It appears from this question and answer that the Jehovah's Witnesses hold a slightly different understanding of God's omniscience than the typical Orthodox view wherein God always and at all times knows absolutely everything past, present, and future. From what I understand, the JW position is that God **can** know anything He wishes to know but, when it comes to foreknowledge, He does not choose to exercise the ability universally. In other words, God chooses what things He will and, by extension, will not foreknow. Various branches of Open Theism attempt to describe how the future can be epistemically open to God and the two main branches hold the future to be either alethically settled or open. This related question outlines the 4 main branches of Open Theism and, of the four, I believe JW thought lines up most closely with Voluntary Nescience (although I am not sure if JW believe that the future is alethically settled): > Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents ... Even if Vulontary Nescience is not an accurate summation of JW belief regarding God's omniscience, still they do assert that God chooses what He will and will not foreknow. Searching through the Scriptures it seems that there are a great many things which it was critical for God to have foreknown and which, indeed, He did foreknow. Most notably, all prophesy spoken by or through God consists of foreknown future events. I say foreknown because God is not guessing: He is telling beforehand what **will** come to pass. Some of those are things that He brings to pass and one might say that He foreknows what He Himself will do. Others are things that hinge upon human decisions (often a multiplicity). My question is, according to Jehovah's Witnesses, How does God foreknow which things He must foreknow and which things He can safely leave unforeseen without resorting to the equivalent of guessing? Another way of phrasing this is, If God chooses to foreknow certain things from the set of all of the possible things that there are to foreknow how can He identify the critical items and choose to foreknow them without knowing what all of the non-critical items actually are?

"3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him." (Ephesians 1:3-4) In the above verse the Apostle Paul writing to the believers at the church in Ephesus is declaring that God the Father chose 'us' i.e. the believers, before the foundation of the world. If that were the case all the believers whoever was and is and will be believing in Jesus and thus become believers only those people were chosen to become believers much before their creation. That's basically predestination of certain individuals to become believers. However, that effectively leaves out all those who are not chosen by God to go to hell. In other words, it is God who creates certain individuals meant to go to heaven and others to hell. If the above statements were to be true, then, God will be unjust and unloving. Furthermore, it will be unfair for God to command his people to preach the gospel to all creation. In the light of the above conundrum how to understand "God chose us before the foundation of the world?"

The Bible testifies that God has preordained many events or roles much before they came to pass. Likewise, the same Bible testifies to the fact the God knows the future events and roles. One of them or both of them give rise to the prophecies mentioned in the Bible. Preordination is obviously what God proactively plans or determines. Whereas foreknowledge implies that God is passively aware of what would transpire in the future. Either way, prophecies make sense because of these two qualities of God. Here is the question to protestant Christians, which one precedes the other?

> In short, open theism posits that since God and humans are free, > God's knowledge is dynamic and God's providence flexible. Whereas > several versions of traditional theism picture God's knowledge of the > future as a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism sees it as a > plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming > settled as time moves forward. Thus, the future, as well as God's > knowledge of it, is open. Open Theism states that, while God knows everything that can be known, the future free-will choices made by individual persons do not fall in the knowable category. In Isaiah 46 we find the following: > Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (vs. 9-10) There are no explicit or implicit limitations on God's foreknowledge contained in this passage: He declares (and therefore must know in advance) the end from the beginning. Open Theism declares that human, free-will choices are unknowable in advance by God. However it appears that, since the inception of any future circumstance is laden with, and even produced by, a myriad of human choices, declaring from ancient times the things that are not yet done would necessitate intimate knowledge of future human choices. On what basis does Open Theism limit God's possible foreknowledge? Of interest is this peer-reviewed article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (entitled Foreknowledge and Free Will) arguing against the assumption that perfect foreknowledge eradicates free will.

The relationship between God's foreknowledge (or omniscience) and the free will of humans seems to be a complicated topic where multiple positions exist. Regardless of my position (which you can read about here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101932/how-do-non-open-theists-reason-a-basis-for-free-will and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101985/how-would-an-open-theist-explain-that-gods-exhaustive-foreknowledge-would-lead) I think it would be helpful to have an overview of all the various positions that arose (including Open Theism). The main questions I have for each position would be: - How do they imagine God's foreknowledge works? - Is God's foreknowledge exhaustive or limited? - What are the biggest biblical arguments they put forward? - Do humans have "free will" and if so, how does it work? - Do they avoid Fatalism/Predeterminism? If so how?

