On the omniscience of God

[JudgeRightly]

what you in fact freely choose is what God knows if you had freely chosen not-A instead, then God would have infallibly known that. His knowledge is of your free choice , it does not determine it or render it unfree

You could have chosen otherwise, and had you done so, God’s knowledge would have been different. The fact that God already knows what you will freely do does not turn your free act into a determined one

Your position is unfalsifiable as you've framed it. (And no, that's not a good thing.)

You're trying to have it both ways.

Either the future is settled or it isn't.

If God's infallible foreknowledge means the future is already settled, then the past that contains God's infallible knowledge is settled too.

So if God already infallibly knows that I will choose A, then that is part of the settled past.

I cannot later choose not-A without making that supposedly settled past false.

Your response is:

"If you had chosen not-A, then God would always have known not-A."

But that doesn't preserve the same past.

You've simply switched to a different history in which God's prior knowledge is different.

In one history:

God knows A → I choose A.

In another:

God knows not-A → I choose not-A.

That does not show that I could choose either A or not-A given the same settled past.

It shows only that different outcomes correspond to different pasts.

So you're trying to keep the future 100% settled when it supports infallible foreknowledge, but then make the past effectively changeable when you need to preserve free will.

You can't have both.

Either the future is 100% settled, in which case only one outcome is genuinely possible,

or the future is not 100% settled, in which case infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice is impossible.

There is no third option where the future is settled enough to be infallibly known, but somehow unsettled enough that the opposite choice remains genuinely possible.

 

[Clete]

I was, of course, speaking in very general terms. The exceptions all know who they are.

It's interesting (well, to me it's interesting) that all of the people who aren't exceptions, almost certainly think that they are exceptions. That means, taking the group as a whole, if you're one who "knows that you're an exception", the likelihood is that you aren't one.

Then the same observation would apply to this post as well! All the people that I'm actually talking about can read the observation I just made, understand the argument, agree with it's conclusion and still fail to recognize that the argument applies to them!

How do I even know that I'm not one of the TOL idiots!

 

[Right Divider]

It's crazy that some people think that the future can be settled for both an A and not-A choice at the same time ‍

 

[way 2 go]

Your position is unfalsifiable as you've framed it. (And no, that's not a good thing.)

You're trying to have it both ways.

Either the future is settled or it isn't.

If God's infallible foreknowledge means the future is already settled, then the past that contains God's infallible knowledge is settled too.

So if God already infallibly knows that I will choose A, then that is part of the settled past.

I cannot later choose not-A without making that supposedly settled past false.

Your response is:

"If you had chosen not-A, then God would always have known not-A."

But that doesn't preserve the same past.

You've simply switched to a different history in which God's prior knowledge is different.

In one history:

God knows A → I choose A.

In another:

God knows not-A → I choose not-A.

That does not show that I could choose either A or not-A given the same settled past.

It shows only that different outcomes correspond to different pasts.

So you're trying to keep the future 100% settled when it supports infallible foreknowledge, but then make the past effectively changeable when you need to preserve free will.

You can't have both.

Either the future is 100% settled, in which case only one outcome is genuinely possible,

or the future is not 100% settled, in which case infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice is impossible.

There is no third option where the future is settled enough to be infallibly known, but somehow unsettled enough that the opposite choice remains genuinely possible.

what you in fact freely choose is what God knows if you had freely chosen not-A instead, then God would have infallibly known that. His knowledge is of your free choice , it does not determine it or render it unfree

You could have chosen otherwise, and had you done so, God’s knowledge would have been different. The fact that God already knows what you will freely do does not turn your free act into a determined one


I read Rev 9:21 as 100% true & accurate , open theist read it as just a possibility (Rev 22:18-19)

(Revelation 9:21) And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

God already knows the choices they will freely make , to murder etc , to not repent after the judgements

open theism says if God has infallible foreknowledge of their choices God would be responsible for their actions to murder & to not repent after the judgements are poured out

classic theism ,they're free & agents bear full responsibility for their non-repentance of their free will choices .
in open theism they transfer that responsibility of sin to God if God has infallible foreknowledge

 

[JudgeRightly]

what you in fact freely choose is what God knows if you had freely chosen not-A instead, then God would have infallibly known that. His knowledge is of your free choice , it does not determine it or render it unfree

You could have chosen otherwise, and had you done so, God’s knowledge would have been different. The fact that God already knows what you will freely do does not turn your free act into a determined one

Restating your claim does not magically make it come true, W2G.

