth God will first clear away the surface with fire. The term “passed away” “(Gr, APERCHOMAI) means to pass or change from one condition to another. The earth will be renovated not annihilated. The same word is used in II Peter 3:7-13

Hebrews 1:10-12 says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They will perish, (Gr. apollumi; to be destroyed or ruined; not annihilated) but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. 12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. (transformed not destroyed) But you remain the same, and your years will never end

2 Peter 3:10-13 "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar

Pass away = dissolve, melt, figuratively, to flow, dwindle, vanish -- consume away, be corrupt, dissolve, pine away.

Isaiah 34:4 (NASB) And all the host of heaven will wear away, And the sky will be rolled up like a scroll; All their hosts will also wither away As a leaf withers from the vine, Or as one withers from the fig tree

2 Peter 3:12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.

Hebrews 12:26-29 ...but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven. removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire.”

Though the foundation of the earth will be shaken it will remain. If the foundation of the earth were to be demolished the entire planet would fall apart just as and it would revert to the disorganized wreck it was in the Beginning. A picture of is Jesus parabolic reference to the collapse of a house which lacked a foundation.

Sometimes before a house can be built a forest must be cleared. In the same way God will clear the surface of the original world with fire.

2 Peter 3:12 and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells,"

The word “passed away” “(Gr, APERCHOMAI) means to pass or change from one condition to another. Again the earth will not be annihilated but renovated. Before the new can be constructed the old must be deconstructed. Greek word for both “melt” and “dissolved” is LUO, which means to “loosen” (a necessary part of the bring down of a building). The word melt is TEKO, which means to “liquefy.”

The unstable things which will collapse and turn to rubble are the surface features including the works of men, the glory of it which Satan offered Christ. Men by their devotion to the present world turned it into on idol.

Despite the devastation the Bible never says God will undo and demolish the foundation of the physical earth which He laid in the beginning. The foundation is the stable base for the entire planet. Were He to destroy it the entire planet would fall apart, undoing all He did from Genesis 1:1-2 onward. This will never happen.
God will never lay another foundation. To make a new world He will burn the current one to the ground and build the new on on its foundation. The original foundation, the one that currently exists is under a warranty (signed by God Himself) that guarantees it will last forever.

Psalm 104:5
Ecclesiastes 1:4

These scriptures show that when the Bible speaks of something happening “before the foundation of the world” it is referring to the time of the original creation not to some future time. This, causes your interpretational theory to collapse and reinforces the doctrine of true foreknowledge as it has been universally known all the way back to the time of the Church Fathers

Even further, the word “before” places these events such as the slaying of the lamb, the choosing of the saints prior to the the creation of the cosmos suggesting that man's sin did not catch God off guard and that the redemptive plan was not an afterthought.


Ephesians 1:4
Romans 8:29

Good post, thank you - i completely agree about the before, the original texts show it to mean before which of course tells me He foresaw what would happen.

 

[Lighthouse]

Good post, thank you - i completely agree about the before, the original texts show it to mean before which of course tells me He foresaw what would happen.

They show what to mean "before"? "From"? As in regarding Rev. 13:8 or 17:8? Even if that were true it still stands that the "from the foundation of the world" does not apply to "the Lamb slain," but rather to the "names not written in the Book of Life."

And the original Greek for "from" in those two verses? Apo

I see no indication it actually means "before."

 

[Shasta]

Shasta I am not talking about a physical new world, I am talking about a spiritual world and the foundation is Christ. And it was only upon Him being slain 2000 years ago that any one could have their names written in the book of life of the lamb slain.

I said all that because I could see that the Father was planning to make a new planet. I do not see any evidence that He will make another "spiritual" world. Christ is said said many times to be the foundation of the Church. If by "spiritual world" you mean some kind of heavenly or spiritual dimension I can see how that could lead to some potentially dangerous territory

 

[Shasta]

Desert Reign;3243448]The problem is that the scriptures we have been discussing in the Apocalypse don't say this at all. They say that the lamb's book of life is the book of the names that have been written there from the time of the foundation of the world and onwards. Do you agree that this is what they say?

