There was recently a debate between Arminians and open theists. Chris Fisher, Dan Chapa, Will Duffy, and Dane Van Eys participated and we will evaluate some of the arguments made.

The Arminians argued along several different lines. I’ll summarize some of the major points. They argued that God’s knowledge is endless and therefore all-encompassing. From passages like:

Psalm 147:5

Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.

After they argued from passages stating that God knows everything. Such as John 16:30,  John 21:17, and 1 John 3:20.

Furthermore, they argued that all knowledge and wisdom is in Christ:

Col. 2:3

in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

They also argued that in Isaiah 40-48 God uses his knowledge of the future to distinguish himself from false gods and false prophets. They also attach this type of argument with Jesus’ argument for his Lordship and proof of him being the Messiah John 13:19, 14:29.

1 Sam 10:1-7, Isa 45:1, Jer 37:6-10, John 6:64, Zech 11:12-13, Mark 8:31-33, John 18:13-27, and the destruction of the temple. He knows words someone will say before they are uttered (Ps. 139), individuals before they are born (Jer 1:4-5), the results of lots being cast (Prov. 16:33).

There was also the argument that Open Theism is inconsistent with the eternal plan of God that would send Jesus to the cross. Since many different plans were available to God, the cross becomes one among many possibilities that could’ve played out. The biblical authors seem to suggest that it was always going to occur and was always God’s intention to bring to pass. This doesn’t work if the fall never occurs, but that is precisely one of the many possibilities that undermine that.    

2 Tim. 1:8-10

⁸ So don’t be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, or of me his prisoner. Instead, share in suffering for the gospel, relying on the power of God. ⁹ He has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. ¹⁰ This has now been made evident through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who has abolished death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

Titus 1:1-3

1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness, ² in the hope of eternal life that God, who cannot lie, promised before time began. ³ In his own time he has revealed his word in the preaching with which I was entrusted by the command of God our Savior:

Eph. 1:4-7

⁴ For he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in love before him. ⁵ He predestined us to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ for himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, ⁶ to the praise of his glorious grace that he lavished on us in the Beloved One.

⁷ In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace

1 Peter 1:18-21

¹⁸ For you know that you were redeemed from your empty way of life inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold, ¹⁹ but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb. ²⁰ He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was revealed in these last times for you. ²¹ Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

The next argument of the presentation was to argue from biblical prophecy. He argues that God knew that slavery in Egypt would take 400 years. Judah’s captivity for 70 years predicts the destruction of Jeroboam’s alter 300 years in advance by King Josiah, Cyrus’ victory over Assyria, that he would free the Jews and the rebuilding of the Temple. These events were predicted in ways that really don’t fit with the idea that God doesn’t know the future. There was also a breakdown of the prophecy of Daniel 11. He specifically shows in Dan 11:35-36 shows that God foreknows human actions.

There also were the things foreknown in the case of Christ’s ministry:

Predictions about Christ’s birth in Bethlehem, the slaughter of the infants, the flight to Egypt, Christ’s crucifixion, the nail-pierced hands, the casting of lots for his clothes, that his bones won’t be broken, that he’s going to be buried in the tomb of a rich man, and that Christ was going to be crucified in between two thieves, he foretells peter’s three denials, peter’s repentance after those three denials, and Peter’s death. These all would have to be some sort of lucky guesses on God’s part to know that these are exactly how the events would go. 

Dan also tries to give some reasons to doubt Open Theist’s interpretations of various narratives. He tries to explain Exodus 32 from his perspective. He states that God has already made promises that the Kingship would come through Judah. So, God had already known that he couldn’t destroy them without violating his promise that from their linage.

My Evaluation:

I think Psalm 147 is a fine passage to quote. I think it does include God’s knowledge of creation. I think it is explained in poetic terms of God counting the stars (not literally). They seem to think this would rule out Open Theists positions that entail the future becomes knowable, but I wasn’t sure why this was the case. It seems that it had to do with some argument from infinities (sounding like William Lane Craig). The problem with this argument is that it becomes reliant on that contention about infinities, which someone like Duffy and Fisher will reject because they reject creation from nothing.

The knowledge about the stars shows that God is different from anything in creation. In ANE thought, the stars were thought to be deities that controlled the events that occur on Earth. The Bible constantly uses it to serve as the superiority over creation that God has made the heavens and is sovereign over it. The thought of the Psalmists is if God can sustain the cosmos, then he can definitely sustain his people.