What I said above:

Your position is unfalsifiable as you've framed it. (And no, that's not a good thing.)

You're trying to have it both ways.

Either the future is settled or it isn't.

If God's infallible foreknowledge means the future is already settled, then the past that contains God's infallible knowledge is settled too.

So if God already infallibly knows that I will choose A, then that is part of the settled past.

I cannot later choose not-A without making that supposedly settled past false.

Your response is:

"If you had chosen not-A, then God would always have known not-A."

But that doesn't preserve the same past.

You've simply switched to a different history in which God's prior knowledge is different.

In one history:

God knows A → I choose A.

In another:

God knows not-A → I choose not-A.

That does not show that I could choose either A or not-A given the same settled past.

It shows only that different outcomes correspond to different pasts.

So you're trying to keep the future 100% settled when it supports infallible foreknowledge, but then make the past effectively changeable when you need to preserve free will.

You can't have both.

Either the future is 100% settled, in which case only one outcome is genuinely possible,

or the future is not 100% settled, in which case infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice is impossible.

There is no third option where the future is settled enough to be infallibly known, but somehow unsettled enough that the opposite choice remains genuinely possible.

... has not been rebutted.

You simply repeated the claim that the choice is free without addressing the contradiction.

I read Rev 9:21 as 100% true & accurate , open theist read it as just a possibility (Rev 22:18-19)

(Revelation 9:21) And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

God already knows the choices they will freely make , to murder etc , to not repent after the judgements

No.

Open Theists read Revelation 9:21 as 100% true and accurate too.

What we reject is your additional claim that the verse therefore establishes exhaustive, infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice.

It doesn't.

We've already gone over the distinction between:

things God predicts or has determined will occur

and

the proposition that every future free choice of every creature is exhaustively settled and infallibly foreknown.

Those are not the same thing.

You're also talking about a group of people under particular future circumstances, not identifying specific individuals and establishing that each individual's allegedly free choices were infallibly settled from eternity past.

And, most importantly, this argument has already been addressed.

If you think the rebuttal is wrong, address the rebuttal.

Repeating Revelation 9:21 again doesn't answer it.

open theism says if God has infallible foreknowledge of their choices God would be responsible for their actions to murder & to not repent after the judgements are poured out

Repeating yourself does not magically make what you said come true.

That's not the argument I've made.

What I said here:

Incorrect.

Logic and reason says if God has exhaustive infallible foreknowledge we don't have free will. Because it's true.

Open Theism affirms this logical truth.

You do not affirm this logical truth. That makes you wrong.

. . .

But none of your verses establish this entirely different proposition:

Every future free choice of every creature has always been an exhaustively settled fact that God infallibly foreknows.

You're continually moving from:

God has determined that certain future events will happen.

to:

Therefore every future event and every future free choice is exhaustively settled.

That conclusion does not follow from the premise.

And this distinction has now been explained to you repeatedly.

If you disagree with it, then address the distinction instead of giving me more examples of one of the two categories.

... has not been rebutted.

The issue is not that God's knowledge somehow causes a person to sin.

The issue is necessity.

If God infallibly knows that someone will commit murder, then that person cannot refrain from committing that murder without making God's supposedly infallible knowledge false.

If he genuinely can refrain, then the future murder was not infallibly knowable as an already-settled fact.

You've repeatedly replaced that argument with one nobody here is making.

classic theism, they're free & agents bear full responsibility for their non-repentance of their free will choices.

You keep calling them "free" while refusing to deal with what freedom actually requires.

If God infallibly knew from eternity past that they would choose A, then they cannot choose not-A.

So according to your own premises, there is only one possible outcome.

Calling an act "free" does not magically give the person an alternative that your theology has already made impossible.

in open theism they transfer that responsibility of sin to God if God has infallible foreknowledge

You don't even know what we believe, do you?

Making stuff up is a terrible way to debate.

You have it completely backwards!

Open Theism does not teach that God's foreknowledge would somehow cause the sinner to act and thereby transfer moral responsibility to God.

We've told you repeatedly: The issue is necessity, not causation.

Open Theism places responsibility for a person's freely chosen sin squarely on the person who chose to commit it.

God did not eternally decree that person's sin.

