Chronology

[RandyPNW]

I don't know who Walter Martin is, but I agree with him.

He's dead now, but if you ever want to study the American cults in the light Christianity, he's the guy to read. The "Kingdom of the Cults" is a classic. I attended a few of his classes at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, CA. And I also listened to quite a number of his weekly radio broadcasts, which was a live program taking questions from the Bible. It was called the "Bible Answerman." Hank Hanegraaff took over from him when he died. Hank has also authored a few books.

Human free will isn't delaying anything.

I don't know how you can say this? In the beginning, from the "foundation of the world," God's plan was for man to exercise free will, to choose from any tree of the garden to eat from. They also had freedom to eat from the Tree of Life, which would give them the equivalent of Eternal Life.

Choosing to eat from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge prevented Man from obtaining Eternal Life until Christ came and died on the Cross. That is a considerable delay. Not only that, but even after we receive Eternal Life from Christ, we have to wait to dispose of our mortal bodies and exchange them for immortal bodies.

Thanks for your response and points. I'm always listening to fill in the gaps in my thinking.

[journeyman]

There's a difference between the view that Genesis 1 contains all of God's works, and the view that the days of Genesis 1 are prophecies corresponding to 1,000 year periods over the last ~6,000 years (the misunderstanding of 2 Peter notwithstanding).

Neither view has merit in my estimation, but if you find either compelling would you mind sharing more?

Sure. Just to get this out of the way, I'm not talking about how old the earth is. I don't want to discuss that, but prophecy is declaring what will be and Gen.1 shows what will be from all the works of God in Gen.1 before he rested.
The creation of light and its separation from darkness, the creation and division between heaven and earth, the creation of seed bearing plants, animals and humans, all producing after their kind and so on are past, present and future truths until the end. Add to this the expanse of scripture showing dual meanings for the created things mentioned above and it's easy to see how prophetic Gen.1 is.

What you've quoted, and what Joshua goes on to assert, is not an example of anything other than a bald assertion.

The 'mystery' of Ephesians 5:32 comes through Paul's use of marriage imagery to describe the relationship between Christ and the church. What Paul isn't doing is using Eve symbolically. Christ/husband and Church/wife is the metaphor.

A metaphor is a symbol, so Eph.5:32 is symbolic. In fact, since both men and women can become one with Christ, it's Pauls intention to show that Jesus is God,

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1Cor.11:3

And when the human instrumentality project is complete, the Lilin will finally take their place among the gods.

Sorry, I thought were saying just saying cool things.

I don't know what you mean by this, but I do know why the woman should pray with her head (that is, her husband) covered, but the man shouldnot cover his head (that is Christ).

[journeyman]

He's dead now, but if you ever want to study the American cults in the light Christianity, he's the guy to read. The "Kingdom of the Cults" is a classic. I attended a few of his classes at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, CA. And I also listened to quite a number of his weekly radio broadcasts, which was a live program taking questions from the Bible. It was called the "Bible Answerman." Hank Hanegraaff took over from him when he died. Hank has also authored a few books.

i've heard the name Hank Hanegraaff, but don't know anything about him. Thank you for the incite.

I don't know how you can say this? In the beginning, from the "foundation of the world," God's plan was for man to exercise free will, to choose from any tree of the garden to eat from. They also had freedom to eat from the Tree of Life, which would give them the equivalent of Eternal Life.

Choosing to eat from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge prevented Man from obtaining Eternal Life until Christ came and died on the Cross. That is a considerable delay. Not only that, but even after we receive Eternal Life from Christ, we have to wait to dispose of our mortal bodies and exchange them for immortal bodies.

But since immortality is being born of God, we're already immortal and I just told you
why human free will isn't delaying anything. It's because God is merciful ,

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.....
Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts
Mal.3:6-7

Thanks for your response and points. I'm always listening to fill in the gaps in my thinking.