"Book" is just a metaphor and can get in the way of a discussion as well as clarifying it. All this is really about is foreknowledge and predestination. Did God foreknow who would follow Him and who would not? Did He know this at creation? Did He know it before that? I think the evidence shows that He did if for no other reason that what was recorded in in Ephesians 1:4 1 Peter 1:18-20 which use PRO just as does John 17:24 in which case we KNOW it means before creation.

1 Peter 1:18-20 is a parallel to the idea of the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world." "You were not redeemed with corruptible things...19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

Since the event was not actual it was a foreordained vision in the mind of God. It reveals that God not only knew what men would do but that He had already arranged for the remedy.

This contradicts Open Theism's claim that God did not know man would sin and thus could not have made a steadfast plan of redemption until the "Open" future had become "real." If God foreknew what Adam would do Adam would not possess a truly free will, at least this is the argument made against the doctrine of foreknowledge.

The names in the Lambs in the beginning and in the Revelation are the same. Although many revisions have been made throughout time ones final destination will end up being the results of decisions God knew He would make. How could it be that the final edition of the Book be known before it was written? Well, that is what foreknowledge is about. So far we do not know all the contents of that book and will not until they are opened.

If God knows before the foundation of the world what individuals will be born and which ones will choose Christ, what is the mechanism by which he knows this?

I agree with what Justin Martyr said

. And the holy Spirit of prophecy taught us this, telling us by Moses that God spoke thus to the man first created: “Behold, before thy face are good and evil: choose the good.” …So that what we say about future events being foretold, we do not say it as if they came about by a fatal necessity; but God foreknowing all that shall be done by all men, and it being His decree that the future actions of men shall all be recompensed according to their several value, He foretells by the Spirit of prophecy that He will bestow meet rewards according to the merit of the actions done, always urging the human race to effort and recollection, showing that He cares and provides for men.
Justin Martyr (circa 100 – 165 A.D)
First Apology Chapter 28

I noticed that when Boyd addressed this passage he emphasized all that about free will to gain an advantage over the Calvinists while leaving out what the Church Fathers said about foreknowledge to cover Open Theism's vulnerability to the Arminians.

 

[Desert Reign]

I wrote:

The problem is that the scriptures we have been discussing in the Apocalypse don't say this at all. They say that the lamb's book of life is the book of the names that have been written there from the time of the foundation of the world and onwards. Do you agree that this is what they say?

And then you said:

"Book" is just a metaphor and can get in the way of a discussion as well as clarifying it.

from which I understand that you either do not want to answer the question or else your answer amounts to "Even though I recognise that Revelation uses the preposition 'from' and not 'before' I can safely ignore this by claiming that it is a metaphor."

This contradicts Open Theism's claim that God did not know man would sin and thus could not have made a steadfast plan of redemption until the "Open" future had become "real." If God foreknew what Adam would do Adam would not possess a truly free will, at least this is the argument made against the doctrine of foreknowledge.

It depends on what you mean by 'know'. In my version of open theism, it was inevitable that Jesus would have to die but this doesn't mean that God had a certain picture of the future as if the future were something that had already happened. The future by definition has not happened yet and thus cannot produce any noticeable effects such as being known by or visible to someone before it happens.

The names in the Lambs in the beginning and in the Revelation are the same. Although many revisions have been made throughout time ones final destination will end up being the results of decisions God knew He would make. How could it be that the final edition of the Book be known before it was written? Well, that is what foreknowledge is about. So far we do not know all the contents of that book and will not until they are opened.

I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. In Revelation, the story is set in a time when the tribulation is in full swing so it is only natural to refer to the names as already written. I think you are missing the obvious - or not wanting to see it.

I agree with what Justin Martyr said

. And the holy Spirit of prophecy taught us this, telling us by Moses that God spoke thus to the man first created: “Behold, before thy face are good and evil: choose the good.” …So that what we say about future events being foretold, we do not say it as if they came about by a fatal necessity; but God foreknowing all that shall be done by all men, and it being His decree that the future actions of men shall all be recompensed according to their several value, He foretells by the Spirit of prophecy that He will bestow meet rewards according to the merit of the actions done, always urging the human race to effort and recollection, showing that He cares and provides for men.
Justin Martyr (circa 100 – 165 A.D)
First Apology Chapter 28

I noticed that when Boyd addressed this passage he emphasized all that about free will to gain an advantage over the Calvinists while leaving out what the Church Fathers said about foreknowledge to cover Open Theism's vulnerability to the Arminians.