The Bible does state very many times that God already knows our earthly and eternal destinies. Jesus chose Judas Iscariot because he knew his destiny was to betray him. Jesus knew Paul would try to persecute the church in Damascus and intercepted him on the way. Jesus also knew the thief to his right will confess and they will be re united paradise the same day. My question is, if God already knows who gets to be saved and who doesn't, why should anyone make an effort to be saved when an individual's destiny is already known to God?

Luke 1:31-32: > "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father." When greeted by the angel Gabriel, Mary was told she would give birth to the son of God and that his kingdom would know no end. Mary was not written to have been told that her baby was destined to be crucified since before his birth. She unknowingly killed her son the moment she gave birth to him; her sole purpose was to give life to a baby so he could be killed in the name of everybody else. There was nothing she could do to save him from the very beginning; Jesus was born doomed by God. If Mary was wholly unaware of the prophecy, did she know it wasn't her fault? She was responsible for Jesus as his mother, and from her perspective, he was killed under her care. Did Mary blame herself for her sons' death? I cannot understand the justification behind bringing so much pain to Mary for being the mother of the son of God. Long story short, **my question is whether or not Mary was aware of Jesus's destined crucifixion, and if not, why couldn't she know**?

According to theistic evolutionist Christians, did God allow their destruction because these creatures had done something to warrant it? This is because God is all knowing and knew from the moment that comet began moving that it was headed for earth and could have done something to stop it from causing this destruction but let it happen, and the most plausible reason for God allowing this is if those creatures had sinned and hence guilty. The hermeneutic reference that shows God had foreknowledge about that comet is this verse. *1 John 3:20* >For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

So in the comments of this answer: [How do non-Open-Theists reason a basis for "Free will"?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/101939/46521) The question: > "Why must it be that a choice that is known by God in advance is not > your own? [...]" – Dark Malthorp was raised. My position in general is that through God's exhaustive foreknowledge, the possible options one can choose will be reduced to one. To my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong with this assumption) this position corresponds with the position of Open-Theism. Therefore, I was wondering if there is an Open-Theist argumentation or explanation that can demonstrate this correlation between omniscience and determinism more precisely and concisely than my attempt in the comments. *God's foreknowledge*: God's knowledge of the future. It can logically be viewed as exhaustive (God knows absolutely everything, which is how I would define omniscience in regards to future), limited (God knows something/a lot but not everything), or non-existent (God knows nothing about the future. *predetermination*: This is the view that every action/decision of humans is already determined, meaning unchangeable regardless of the "illusion" or choice. This could also result in Fatalism . *accountability*: Is the possibility that humans can be justifiably punished for their actions.

The underlying issue/debate that I am having is the reconciliation of God's omniscience (the foreknowledge part in particular) with free will (or lack of it, resulting in Fatalism). In short: If God knows **everything**, including every future action I take before I was even born, how can I take responsibility for sin if I can't prove God wrong? For example: @telion's unborn daughter will lie on 12.12.2050 (I ask this on 02.06.2024 without even having a girlfriend). => If that future sin is known then it follows (at least for me) that this sin is predetermined. => This contradicts the idea of human responsibility for their sins and the free will God provides. It also means that God is responsible for all human sin, which is probably the wrong conclusion. One way to resolve this is to "redefine" the definition of God's omniscience or free will. This is why this question is a follow-up of this one: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101929/what-is-the-biblical-concept-idea-meaning-of-gods-omniscience My personal solution would be to say that God has knowledge of the future but this knowledge is limited in such a way, that human free will is possible. I recently came to know that this position actually has a name which is Open Theism . In the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83747/which-verses-in-the-bible-say-that-god-is-omniscient the [accepted answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83748/10672) features a defense against Open Theism that includes a lot of scripture, which comes to the conclusion that God has "exhaustive knowledge of the future". However, I either don't understand the actual solution that is provided to the problem of predetermination provided by this defense, or I am simply unconvinced. I think the reason for that is the definition of "free will" or as John Frame puts it: "uncaused actions". I don't think actions are uncaused but there is still a freedom of decision. Meaning if I have 2 options to choose from, then the "probability" of which one I will pick doesn't have to be 50/50. Let's say I have to decide which subject I should get a college degree in: Based on my interests, upbringing, and life goals, specific options are more likely than others so regardless of what I choose, the decision is not free of influence. Influence is not the same thing as predetermination, as I can choose to disregard a specific influence. **So how do I imagine the perspective of God on the future and free will?** I think it is similar to the perspective of the developer of the Game Detroit: Become Human . (To get a better feel for the concept behind the game, see [this video]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3cLDDwLeJA); at 16.48 the player has to decide between lying or telling the truth.) In this game, the player plays through a story and is provided with various decisions that can greatly impact the overall storyline of the game. In this case, the developer knows and provides all possible options. So he is not particularly surprised by a specific event. The player in this case has limited free will, meaning he cannot decide to simply become a shopkeeper e.g., as that is not an option in the game. But the decisions provided to the player are free. I also think that based on God's almightiness, "forgetting" or "choosing to not know" which options people finally decide, should be in the realm of possibility. The competing view/analogy is that of a movie, where the viewer is "beyond time" from the perspectives of the characters in the movie (as I can fast forward, go back, or replay the movie). In this case, though, I argue that the characters in the movie, don't have actual free will, or at least the "free will" in that case is illusionary. So if I as a movie creator make a story where a person commits a sin, then I can hardly blame the character for it. So to summarize the question(s): - How do non-Open Theists argue for human free will? - How do non-Open Theists argue against predeterminism? - How do non-Open Theists finally conclude that humans are responsible for their sins?