I keep checking for gaps, but can't find any. Thanks for the talk.

[RandyPNW]

But since immortality is being born of God, we're already immortal

I was referring to the resurrection to immortality. We have to wait for that. And mankind had to wait thousands of years for Christ to come to give us the guarantee of immortality.

But yes, we obtain eternal life when we receive Christ. Agreed!

[Athanasius]

Sure. Just to get this out of the way, I'm not talking about how old the earth is. I don't want to discuss that, but prophecy is declaring what will be and Gen.1 shows what will be from all the works of God in Gen.1 before he rested.

Is that prophecy, though? Genesis 1 shows God's original intent for creation, and while this is an intent we'll get back to in the new creation, the new creation will be different, and Genesis 1 doesn't make any claims on what life in the new creation is like other than the shared ideal of creation being exactly as God intends it to be.

The creation of light and its separation from darkness, the creation and division between heaven and earth, the creation of seed bearing plants, animals and humans, all producing after their kind and so on are past, present and future truths until the end. Add to this the expanse of scripture showing dual meanings for the created things mentioned above and it's easy to see how prophetic Gen.1 is.

I'm not sure how this functions as prophecy given the description of divisions corresponds to our present creation.

A metaphor is a symbol, so Eph.5:32 is symbolic. In fact, since both men and women can become one with Christ, it's Pauls intention to show that Jesus is God,

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1Cor.11:3

A metaphor isn't a symbol.

Your claim is that Eve was used by Paul as a symbol of the church, so let's stick to that claim. Where do you see Paul using Eve as a symbol of the church, in Ephesians 5?

I don't know what you mean by this, but I do know why the woman should pray with her head (that is, her husband) covered, but the man shouldnot cover his head (that is Christ).

The 'Human instrumentality project' is a major theme in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Mostly, I had nothing of much interest to say to the tautology - I'm assuming - that 'When Christ's work is done Christ will return' or something to that effect. It seemed as related to the idea of Eve as a symbol of the church as your statement did.

I was also wondering how you might reply to it, and apparently, head coverings bringing honour or dishonour on one's 'spiritual authority' was the direction of choice? How is this related to the idea of Eve as a symbol of the Church in Paul?

[journeyman]

[I was referring to the resurrection to immortality. We have to wait for that. And mankind had to wait thousands of years for Christ to come to give us the guarantee of immortality.

But yes, we obtain eternal life when we receive Christ. Agreed!

I get what you are referring to. The thing is, we now walk by the Spirit of Christ. We should see things as he saw them. For instance,

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: Eph.1:3

The heavenly places aren't locations, but states believers are in.

Set your mind on things above.....Col.3:2

Our minds should be in the heavenly state. As an example of how our view of things change in knowing Jesus, believers should come to the knowledge that,

the Most High rules in the kingdom of men.....Dan.4:17

But this declaration seems in conflict with,

.....thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. Rev.1-:17

It's as if there was a time when God wasn't reigning, but at some point began to reign, which is contrary with the fact that God has always reigned.

The solution is that the saints in the heavenlies, the heavenly minded believers, have come to know through Christ that God has always reigned. It isn't that God changed. It's that our perception of God had changed.

[Athanasius]

Yes, but we have to breakdown what that means. If God created a perfect world, He also created the alternate world of the Fall. What it means is that His Word is prepared to deal with any eventuality.

Unlike many, I don't have a problem with an open-ended universe. I think God is big enough to enter into the equation our free will. Does this mean that God doesn't know what I'm going to choose to do today? Yes, it means that. But it also means that I can do nothing outside of the parameters He's already created for my choices. He's surprised by nothing.

Middle knowledge / Molinism seems likely, to me. Well, necessary, to avoid that particular issue of God's foreknowledge conflicting with our freedom to act.

[Athanasius]

Either way, you're limiting God. You're either saying He cannot abide by freedom of human will and free human choices, or you are saying that I'm limiting God by saying He cannot know what our choices will be.