This conclusion relates primarily to his creative and sustaining powers over the universe (cf. Isa 40: 26-28). By inference, God’s royal power and greatness extended to the world of creation are small in comparison to the depth of God’s love for his people (cf. Isa 40: 26 with Isa 40: 27-31). This brings the psalmist to a renewed consideration of God’s care for his own (v. 6).

VanGemeren, Willem A.. Psalms (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 29884-29887). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Col. 2:3 was an interesting passage to bring up in this debate because it is often used in this context. I think it is interesting and needed more explanation for why it might be problematic for Open Theists. In fact, I maintain it is a problem for all non-predestinarian non-presuppositionalists. To give a brief explanation:

Here we have a high Christological point that Christ is all-sufficient for Christ’s need of wisdom and knowledge. The false teachers of Colossae have nothing to offer saints because the treasures of knowledge and wisdom are found in Christ.

We have several relevant passages:

Col. 1:26-27

²⁶ the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people. ²⁷ To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

1 Cor. 2:6-8

⁶ We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. ⁷ No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. ⁸ None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Proverbs 2:1-8

2 My son, if you will receive my words
And treasure my commandments within you,
² Make your ear attentive to wisdom,
Incline your heart to understanding;
³ For if you cry for discernment,
Lift your voice for understanding;
⁴ If you seek her as silver
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
⁵ Then you will discern the fear of the Lord
And discover the knowledge of God.
⁶ For the Lord gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
⁷ He stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
He is a shield to those who walk in integrity,
⁸ Guarding the paths of justice,
And He preserves the way of His godly ones.

Each of these passages may have an influence over what Paul is getting at with this. Some this is a reference to Prov. 2 and others do not, but if it is, and it isn’t unlikely that it is, then it builds into the thesis that God plays the role in our source of wisdom and knowledge. Paul is clearly portraying Christ as the embodiment of wisdom, and through Christ and him alone can one understand the divine will and plan. There is a special revealing of the OT through Christ that shows us what was always set up. This is possibly tied with Christ playing the NT writer’s concept of God’s wisdom (Col 1:15-20). Christ is like Wisdom, being his Father’s agent in the world and revealing him to us from what was hidden in the OT. This connection is something scholars take note of:

No doubt part of the attractiveness of the Christian message regarding Christ was the degree to which Jewish wisdom and apocalyptic traditions were thus combined (as they had only occasionally been previously—as in 1 Enoch 42). It was this assurance that they, too, were “in Christ,” together with all the treasures of divinely given insight into the mysteries of the cosmos and of human destiny (cf. Rom. 11:33; 1 Cor. 2:7: λαλοῦμεν θεοῦ σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην) and the riches of the experience of the wise in successful living, that was to give them the confidence they needed (see also 3:3).

Dunn, J. D. G. (1996). The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 132). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: William B. Eerdmans Publishing; Paternoster Press.

Here the idea is spelt out in terms of the Christology of 1:15–20. Christ sums up in himself all that the Jews predicated of ‘Wisdom’ (cf. Prov. 2:1–8, whose LXX translation is echoed several times in our present passage). Christ himself is ‘the mystery of God’: not just a clue or a key to it, as though it were something other than himself, a proposition which, however true, remained abstract. Everything we might want to ask about God and his purposes can and must now be answered—this is the force of the verse—with reference to the crucified and risen Jesus, the Messiah.

Wright, N. T. (1986). Colossians and Philemon: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 12, p. 99). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Christ is the one in whom is to be found all that one needs in order to understand spiritual reality and to lead a life pleasing to God. The all-encompassing nature of the knowledge to be found in Christ is highlighted by yet another occurrence of “all” (pas) and by the use of the two terms “wisdom” (sophia) and “knowledge” (gnōsis). … “Wisdom,” of course, refers to practical knowledge, the ability to understand reality from God’s perspective and to act on that understanding. “Knowledge,” on the other hand, has a more intellectual focus. But we should probably not make too much of the distinct ideas each term communicates. Paul connects the two words by using a single article to govern both of them, and he probably therefore wants us to focus on the entire phrase rather than on the individual words. … They are “hidden” in Christ in the sense that they are “treasures” that have been deposited in him and are now stored up in him. Anyone who comes to know Christ by faith can draw from his store all the wisdom and knowledge that exists.