God did not force him to commit it.

God did not need him to commit it in order for an eternally fixed history to remain true.

And unless God Himself had determined the relevant outcome, that person's future free choice was not an already-settled fact that God infallibly knew before the person made it.

The person could genuinely have done otherwise.

That's precisely why he is morally responsible for what he chose.

And if you want to appeal broadly to "classic theism," you should probably be more careful about what major representatives of classical Christian theology have actually taught.

Augustine wrote:

"Nothing, therefore, happens unless the Omnipotent wills it to happen. He either allows it to happen or actually causes it to happen."
Enchiridion, 95.

And regarding sinful creaturely wills, Augustine wrote that when angels and men sinned, acting according to their own wills rather than God's:

"He used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator's will as an instrument for carrying out His will"
Enchiridion, 100.

Calvin went even further.

He wrote concerning the Fall that God:

"not only foresaw the fall of the first man ... but also at his own pleasure arranged it."
Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.23.7.

Now, Augustine and Calvin are not identical. Augustine distinguished between what God directly causes and what He permits, while Calvin developed a considerably stronger doctrine of divine decree.

But neither supports the caricature you're trying to assign to Open Theism.

Historically, it is deterministic forms of theology that face the much more serious responsibility problem:

If God eternally decreed that a sinful action would occur, rendered its occurrence certain, and ensured that history could unfold no other way, then how is God completely removed from responsibility for the occurrence of that action?

Open Theism doesn't have that problem.

Under Open Theism, a man can genuinely choose A or not-A.

If he chooses evil, he chose it.
God neither decreed his sin nor required it to happen.

The responsibility belongs to the sinner.

Open Theism does not transfer responsibility for sin to God, but rather rightly places it on the sinner!

 

[way 2 go]

Restating your claim does not magically make it come true, W2G.

What I said above:



... has not been rebutted.

You simply repeated the claim that the choice is free without addressing the contradiction.



No.

Open Theists read Revelation 9:21 as 100% true and accurate too.

What we reject is your additional claim that the verse therefore establishes exhaustive, infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice.

It doesn't.

We've already gone over the distinction between:

things God predicts or has determined will occur

and

the proposition that every future free choice of every creature is exhaustively settled and infallibly foreknown.

Those are not the same thing.

You're also talking about a group of people under particular future circumstances, not identifying specific individuals and establishing that each individual's allegedly free choices were infallibly settled from eternity past.

And, most importantly, this argument has already been addressed.

If you think the rebuttal is wrong, address the rebuttal.

Repeating Revelation 9:21 again doesn't answer it.

open theism says if God has exhaustive infallible knowledge it is a noun that acts as a verb in taking away "free choice" but can't define how , the mechanics

but it is the free choice that God knows , choice then knowledge ,
so can you do otherwise than choose what God knows you chose freely ? no
who chooses the choice God knows? we do

when where & how do we lose freedom to choose?

it does not follow that we are forced, restrained , determined, or robbed of the power of alternative choice

Claim: Since God can prophesy future events, He must possess exhaustive infallible knowledge of the entire future.

Answer: This is an invalid extrapolation.

God can know and declare particular future events for several reasons:

He may have decided to bring the event about Himself.

did God decide to bring about their non repentance and worship of the dragon and beast

they did not repent, they worshiped the beast, the rest of mankind… did not repent ,
And they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast
also written past tense

fits : exhaustive infallible foreknowledge ✔
open theism X

He may know that an event is practically certain given present circumstances.

we are talking about Revelation written 2000 years ago , so that fits better with exhaustive infallible foreknowledge

He may know the character and tendencies of the people involved.

these people didn't exist 2000 years ago
And they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast
And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us
fits : exhaustive infallible foreknowledge ✔
open theism X

He may be describing the likely course of events if conditions remain unchanged.

we are talking about Revelation written 2000 years ago . He is talking about his second coming & what precedes it , what will happen , not using language for might happen
fits : exhaustive infallible foreknowledge ✔
open theism X

He may intervene to ensure that a particular result occurs.

God responsible for this?
(Revelation 9:21) And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
fits : exhaustive infallible foreknowledge ✔
open theism X

He may announce a conditional warning intended to prevent the announced result.