I think we need to determine where the limit originates from. For example, God can't create a square circle, but that limitation is potentially different from God not knowing the outcome of a choice, i.e., two of His attributes, omniscience and foreknowledge, aren't. That is unless we categorise choices as we do square circles.

But I don't think we can make that kind of appeal, because choices instantiate history. Do we have any reason to think it's a logical impossibility for God to know all or foreknow all things?

I get around that by saying God knows the extent of our choices, and cannot always know what specific choice we will make. What will it be--God is incapable of letting us make our own choices?

We could offer middle knowledge, suggesting similarly to Molinas that God knows not just the course of events that actually happen, but every state of affairs that could happen, and every possible world consequently. That is, what is to me is a hypothetical is to God, knowledge.

That's how an Anselmnian argument would work, right? If I can think of a possible world, God must surely know it.

So God has a plan and God knows everything that will and could happen. God implements that plan in creation, and like the divine chess player that He is, that plan executes even in light of the myriad complications wrought by choice.

Jesus is indeed slain from the foundation of the world, but not from *before* the foundation of the world. He existed before the foundation of the world as the Word of God. I believe God predestined Him to be revealed as king over the human race.

That's not usually the discussion people have regarding Revelation 13:8, but before I say anything else, how far are you taking this? Would you say that God had no knowledge of what was going to happen to creation prior to creating? Or that God only came up with His plan after Adam sinned, or something else?

But he was not planned, from before the foundation of the world, to be slain. God didn't want man to sin. If so, then it was possible that man not sin. Just my view, brother.

The incarnation could be planned, then the plan instantiated, contingent on Adam and Eve's sin. It could also be that the incarnation was the plan all along, and contingent on Adam's sin, we either have our fallen world and that instance of the incarnational plan, or a world where the fall never occurred and whatever the incarnational plan was in that case.

I think we err in thinking unidimensionally about God's omniscience and foreknowledge.

[RandyPNW]

Either way, you're limiting God. You're either saying He cannot abide by freedom of human will and free human choices, or you are saying that I'm limiting God by saying He cannot know what our choices will be.

I think we need to determine where the limit originates from. For example, God can't create a square circle, but that limitation is potentially different from God not knowing the outcome of a choice, i.e., two of His attributes, omniscience and foreknowledge, aren't. That is unless we categorise choices as we do square circles.

But I don't think we can make that kind of appeal, because choices instantiate history. Do we have any reason to think it's a logical impossibility for God to know all or foreknow all things?

I understand what you're saying, but I don't know how you can classify omniscience and foreknowledge with "creating a square circle." The whole question revolves around what defines God or not. If by definition God *must* know all of our decisions in advance, then of course we cannot question whether He is able to do so.

But I don't accept that definition of God, since my definition of God does not require that He know in advance what choices we will make. It is sufficient for Him, as God, to determine perhaps 2 or 3 choices that we may make on our own, with an automatic response from God lying in wait for whatever choice we may make.

This means that God cannot be taken by surprise by our choices, but has an answer for anything we may do. And therefore, nothing moves beyond the circle of His divine control over the human will. This is my definition of God.

The reason I *must* conclude this is because God has self-imposed this definition upon Himself as God. He is the one who determined that Man may choose freely to eat of any tree of the garden, and may refuse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. God could not know what decision man would make until man actually made his choice. Either way, God would not stop being God.

Some of what you suggest is similar to what I'm saying, yes.

Jesus is indeed slain from the foundation of the world, but not from *before* the foundation of the world. He existed before the foundation of the world as the Word of God. I believe God predestined Him to be revealed as king over the human race.

That's not usually the discussion people have regarding Revelation 13:8, but before I say anything else, how far are you taking this? Would you say that God had no knowledge of what was going to happen to creation prior to creating? Or that God only came up with His plan after Adam sinned, or something else?