If God respects our free will and doesn't interfere in our decisions, why should we pray for things (petition)? For example, if I pray for my daily bread, God cannot force me to go to the store, buy bread, and bring it home. All these choices are decisions I must make freely. Or if I ask for a good grade on my exam, God cannot force me to study, or choose my answers. How can God help me without breaking my free will? Furthermore, He already knows the future and exactly what grade I will get (which is a part of His perfect plan), so why should I pray for a certain grade?

In Hebrews 8, the author discusses the two covenants God has made. Why the need for two? Surely God knew that the first could not be kept by man. Why didn’t He just start with the covenant of Christ?

> 1 Kings 3:5-14 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > 5 In Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream at night; and God > said, “Ask what you wish Me to give you.” > > Solomon’s Prayer > > 6 Then Solomon said, “You have shown great lovingkindness to Your > servant David my father, according as he walked before You in [a]truth > and righteousness and uprightness of heart toward You; and You have > reserved for him this great lovingkindness, that You have given him a > son to sit on his throne, as it is this day. 7 Now, O Lord my God, You > have made Your servant king in place of my father David, yet I am but > a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in. 8 Your servant > is in the midst of Your people which You have chosen, a great people > who are too many to be numbered or counted. **9 So give Your servant > [c]an understanding heart to judge Your people to discern between good > and evil. For who is able to judge this [d]great people of Yours?”** > > > > God’s Answer > > **10 [e]It was pleasing in the sight of the Lord that Solomon had asked > this thing. 11 God said to him, “Because you have asked this thing and > have not asked for yourself [f]long life, nor have asked riches for > yourself, nor have you asked for the life of your enemies, but have > asked for yourself [g]discernment to understand justice, 12 behold, I > have done according to your words. Behold, I have given you a wise and > discerning heart, so that there has been no one like you before you, > nor shall one like you arise after you.** 13 I have also given you what > you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that there will not be > any among the kings like you all your days. 14 If you walk in My ways, > keeping My statutes and commandments, as your father David walked, > then I will prolong your days.” > > 1 Kings 11:1-13 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > Solomon Turns from God > > **11 Now King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter > of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 > from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the sons of > Israel, “You shall not [a]associate with them, nor shall they > associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after > their gods.”** Solomon held fast to these in love. 3 He had seven > hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives > turned his heart away. 4 For when Solomon was old, his wives turned > his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not [c]wholly > devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had > been. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians > and after [d]Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites. 6 Solomon > did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not follow the > Lord fully, as David his father had done. 7 Then Solomon built a high > place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which > is [e]east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestable idol of the > sons of Ammon. 8 Thus also he did for all his foreign wives, who > burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. > > > > **9 Now the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned > away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, > 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go > after other gods; but he did not observe what the Lord had commanded. > 11 So the Lord said to Solomon, “Because [f]you have done this, and > you have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded > you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your > servant.** 12 Nevertheless I will not do it in your days for the sake of > your father David, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 > However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one > tribe to your son for the sake of My servant David and for the sake of > Jerusalem which I have chosen.” Why was Solomon’s Godly Wisdom Not enough to prevent him from sinning by marrying “Non-Hebrew” women? To elaborate, if Solomon had so much Godly Wisdom then he should have been Wise enough to know that marrying “Non-Hebrew” women would be disastrous. And What should he probably have asked God for in addition to his request for Godly Wisdom that might have prevented him from sinning?