All you have done is to postpone answering the question. What your answer boils down to is 'by the Spirit of prophecy'. So let's try again, by what mechanism does the 'Spirit of prophecy' know for certain what is going to happen in the future?

 

[Pneuma]

I said all that because I could see that the Father was planning to make a new planet. I do not see any evidence that He will make another "spiritual" world. Christ is said said many times to be the foundation of the Church. If by "spiritual world" you mean some kind of heavenly or spiritual dimension I can see how that could lead to some potentially dangerous territory

The old world is ruled by the flesh, the new world is ruled by the spirit, hence a spiritual world whose foundation is Christ. Jesus Christ is not just the foundation of the church, He is the foundation of the whole world.

"Book" is just a metaphor and can get in the way of a discussion as well as clarifying it. All this is really about is foreknowledge and predestination. Did God foreknow who would follow Him and who would not? Did He know this at creation? Did He know it before that? I think the evidence shows that He did if for no other reason that what was recorded in in Ephesians 1:4 1 Peter 1:18-20 which use PRO just as does John 17:24 in which case we KNOW it means before creation.

1 Peter 1:18-20 is a parallel to the idea of the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world." "You were not redeemed with corruptible things...19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

Since the event was not actual it was a foreordained vision in the mind of God. It reveals that God not only knew what men would do but that He had already arranged for the remedy.

I know this was not addressed to me but will answer it anyway.
You already know my position on the foundation and when it happened. So let's see if your position holds up.

If Christ was slain from the foundation of the old world then why did He have to be slain AGAIN 2000 years ago?

33Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?


If God knew from the foundation of the world (according to your understanding) why does He say they will reverence my son?



So if God thought they would reverence His son how can the foundation of the world be as you believe?


Why do the scripture say God wanted obedience and not sacrifice?

This contradicts Open Theism's claim that God did not know man would sin and thus could not have made a steadfast plan of redemption until the "Open" future had become "real." If God foreknew what Adam would do Adam would not possess a truly free will, at least this is the argument made against the doctrine of foreknowledge.

It does not contradict my understanding. However your understanding is in direct conflict with what Jesus said about himself and what God thought the people would do when He sent His son.

 

[zippy2006]

The means to my end was not the title of the book. Rather, my speculation about the title of the book was derived from how I see that the phrase "from..." doesn't modify the phrase "the lamb slain." That interpretation leads me to conclude that the lamb was not slain before creation, and it also leads me to speculate about the title of the book.

That is precisely my point. The title was a means to the end you wished to achieve. :idunno: Everything here agrees perfectly with my theory except your first sentence.

 

[Desert Reign]

Shasta, I'm still awaiting an answer from you to my last post.

 

[Angel4Truth]

They show what to mean "before"? "From"? As in regarding Rev. 13:8 or 17:8? Even if that were true it still stands that the "from the foundation of the world" does not apply to "the Lamb slain," but rather to the "names not written in the Book of Life."

And the original Greek for "from" in those two verses? Apo

I see no indication it actually means "before."

1 peter 1:20 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

20.
|1096| having been
|4267| foreknown
|4253| before
|2602| {the} foundation
|2889| of {the} world,
|5319| revealed
|1722| in
|2078| {the} last
|3588| of the
|5550| times
|1223| because
|5209| of you,

Strong's Ref. # 4253

Romanized pro
Pronounced pro

a primary preposition; "fore", i.e. in front of, prior (figuratively, superior) to: KJV--above, ago, before, or ever. In comparison it retains the same significations.

As far as your verses, apo also means before - sorry you missed that:



Apo

Strong's Number: 575

apo'
Definition

of separation
of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
of separation of a part from the whole
where of a whole some part is taken
of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
of a state of separation, that is of distance
physical, of distance of place
temporal, of distance of time
of origin
of the place whence anything is, comes, befalls, is taken
of origin of a cause



after 1, against 4, ago 2, alike* 1, among 2, away 3, away* 1, because 9, before* 1, belonged 1, deserting* 1, distance 1, hereafter* 1, initiative 1, left 1, off 1, once* 1, since 11, since* 3, some 1, way 1

 

[chickenman]

That is precisely my point. The title was a means to the end you wished to achieve. :idunno: Everything here agrees perfectly with my theory except your first sentence.