I believe the universe was darkened by Satan's fall before God created man. Man was therefore told to avoid the temptation to do the same as Satan did, which is to rebel against God's word.

So God knew that man could either obey His word, and fulfill the plan to fill the world with people for God's Son, or they would fall and bring upon themselves Plan B, the plan of redemption.

At any rate, Christ was preplanned to come to be the first among many brethren, a divine man presiding as king over all men world-wide. His potential, from the beginning, therefore included two plans, Plan A to fill the world with unfallen people who choose to have eternal life with God, or Plan B, to embrace the slain lamb for redemption and to go on to complete the original plan to fill the world with people living in eternal fellowship with God.

Christ was either slain from the foundation of the world in the sense that Adam and Eve fell in the early part of human history, or it means that Christ was potentially going to be slain should man decide to fall. The "foundation of the world" may thus refer either to the actual creation of the earth or to the time when man fell. I'm not sure.

The foreknowledge of Christ's being slain would make more sense once man had already chosen to fall. Inasmuch as he was commanded not to fall, and had the choice to not fall, indicates that the Lamb was not predestined to be slain.
But you show you have a pretty good grasp of what I'm trying to say. I've clarified a bit, so if I didn't cover your concerns perhaps you could be more specific.

However, we may be getting into subjects that transcend our ability to understand. On the other hand, I believe we should take literally what God says. And He said Man had a choice from the beginning *not* to fall. That means God did not foreknow the Fall, except in the sense that He had a backup plan so that His word, at any rate, would not fail to accomplish His ultimate intention.

[Athanasius]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't know how you can classify omniscience and foreknowledge with "creating a square circle." The whole question revolves around what defines God or not. If by definition God *must* know all of our decisions in advance, then of course we cannot question whether He is able to do so.

My point is that we need to be careful how we talk about the ways in which God is limited, and thus the question: are omniscience and foreknowledge limited in the same way that the concept of a 'square circle' is limited (logically impossible) or are they limited in some other way. Does omniscience include knowing the outcomes of those choices, or does it not? Does this matter if God has knowledge of the future vis-a-vis some supra-temporal position?

As it is, I think the New Testament is clear in its teaching that God foreknows (foreordains, predestines, etc.), and this would include historical knowledge, thus knowledge of human choices, and so God knows the outcomes of human choices (but His knowledge doesn't determine and make necessary these choices; if we had chosen differently then God's knowledge would have been different, for instance.)

But I don't accept that definition of God, since my definition of God does not require that He know in advance what choices we will make. It is sufficient for Him, as God, to determine perhaps 2 or 3 choices that we may make on our own, with an automatic response from God lying in wait for whatever choice we may make.

That seems strange to me. What does this conception of God's foreknowledge avoid that the historical conception falls victim to?

The reason I *must* conclude this is because God has self-imposed this definition upon Himself as God. He is the one who determined that Man may choose freely to eat of any tree of the garden, and may refuse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. God could not know what decision man would make until man actually made his choice. Either way, God would not stop being God.

Why couldn't God know that?

I believe the universe was darkened by Satan's fall before God created man. Man was therefore told to avoid the temptation to do the same as Satan did, which is to rebel against God's word.

So God knew that man could either obey His word, and fulfill the plan to fill the world with people for God's Son, or they would fall and bring upon themselves Plan B, the plan of redemption.

At any rate, Christ was preplanned to come to be the first among many brethren, a divine man presiding as king over all men world-wide. His potential, from the beginning, therefore included two plans, Plan A to fill the world with unfallen people who choose to have eternal life with God, or Plan B, to embrace the slain lamb for redemption and to go on to complete the original plan to fill the world with people living in eternal fellowship with God.

Christ was either slain from the foundation of the world in the sense that Adam and Eve fell in the early part of human history, or it means that Christ was potentially going to be slain should man decide to fall. The "foundation of the world" may thus refer either to the actual creation of the earth or to the time when man fell. I'm not sure.