(Revelation of John 14:6-7) [6] And I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those dwelling on the earth, even to every nation and kindred and tongue and people, [7] saying with a great voice, Fear God and give glory to Him! For the hour of His judgment has come. And worship Him who made the heaven and the earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Rev 16:9 did not repent

Proving that God knows some future events does not prove that He exhaustively knows every future free choice.

revelation is 100% exhaustive infallible foreknowledge
then God posses exhaustive infallible foreknowledge 100%
how is it something God can have a little of ?

Knowing one future event does not entail knowing all future events,

God gave 56 individual prophecies in the book of revelation ,

just as knowing one present fact does not entail knowing every present fact.

I remember open theist saying , God lost track of where Adam& Eve were LOL

God knows what He has determined to accomplish. He can also predict creatures with a degree of wisdom and accuracy incomparably greater than ours.

the God that open theism portrays can't remember where the only 2 people on the earth are
forgets that sodom was evil

Neither ability turns unsettled choices into settled facts.

where does it use language that indicates not settled fact , it is only your theology that makes it unsettled
"And they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast"

 

[Right Divider]

but it is the free choice that God knows , choice then knowledge ,

Notice how the KNOWLEDGE can only come AFTER the CHOICE is made.

If you can possibly make TWO CONTRADICTORY choices in the future... they CANNOT BOTH be known as infallibly made before ONE is made.

You are illogically insane.

 

[JudgeRightly]

open theism says if God has exhaustive infallible knowledge it is a noun that acts as a verb in taking away "free choice" but can't define how , the mechanics

There are no "mechanics," because nobody is claiming that knowledge somehow exerts a physical or causal force upon your will.

You keep trying to turn a logical contradiction into a mechanical one.

The issue is necessity, not causation.

If God infallibly knows that I will choose A, then not-A cannot occur.

Nothing has to "force" me to choose A for not-A to be impossible.

but it is the free choice that God knows, choice then knowledge,

Exactly.

Choice, then knowledge.

You've just conceded the logical order we've been arguing for.

If the choice is logically prior to the knowledge of that choice, then there must first be a definite choice to know.

If A and not-A are both genuinely available alternatives before the choice is made, then there is not yet one settled choice that can be infallibly known as the choice that will occur.

so can you do otherwise than choose what God knows you chose freely? no

There you go.

No.

You cannot do otherwise.

That's exactly the point.

If you cannot choose not-A, then not-A is not a genuine alternative.

who chooses the choice God knows? we do

That isn't the issue.

Nobody is claiming that God physically reaches into your mind and makes the choice for you.

The question is whether you genuinely could have chosen otherwise.

You just admitted that you could not.

when where & how do we lose freedom to choose?

The moment you define the future choice as already infallibly settled.

Again, there is no physical mechanism involved.

If God's knowledge that I will choose A cannot possibly be wrong, then not-A cannot possibly occur.

That's a logical consequence of your premises.

it does not follow that we are forced, restrained , determined, or robbed of the power of alternative choice

But you just said:

"can you do otherwise ... ? no"

So what "power of alternative choice" are you talking about?

If I cannot choose not-A, then I do not possess the power to choose not-A.

You cannot simultaneously say:

I cannot do otherwise

and

I retain the power to do otherwise.

Those statements contradict each other.

Calling the outcome a "free choice" doesn't resolve the contradiction.

did God decide to bring about their non repentance and worship of the dragon and beast

they did not repent, they worshiped the beast, the rest of mankind… did not repent ,
And they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast
also written past tense

fits : exhaustive infallible foreknowledge ✔
open theism X

False dichotomy.

God does not have to cause their sin in order to predict what a group of people will do under circumstances He Himself intends to bring about.

And once again, you're dealing with descriptions of groups of people under particular circumstances, not establishing that every individual free choice of every creature throughout history is eternally settled.

As for it being "written past tense":

John is describing what he saw in a prophetic vision.

The grammatical tense used to narrate a prophetic vision does not establish that the events already exist as ontologically settled history.

You're reading your theology into the grammar.

we are talking about Revelation written 2000 years ago , so that fits better with exhaustive infallible foreknowledge

these people didn't exist 2000 years ago
And they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast
And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us
fits : exhaustive infallible foreknowledge ✔
open theism X

So what if they didn't exist yet?

A prophecy concerning the behavior of a future group does not require exhaustive infallible knowledge of every individual who will eventually belong to that group.

You're making the same invalid extrapolation again:

God can accurately describe particular future events.