I say it wasn't. You say it was. Whatever floats your boat, zippy.

 

[Desert Reign]

As far as your verses, apo also means before - sorry you missed that:

Apo

Strong's Number: 575

apo'
Definition

of separation
of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
of separation of a part from the whole
where of a whole some part is taken
of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
of a state of separation, that is of distance
physical, of distance of place
temporal, of distance of time
of origin
of the place whence anything is, comes, befalls, is taken
of origin of a cause

after 1, against 4, ago 2, alike* 1, among 2, away 3, away* 1, because 9, before* 1, belonged 1, deserting* 1, distance 1, hereafter* 1, initiative 1, left 1, off 1, once* 1, since 11, since* 3, some 1, way 1

A4T.

This is quite out of context and a very wrong use of reference material.

The word 'apo' is used approximately 670 times in the NT.

In your rather selective quotation from some online reference (possibly this) you forgot to include the actual definition

Definition: from, away from

You also did not mention that the vast majority of times, that word is translated as from, away from or since. The numbers after the words where you highlighted the supposed meaning 'before' are the number of occurrences of the translated word in the NASB translation. So the number of times in the whole NT that this word was translated 'before' is the grand total of 1 out of 670.

Now, understand this: that one place is the following:

Acts 7:45

"And having received it in their turn, our fathers brought it in with Joshua upon dispossessing the nations whom God drove out before our fathers, until the time of David."

and there it is actually a translation of a combined preposition in Greek meaning 'from before the face of'. In other words it has nothing to do with time at all.

Case dismissed. I would respectfully also suggest, that if you want to learn the truth, you need to come to terms with what the texts in Revelation mean: the Lamb's book of life of all those written into it from the foundation of the world. I implore you to listen to what the text actually says. The definition from Strongs which you yourself highlighted is what you need to consider:

temporal, of distance of time

In other words: 'after' NOT 'before'.

 

[Desert Reign]

A4T:

The other text you quoted was 1 Peter 1:20.

This indicates that God knew Jesus before the foundation of the world. I don't see how that would be noteworthy in this discussion since we all (probably) accept that Jesus existed before the foundation of the world and it would be only natural to use 'before' in this context.

 

[Angel4Truth]

A4T:

The other text you quoted was 1 Peter 1:20.

This indicates that God knew Jesus before the foundation of the world. I don't see how that would be noteworthy in this discussion since we all (probably) accept that Jesus existed before the foundation of the world and it would be only natural to use 'before' in this context.

What He was foreordained for, is the issue. And it all happened before creation.

 

[Desert Reign]

What He was foreordained for, is the issue. And it all happened before creation.

Firstly, the text says 'foreknew' not 'foreordained.' The only issue is did God foreordain him before he knew that man would sin.

Personally, I don't think you will find the answer in the New Testament but by an analysis of the meaning of the allegories which make up the fall narratives and indeed all the way through to Abraham. It's all part of a whole.

For my money, I'm not fussed either way - what is important is not whether God knew that man would eventually sin but whether he knew that individual men would and whether he knew which ones would turn to Christ. Clearly, the passages we discussed in Revelation support the view that no individual pre-selection or foreknowledge exists. In terms of mankind as a whole, I am quite comfortable with the view that God predicted man (as a whole) would sin because this was the inevitable consequence of an open world - an inevitable consequence of his love for us. This does not in any way compromise the openness of the future and it does not in any compromise God experiencing those emotions of regret and anger, etc. when man did eventually sin. Rather it enhances them.

Does your silence indicate you have now come to terms with the fact that Revelation speaks of individuals being added to the Lamb's book of life as and when they put their trust in him?

 

[Lighthouse]

1 peter 1:20 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

20.
|1096| having been
|4267| foreknown
|4253| before
|2602| {the} foundation
|2889| of {the} world,
|5319| revealed
|1722| in
|2078| {the} last
|3588| of the
|5550| times
|1223| because
|5209| of you,

Strong's Ref. # 4253

Romanized pro
Pronounced pro

a primary preposition; "fore", i.e. in front of, prior (figuratively, superior) to: KJV--above, ago, before, or ever. In comparison it retains the same significations.