The foreknowledge of Christ's being slain would make more sense once man had already chosen to fall. Inasmuch as he was commanded not to fall, and had the choice to not fall, indicates that the Lamb was not predestined to be slain.
But you show you have a pretty good grasp of what I'm trying to say. I've clarified a bit, so if I didn't cover your concerns perhaps you could be more specific.

However, we may be getting into subjects that transcend our ability to understand. On the other hand, I believe we should take literally what God says. And He said Man had a choice from the beginning *not* to fall. That means God did not foreknow the Fall, except in the sense that He had a backup plan so that His word, at any rate, would not fail to accomplish His ultimate intention.

Okay, so are you saying that along your conception of omniscience and foreknowledge, God plans for potential choices, but doesn't know all choices, or which choice will be made, and in this way, God's knowledge doesn't act as a kind of fate that necessitates people to act in a certain way, or else God's knowledge is wrong?

[journeyman]

Is that prophecy, though? Genesis 1 shows God's original intent for creation, and while this is an intent we'll get back to in the new creation, the new creation will be different, and Genesis 1 doesn't make any claims on what life in the new creation is like other than the shared ideal of creation being exactly as God intends it to be.

We're getting back to the new creation now,

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2Cor.5:17

The reason for this is that everything God made produces after its own kind. It may not be apparent from Gen.1 that we must be reborn of God's seed, but other scripture declares it and nothing in Gen.1 refutes it.

I'm not sure how this functions as prophecy given the description of divisions corresponds to our present creation.

When it was written, our present creation was future. "Let us make man in our image" occurs by the Spirit of Christ,

to be conformed to the image of his Son.....Ye must be born again.
Rom.8:29, Jn.3:7

A metaphor isn't a symbol.

Your claim is that Eve was used by Paul as a symbol of the church, so let's stick to that claim. Where do you see Paul using Eve as a symbol of the church, in Ephesians 5?

Yes and other places. Compare Gen.3:20 with Gal.4:26

The 'Human instrumentality project' is a major theme in Neon Genesis Evangelion. Mostly, I had nothing of much interest to say to the tautology - I'm assuming - that 'When Christ's work is done Christ will return' or something to that effect. It seemed as related to the idea of Eve as a symbol of the church as your statement did.

I was also wondering how you might reply to it, and apparently, head coverings bringing honour or dishonour on one's 'spiritual authority' was the direction of choice? How is this related to the idea of Eve as a symbol of the Church in Paul?

When Christ returns, what was will become apparent to unbelievers. In 1Cor.11, I was simply showing that the church is composed of women and men. Paul is often maligned as a sexist.

[Athanasius]

We're getting back to the new creation now,

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2Cor.5:17

The reason for this is that everything God made produces after its own kind. It may not be apparent from Gen.1 that we must be reborn of God's seed, but other scripture declares it and nothing in Gen.1 refutes it.

This alone doesn't constitute prophecy, though.

to be conformed to the image of his Son.....Ye must be born again.
Rom.8:29, Jn.3:7

Okay...

Yes and other places. Compare Gen.3:20 with Gal.4:26

Genesis 3:20
Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

Galatians 4:26
But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

Okay, how does this evoke Genesis 3:20? The context of v26 is a broader discussion on covenant, Jerusalem, Hagar and Sarah, so why are we inserting Eve?

When Christ returns, what was will become apparent to unbelievers. In 1Cor.11, I was simply showing that the church is composed of women and men. Paul is often maligned as a sexist.

Yeah but, has anyone suggested here that Paul was a sexist?

[RandyPNW]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't know how you can classify omniscience and foreknowledge with "creating a square circle." The whole question revolves around what defines God or not. If by definition God *must* know all of our decisions in advance, then of course we cannot question whether He is able to do so.

