[“You can see his additional commentary here, though I’d recommend it for entertainment purposes only. On why he thinks choices are random:]

[@But his article gives no explanation for why they aren’t blips of chance.

Besides the fact that there’s no reason to buy his counter-intuitive assertion in the first place, free will being random (as I point out in the article) would imply that God also chooses ‘by chance’ as well.”]

I’ll refer those to my blog article:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/09/11/innate-vs-self-imposed-dependencies/

[@He has to demonstrate why it is necessary for me to conflate omniscience with foreknowledge.

I said he’s conflating omniscience with the specifics of God’s knowledge (not ‘foreknowledge’).]

This response is just being immature. We’re talking about foreknowledge. So, last time I checked, that’s still an issue under omniscience. From his perspective, if God didn’t have exhaustive foreknowledge then he wouldn’t be omniscient.

[@It isn’t like God becomes a better being by exercising these “optional aspects”.

Has anyone ever argued this?]

The entire topic is about God’s ontology. So, these optional aspects either are relevant to God’s ontology or they aren’t. He needs to decide that for him himself.

[@The only consistent understanding of these passages from his perspective is to take it that God in his immanence is not omniscient.

By moon-logic apparently.]

I just suppose he doesn’t understand the motives that people have for creating his position. They look at the Bible and notice that it passages that would be very hard for a classical theist to understand. When God changes his mind, is that literalor figurative? They think it’s literal. That it isn’t merely anthropomorphic. They also recognize that God doesn’t change his mind in another regard. So, they have a middle ground position between Open Theist and High Calvinist. The only issue I see with this proposal is that it seems incoherent. At least the way you’re presenting this. How can we attribute both immutablity and mutablity you the same nature? How can one reconcile that God changes his mind and doesn’t change his mind? The only way to do this is to go as far as Oliphint and state that God(speaking of all three persons) have multiple temporary incarnations. That’s a philosophically coherent position.

[@Objector: He doesn’t actually explain my objection

Last I checked, explaining his objection is his job, not mine.]

No, but it is your responsibility to accurately represent the objections I present to your readers. That was my complaint.

[@If he thinks God in immanence is omniscient, then why can he change his mind?

Does he believe God changes His mind?]

I lean towards Paul Helm’s understanding about this topic.

[@So, in terms of this, Thibodaux believes created facts cause God to know the future. Very Open Theist like.

Hmm…yes…my arguing for God being above time and knowing the end from the beginning seems pretty Open Theisty now that I think about it.]

That’s not what I’ve stated sounds like open theism. You probably need to accept that your worldview states contradictory things.

[@Objector: If taken consistently he would maintain that all of God is incarnate.

If anyone has any clue what in blue blazes he’s talking about, please leave a comment.]

I’ve explained that that is the only plausible view where God is both timeless and temporal.