Therefore:

God exhaustively and infallibly knows every future free choice.

That conclusion does not follow.

we are talking about Revelation written 2000 years ago . He is talking about his second coming & what precedes it , what will happen , not using language for might happen
fits : exhaustive infallible foreknowledge ✔
open theism X

Again, God can determine that particular future events will happen.

We've been over this repeatedly.

Certain future events being settled does not mean the entire future is exhaustively settled.

You keep presenting evidence for the former and pretending you've thereby proved the latter.

You haven't.

God responsible for this?
(Revelation 9:21) And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
fits : exhaustive infallible foreknowledge ✔
open theism X

No.

Why would God have to be responsible for their refusal to repent merely because He predicts that they won't?

Again, you're presenting a false dichotomy:

Either God causes their non-repentance,
or God must possess exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice.

Those are not the only possibilities.

(Revelation of John 14:6-7) [6] And I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those dwelling on the earth, even to every nation and kindred and tongue and people, [7] saying with a great voice, Fear God and give glory to Him! For the hour of His judgment has come. And worship Him who made the heaven and the earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Rev 16:9 did not repent

Answered already.

And notice that Revelation itself portrays God sending the everlasting gospel and commanding people to fear Him, give Him glory, and worship Him.

That certainly does not establish that their response was an eternally settled free choice with no genuine alternative.

revelation is 100% exhaustive infallible foreknowledge

Saying it doesn't make it so.

then God posses exhaustive infallible foreknowledge 100%

False.

You're also conflating two completely different concepts:

accuracy

and

scope.

A prophecy can be 100% accurate without being an exhaustive description of every future fact.

"100% accurate" does not mean "100% exhaustive."

how is it something God can have a little of ?

Because "infallible" and "exhaustive" mean different things.

Infallibility concerns whether a particular thing God knows can be wrong.

Exhaustiveness concerns the scope of what He knows.

God can infallibly know that a particular future event will occur without thereby infallibly knowing every future event and every future free choice.

There's nothing contradictory about that.

If God determines that Christ will return, He infallibly knows that Christ will return.

That does not magically entail that every free choice made by every human being between now and then is likewise infallibly settled.

God gave 56 individual prophecies in the book of revelation,

So what?

Even if I grant that all 56 are infallibly known future events, you've established exactly 56 examples of future events God knows.

You have not thereby established that every future fact and every future free choice is infallibly known.

Fifty-six examples are still not "exhaustive."
You're trying to move from:

God infallibly knows these future events.

to:

Therefore God infallibly knows all future events and all future free choices.

That conclusion does not follow.

I remember open theist saying , God lost track of where Adam& Eve were LOL

So what?

Even if some Open Theist somewhere said that, it wouldn't establish that Open Theism is false.

And attributing someone else's argument to me doesn't answer anything I've said.

the God that open theism portrays can't remember where the only 2 people on the earth are

Straw man.

And one you've already been corrected on repeatedly.

forgets that sodom was evil

Explained before.

See Post #278, especially Arguments 6-8.

If you think the answer is wrong, address the answer.

Repeating your caricature doesn't make it true.

where does it use language that indicates not settled fact,

Where does it use language saying that every event described is an eternally settled fact that God has exhaustively and infallibly known from eternity past?

It doesn't.

That's your theological interpretation of the passage.

You're trying to shift the burden of proof.
You are the one claiming that these verses establish exhaustive infallible foreknowledge.

So demonstrate it.

Showing that Revelation describes particular future events does not establish that every future free choice is eternally settled.

it is only your theology that makes it unsettled

No.

And the reverse accusation would be just as easy:

It is only your theology that makes every future free choice exhaustively settled.

But merely trading assertions gets us nowhere.

The question is what actually follows from the text.

Revelation tells us that God knows, predicts, determines, and brings about particular future events.

It does not say:

"Every future free choice of every creature has always been an exhaustively settled truth value infallibly known by God."

That's the additional proposition you keep importing into the text.

"And they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast. And they worshiped the beast"

Answered previously.

Quoting it again still doesn't turn:

God knows or predicts this particular future event

into:

God exhaustively and infallibly knows every future free choice.

You keep making the exact same invalid inference.

 

[way 2 go]

Notice how the KNOWLEDGE can only come AFTER the CHOICE is made.