God knows, before even creating Earth, which people would choose Him on Earth and eventually go to Heaven. Therefore, God could just create these people and choose not to create the people who will go to Hell. Furthermore, because God is all-powerful, He could instantly implant all the spiritual growth, experiences, knowledge, etc. that these people would have gotten on Earth into their minds in Heaven - making the need for the experience/journey we go through on Earth unnecessary. Therefore, why would God create Earth as a "testing phase" for humans to grow, learn, and choose Him, when He can already have Heaven now with free humans that will love and serve Him? He could bypass all the suffering and evil in the world by doing this and achieve the same end result - a Heaven where all the people, of their own free will, love Him, serve Him, and share in His beautiful creation.

I am slightly confused about foreordination. What I thought I had understood was that foreordination is happening in the premortal life retro-causally because of the faith and good choices in this life. That's how I used to understand Alma 13, since it talks about how the foreordination happens due to the foreknowledge of God and their faith and good works (which I assumed means in this life due to the close proximity of mentioning foreknowledge??). This all makes sense for me considering God's foreknowledge of our mortal life and our ignorance of the premortal due to the veil. It is in line with what I think to understand from D&C, that the elect are elect because they don't harden their hearts, not that they don't harden their hearts because they are elect. However when I look up foreordination on the church website, I am lead to understood a foreordination is result of faith and good choices in premortal life. Which has me scratching my head because Alma 13:5 explicitely calls out choices that would be made. So, which is it? Maybe both?

Reformed Protestants believe that God selected individuals at the time of the beginning of the world and predestined those individuals for salvation. Orthodox believe that God knew at the time of the beginning which individuals would choose to believe and on the basis of that foreknowledge predestined those individuals for salvation. Is there any theological school of thought which believes that what God predestined is that salvation would be given by grace through faith -- in other words, that God predestined a process, not a set of persons?

Here are two statements that I have always considered self-evident: > God’s total foreknowledge is not compatible with genuine human freedom. > > God is with us at all times but does not know in advance what we will think or do. Having stated my “Axioms of God’s Foreknowledge vs. Human Freedom”, I have gradually realized that what is for me self evident, and therefore axiomatic, is not so for many Christians. Anyway, I have come to realize that it is necessary to demonstrate what to me is obvious, either directly, or by disproving the opposite, viz. the position that is referred to as "compatibilism": > [**Compatibilism**] God’s total foreknowledge is compatible with genuine human freedom (see e.g. Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom Are Compatible @ jstor.org) **Is there a way to prove that God’s foreknowledge is incompatible with genuine human freedom? If so, can someone provide an Answer with that proof?** **P.S.** While I am interested to receive "an overview of all Christian positions ", **the priority is for a logically valid answer to the Question**.

[Open theism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism) , in a nutshell, asserts that the future free choices of agents endowed with free will are unknowable, and therefore that God, though omniscient, is not capable of knowing in advance what we will freely choose in any particular future situation because future free choices are unknowable things, as I just said. What is the biblical basis for Open Theism?

Biblical Unitarians believe that Jesus was only a man and that he was given the gift of the holy spirit at his baptism in order to help him resist sinning and complete the purpose for which God the Father sent him. As near as I can understand BU believe that Jesus had his own will which was sometimes different and even at odds with the will of God (for example, "nevertheless not my will but your will be done"). I think BU would agree that God knew beforehand that Jesus would succeed as evidenced by the large quantity of prophecies given to that effect. Here are just a couple of examples: > Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. As many were astonished at you— his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind— so shall he sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.- Isaiah 52:13-15 > Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. - Isaiah 53:10-11 Jesus knew the Scriptures very, very well (to say the least) and he both knew what they said about God's Messiah and also that he was that very Messiah: > And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”  And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” - Luke 4:17-21 He knew ahead of time that he would be handed over to the Gentiles by the Jews, mistreated, killed, and rise from the dead: > for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.” - Mark 9:31 In keeping with all of the Levitical prescriptions for sacrifices, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is proof that he was successful in offering himself as a sacrifice without any spot or blemish of sin: > Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. - 1 Timothy 3:16 I have seen BU content stating that Jesus, since he had a merely human will and was tempted in every way like we are, certainly could have sinned. Given that Jesus knew he would justify many by rising from the dead and that this resurrection on our behalf required his death in a sinless condition: 1) Do Biblical Unitarians agree that Jesus must have known ahead of time that he would live a sinless life? 2) If yes, in what sense can it be said that Jesus "could have" sinned?  

The reformed, *Westminster Confession of faith*, reads in chapter three : > God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His > own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass Does *foreordained* mean God wanted certain historical evils like wars to happen? And that there is nothing *we could have done*, for those events not to happen, since God, *from all eternity*, willed them?