My point is that we need to be careful how we talk about the ways in which God is limited, and thus the question: are omniscience and foreknowledge limited in the same way that the concept of a 'square circle' is limited (logically impossible) or are they limited in some other way. Does omniscience include knowing the outcomes of those choices, or does it not? Does this matter if God has knowledge of the future vis-a-vis some supra-temporal position?

As it is, I think the New Testament is clear in its teaching that God foreknows (foreordains, predestines, etc.), and this would include historical knowledge, thus knowledge of human choices, and so God knows the outcomes of human choices (but His knowledge doesn't determine and make necessary these choices; if we had chosen differently then God's knowledge would have been different, for instance.)

But I don't accept that definition of God, since my definition of God does not require that He know in advance what choices we will make. It is sufficient for Him, as God, to determine perhaps 2 or 3 choices that we may make on our own, with an automatic response from God lying in wait for whatever choice we may make.

That seems strange to me. What does this conception of God's foreknowledge avoid that the historical conception falls victim to?

The reason I *must* conclude this is because God has self-imposed this definition upon Himself as God. He is the one who determined that Man may choose freely to eat of any tree of the garden, and may refuse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. God could not know what decision man would make until man actually made his choice. Either way, God would not stop being God.

Why couldn't God know that?

I believe the universe was darkened by Satan's fall before God created man. Man was therefore told to avoid the temptation to do the same as Satan did, which is to rebel against God's word.

So God knew that man could either obey His word, and fulfill the plan to fill the world with people for God's Son, or they would fall and bring upon themselves Plan B, the plan of redemption.

At any rate, Christ was preplanned to come to be the first among many brethren, a divine man presiding as king over all men world-wide. His potential, from the beginning, therefore included two plans, Plan A to fill the world with unfallen people who choose to have eternal life with God, or Plan B, to embrace the slain lamb for redemption and to go on to complete the original plan to fill the world with people living in eternal fellowship with God.

Christ was either slain from the foundation of the world in the sense that Adam and Eve fell in the early part of human history, or it means that Christ was potentially going to be slain should man decide to fall. The "foundation of the world" may thus refer either to the actual creation of the earth or to the time when man fell. I'm not sure.

The foreknowledge of Christ's being slain would make more sense once man had already chosen to fall. Inasmuch as he was commanded not to fall, and had the choice to not fall, indicates that the Lamb was not predestined to be slain.
But you show you have a pretty good grasp of what I'm trying to say. I've clarified a bit, so if I didn't cover your concerns perhaps you could be more specific.

However, we may be getting into subjects that transcend our ability to understand. On the other hand, I believe we should take literally what God says. And He said Man had a choice from the beginning *not* to fall. That means God did not foreknow the Fall, except in the sense that He had a backup plan so that His word, at any rate, would not fail to accomplish His ultimate intention.

Okay, so are you saying that along your conception of omniscience and foreknowledge, God plans for potential choices, but doesn't know all choices, or which choice will be made, and in this way, God's knowledge doesn't act as a kind of fate that necessitates people to act in a certain way, or else God's knowledge is wrong?

Yes, I think you got it pretty much. Right, and my initial response to that was that we limit God either way. Either we say He *cannot* know the outcome of our choices before we make them, or we say He cannot grant true free choices to men. To say God *cannot* give men true free choices is also limiting to God, which seems to be your concern.

We are not here talking about questions like, "Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?" That would be a logical impossibility. But it is not logically impossible for God to make two possible choices for you to make in the garden of Eden, and have an answer upon either eventuality. That avoids "taking God by surprise," and does not challenge His omniscience. Furthermore, it avoids the logical absurdity of saying Man had a choice when he really didn't. The real logical absurdity would be if God knew the outcome in advance, and said that Man still had a choice!

In this I would not argue that God does not know *any* of Man's choices in advance--He certainly does! But some choices He obviously did not know because He gave us a choice. And if so, the burden rested with us to make the choice--not for Him to predetermine it by His foreknowledge. If something is foreknown, we cannot but choose in that direction, and there can be no free choice in this. At least that is how I would argue it.