As far as your verses, apo also means before - sorry you missed that:



Apo

Strong's Number: 575

apo'
Definition

of separation
of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
of separation of a part from the whole
where of a whole some part is taken
of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
of a state of separation, that is of distance
physical, of distance of place
temporal, of distance of time
of origin
of the place whence anything is, comes, befalls, is taken
of origin of a cause



after 1, against 4, ago 2, alike* 1, among 2, away 3, away* 1, because 9, before* 1, belonged 1, deserting* 1, distance 1, hereafter* 1, initiative 1, left 1, off 1, once* 1, since 11, since* 3, some 1, way 1

DR already answered this.

Also, that's not the word used in 1 Peter 1:20 anyway. That would be pro. So as you stated in a later post, the issue is for what was Christ foreordained? Because until this is answered it does you no good to use this verse.

A4T.

This is quite out of context and a very wrong use of reference material.

The word 'apo' is used approximately 670 times in the NT.

In your rather selective quotation from some online reference (possibly this) you forgot to include the actual definition

Definition: from, away from

You also did not mention that the vast majority of times, that word is translated as from, away from or since. The numbers after the words where you highlighted the supposed meaning 'before' are the number of occurrences of the translated word in the NASB translation. So the number of times in the whole NT that this word was translated 'before' is the grand total of 1 out of 670.

Now, understand this: that one place is the following:

Acts 7:45

"And having received it in their turn, our fathers brought it in with Joshua upon dispossessing the nations whom God drove out before our fathers, until the time of David."

and there it is actually a translation of a combined preposition in Greek meaning 'from before the face of'. In other words it has nothing to do with time at all.

Case dismissed. I would respectfully also suggest, that if you want to learn the truth, you need to come to terms with what the texts in Revelation mean: the Lamb's book of life of all those written into it from the foundation of the world. I implore you to listen to what the text actually says. The definition from Strongs which you yourself highlighted is what you need to consider:

In other words: 'after' NOT 'before'.

This.

A4T:

The other text you quoted was 1 Peter 1:20.

This indicates that God knew Jesus before the foundation of the world. I don't see how that would be noteworthy in this discussion since we all (probably) accept that Jesus existed before the foundation of the world and it would be only natural to use 'before' in this context.

Quite possibly.

What He was foreordained for, is the issue. And it all happened before creation.

Well, the word translated as foreordained in this verse is Proginosko.

Now, does this mean Christ was known beforehand, or predestined, and if the latter for what? If the former, then DR's explanation stands.

And seeing as how the version considered to be the most properly translated, the NASB, uses "foreknown" I'm going to accept DR's explanation:

Firstly, the text says 'foreknew' not 'foreordained.' The only issue is did God foreordain him before he knew that man would sin.

 

[Desert Reign]

I see that my post 127 has gone unanswered by Shasta. I'd like to say that I have not yet met any Arminian (or who believes in exhaustive foreknowledge) who has given any coherent explanation as to how it is that God foreknows everything. AndyC once tried to say that because wormholes have been declared to be a theoretical possibility then this means that there might be some method by which God can know the future before it happens. (Along of course with the outrageous implication that if there's a tiny remote theoretical possibility of it then it must be absolutely true.) Well, at least it was an attempt at suggesting a method.

Openists have a simple, clear and coherent explanation of how God knows the future: namely that God announces what he intends to make happen. Prophecy is simply an announcement of God's intentions. All, I'm asking is some equally simple competing explanation as to how God knows the future absolutely (assuming of course he does). Surely it's not too much to ask is it? It's only the most natural of questions anyone would ask to the average Arminian. It's the failure of the Arminians to answer such a basic and obvious question that is the cause of their relative unpopularity. Personally, I find it logically safe to conclude, based on that failure, that exhaustive divine foreknowledge is false.

 

[surrender]

This contradicts Open Theism's claim that God did not know man would sin and thus could not have made a steadfast plan of redemption until the "Open" future had become "real." If God foreknew what Adam would do Adam would not possess a truly free will, at least this is the argument made against the doctrine of foreknowledge.

God knew as a certainty that given every single circumstance Adam or man would find himself in (a finite number of circumstances, mind you), he’d eventually sin. That doesn’t take freewill away from man. And that doesn’t mean God has exhaustive definitive foreknowledge.