If you can possibly make TWO CONTRADICTORY choices in the future... they CANNOT BOTH be known as infallibly made before ONE is made.

You are illogically insane.

God has exhaustive infallible foreknowledge and knows "Rev 16:9 they did not repent" .

if God infallible foreknew the choice of "they did repent" Rev 16:9 would say that

choice then knowledge

when did God infallible foreknow "they did not repent" ? at least 2000 ish years ago
how can God infallible foreknow "they did not repent"? I don't know

open theist , if God infallible foreknows "they did not repent" , then they do not do it freely.

why do they not do it freely ? it is necessary to preserve God's infallible foreknowledge
but not forced ,determined , restrained , just necessary
knowledge is not causation

how does God infallible foreknow "they did not repent"? I don't know
why does God infallible foreknow "they did not repent"? God infallible foreknows their choice

 

[Right Divider]

God has exhaustive infallible foreknowledge

A claim that you've yet to try to support.

and knows "Rev 16:9 they did not repent" .

That does not describe EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge.

JR has explained your problem many times. I realize that you do not understand the problem and are incapable to doing so.

if God infallible foreknew the choice of "they did repent" Rev 16:9 would say that

choice then knowledge

YOU are the one that said (and correctly so) "CHOICE THEN KNOWLEDGE".

 

[JudgeRightly]

God has exhaustive infallible foreknowledge

Saying it doesn't make it so.

and knows "Rev 16:9 they did not repent" .

God can know what a group of people will do within a given set of circumstances.

That does not establish exhaustive infallible foreknowledge of every future free choice.

if God infallible foreknew the choice of "they did repent" Rev 16:9 would say that

Begging the question.

You're assuming that whichever choice ultimately occurs must already have been infallibly foreknown as a settled fact.

That's the point under dispute.

choice then knowledge

Exactly.

Choice, then knowledge.

If the choice is logically prior to the knowledge of that choice, then the choice must first become definite before there is a definite choice to know.

You cannot simultaneously say:

"choice then knowledge"

and then insist that God already possessed infallible knowledge of that choice thousands of years before the choice was made.

Those two claims pull in opposite directions.

when did God infallible foreknow "they did not repent"? at least 2000 ish years ago

Begging the question again.

You've simply assumed that Revelation 16:9 is an instance of exhaustive infallible foreknowledge rather than prophecy concerning a future group under particular circumstances.

But you also just said:

"choice then knowledge."

So which is it?

Does the choice logically precede the knowledge of the choice?

Or did the knowledge of the supposedly free choice already exist thousands of years before the choice?

You don't get both.

how can God infallible foreknow "they did not repent"? I don't know

That's an important admission.

You don't know how your own proposed mechanism works, yet you keep insisting that the verse proves your conclusion.

It doesn't.

You have a theological assumption and a verse you believe fits it.

That is not the same thing as demonstrating that the verse teaches exhaustive infallible foreknowledge.

open theist , if God infallible foreknows "they did not repent" , then they do not do it freely.

why do they not do it freely? it is necessary to preserve God's infallible foreknowledge
but not forced ,determined , restrained , just necessary
knowledge is not causation

You finally admitted the point.

"it is necessary."

Exactly.

If their non-repentance is necessary, then repentance is not a genuine alternative.

You can say "not forced" or "not restrained" all you want.

That does not restore an alternative that necessity has excluded.

And once again:

The issue is not causation.

Nobody is claiming God's knowledge physically causes their action.

The issue is whether they genuinely could have done otherwise.

If their non-repentance is necessary, then they could not have repented.

That means there is no genuine alternative.

And that means the choice is not free in the libertarian sense we've been discussing.

how does God infallible foreknow "they did not repent"? I don't know
why does God infallible foreknow "they did not repent"? God infallible foreknows their choice

That's circular.

Why does God infallibly foreknow their choice? Because God infallibly foreknows their choice.

You've explained nothing.

And once again, you're attributing your own premise to Open Theism.

Open Theism does not say:

God infallibly foreknows an unsettled future free choice, but somehow the choice remains free.

That's your position.

Open Theism says that God infallibly knows whatever is actually settled and knowable as settled.

If a future free choice is genuinely open between A and not-A, then neither outcome is yet an already-settled fact to be infallibly foreknown as the one outcome that must occur.

Your entire argument keeps assuming the very proposition you're supposed to be proving.