There are, as I said, some choices God gives us that He knows how we will respond. And He does this to prove things like we prefer Eternal Life, and will make the logical choice one would make if our hearts are right. But there are neutral choices where it would not be known in advance what the logical inclination would be. The choice to fall from God is one of those neutral choices, in my view. I suppose this is an impossible question to resolve. But I find it important to argue in favor of free human will. Otherwise, we're robots fooling ourselves.

[RabbiKnife]

I don't understand the logic behind "God obviously did not know because He gave us choices."

Maybe it's just me, but I'm having trouble understanding how giving man a free will means that God obviously doesn't know something... Or if that were true, how that would be true for some things but not for others.

Or how that keeps God from, in some aspects, being consistent with a Deistic clockmaker... wind it up and let it go..

Don't mean to be rude or obtuse, but I don't think that free will is determinative of omniscience.

[Athanasius]

Yes, I think you got it pretty much. Right, and my initial response to that was that we limit God either way. Either we say He *cannot* know the outcome of our choices before we make them, or we say He cannot grant true free choices to men. To say God *cannot* give men true free choices is also limiting to God, which seems to be your concern.

I'm not sure I understand how my, or RK's view limits God, could you clarify where you see the limit? My view, to be clear, is that God possesses middle knowledge, so He knows the outcome of every possible choice, and also, that humanity is genuinely free to make choices.

We are not here talking about questions like, "Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?" That would be a logical impossibility. But it is not logically impossible for God to make two possible choices for you to make in the garden of Eden, and have an answer upon either eventuality. That avoids "taking God by surprise," and does not challenge His omniscience. Furthermore, it avoids the logical absurdity of saying Man had a choice when he really didn't. The real logical absurdity would be if God knew the outcome in advance, and said that Man still had a choice!

In this I would not argue that God does not know *any* of Man's choices in advance--He certainly does! But some choices He obviously did not know because He gave us a choice. And if so, the burden rested with us to make the choice--not for Him to predetermine it by His foreknowledge. If something is foreknown, we cannot but choose in that direction, and there can be no free choice in this. At least that is how I would argue it.

So, I think there are a few issues with this:

1) God can create a scenario in which there are only two possible outcomes, but there's at least one further option, and that's inaction. So I guess God is aware of that and has three contingencies available to him. But maybe Eve, while talking to the snake, gets bored and decides to go wash her underarms instead. Well, I that's four contingencies now.

Or maybe there's another problem lurking here, and that is: how has God set up the circumstance such that Eve arrives at the choice God desires her to make? Is God now arranging contingencies for the hundreds, or thousands, of possible permutations of her possible acts? Does he also arrange these for Adam, and the snake?

2) This seems, then, to challenge God's omniscience and his foreknowledge. How can be that God knows some choices, by which the individual is foreordained, but not other choices, which God allows freedom for by determining possible outcomes? Does this not produce the very issue trying to be avoided, namely, that there are choices that aren't at all choices because they were foreknown?

3) But if God still doesn't know the outcome of the choice, then even if He prepares for every possible eventuality, He would indeed be "taken by surprise" by virtue of the fact that He genuinely doesn't know how the choice will go.

What I'd suggest is that God's foreknowledge doesn't make any choice necessary, since His foreknowledge is dependent on our actions. If we act differently, then God knows differently. God knows the choice we make dependent on our choosing.

There are, as I said, some choices God gives us that He knows how we will respond. And He does this to prove things like we prefer Eternal Life, and will make the logical choice one would make if our hearts are right. But there are neutral choices where it would not be known in advance what the logical inclination would be. The choice to fall from God is one of those neutral choices, in my view. I suppose this is an impossible question to resolve. But I find it important to argue in favor of free human will. Otherwise, we're robots fooling ourselves.

I think the fundamental error is to consider foreknowledge to be determinative.