godrulz37

God has perfect past and present knowledge because these are fixed realites to be known. He can also predict much of the future based on available knowledge or things He will unilaterally bring to pass apart from creaturely freedom. Examples that involve proximal knowledge cannot be extrapolated as proof of exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies. I am all for a biblicist approach unless it takes statements like ‘all things are possible for God’ (context relates to salvation, not logical absurdities like square circles) or ‘God knows all things’ (context relates to the heart, not the entire non-existent future) out of context or proof texting a preconceived view contradicted by other verses or principles. Modal logic is difficult, but relevant to the discussion. Even if we have ideas that are not in a proof text (and we all do), it should stand up to sound thinking and will not be contradicted by the cumulative evidence. I would say that all views have some difficulties and objections, but which are less problematic and reasonably defensible in light of Scripture (final and ultimate authority) and sound thinking? Your two verses are not usual objections to Open Theism and I do not find them problematic or supportive for or against either view, per se. As with Calvinism vs Arminianism, we all claim biblical support for our views, but are not immune to reading our paradigm into the text. Some Calvinistic verses reflect a Calvinistic bias of the translators, so I agree with Cheryl to do original language research (which still creates disputes among experts and amateurs alike).