Moo, D. J. (2008). The letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (p. 169-171). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

I think most Open Theists would simply maintain that the future isn’t knowable or that it is undefined as to whether it is true or not. That God does know all knowable things, but the future isn’t in such a category. This isn’t a problem for the Arminian debaters because they are arguing that there is significant knowledge not possessed by God. So, it stands as a good argument against Will Duffy and Chris Fisher, but not against Open Theism in its entirety.

The argument from prophecy is fine and I’ve used it in my own argument against Fisher and Sabo:

http://spirited-tech.com/2019/01/23/god-isnt-open/

Lastly, the argument from Christ always being God’s intention from creation wasn’t addressed nor was it utilized to its full potential.

Here was the Open Theists case:

Fisher opens up his arguments by stating the Bible teaches Open Theists distinctive when it states that God is surprised or that God can learn about individuals that he had not known prior. This would be any passage where God learns, regrets, changes his mind, observes, is surprised, etc. Duffy cites some prooftext for this:

Gen 2:19

¹⁹ So the Lord God formed out of the ground every wild animal and every bird of the sky, and brought each to the man to see what he would call it. And whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 

Gen 6:6

⁶ the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Gen 18:20

²⁰ Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is immense, and their sin is extremely serious.

Gen 22:12

¹² Then He said, “Do not lay a hand on the boy or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your only son from Me.”

Exodus 13:17

¹⁷ When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them along the road to the land of the Philistines, even though it was nearby; for God said, “The people will change their minds and return to Egypt if they face war.”

Exodus 32:10

¹⁰ Now leave Me alone, so that My anger can burn against them and I can destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”

Deuteronomy 8:2

² Remember that the Lord your God led you on the entire journey these forty years in the wilderness, so that he might humble you and test you to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands.

1 Sam. 15:10-11, 32

¹⁰ Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel, ¹¹ “I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned away from following Me and has not carried out My instructions.” So Samuel became angry and cried out to the Lord all night.
³² Samuel said, “Bring me Agag king of Amalek.”
Agag came to him trembling, for he thought, “Certainly the bitterness of death has come.”

Isa. 5:4

⁴ What more could I have done for My vineyard
than I did?
Why, when I expected a yield of good grapes,
did it yield worthless grapes?

Jer. 18:7-8

⁷ At one moment I might announce concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will uproot, tear down, and destroy it. ⁸ However, if that nation I have made an announcement about turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the disaster I had planned to do to it.

Jer. 26:3

³ Perhaps they will listen and return—each from his evil way of life—so that I might relent concerning the disaster that I plan to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.

Jonah 3:10

¹⁰ Then God saw their actions—that they had turned from their evil ways—so God relented from the disaster He had threatened to do to them. And He did not do it.

The Open Theists argue that people know things about the future. That this ability really isn’t distinctive to God. 

He goes on to state that we are lacking context for passages that state God “knows everything”. The context for these statements is in what I call “Empirical Omniscience” and he calls it “Visual Omniscience” or “Acquired Omniscience”. In this view, God is above watching everything that occurs, and this empirical omniscience fits with Open Theism because it entails that God learns. He cites Hebrews 4:13 in support of this view:

¹³ No creature is hidden from him, but all things are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give an account.

Psalm 33:12-17

Furthermore, the Open Theists wish to explain statements about “knowing everything”. They focus on showing passages where someone is said to know everything, but they remain lacking all sorts of knowledge. Several examples:

Proverbs 28:5

⁵ Evil men do not understand justice,
    but those who seek the Lord understand it completely

Romans 15:4

⁴ For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Luke 1:3

³ It also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in an orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus,

2 Sam 14:20

²⁰ intending to change the outcome of this matter. Nevertheless, your majesty is wise, like the wisdom of the angel of God, to be aware of everything that’s going on throughout the earth.”

Ezekiel 28:3

³ Yes, you are wiser than Daniel;
no secret is hidden from you!

Ecclesiastes 1:14

¹⁴ I have seen all the things that are done under the sun and have found everything to be futile, a pursuit of the wind.

They maintain that the main function of prophecy in the Bible is to fail so that someone will repent of their deeds. This is commonly seen where God states that oncoming afflictions will occur on some sinful group of people. The people get wind of such a threat and repent. God replies by relenting of the punishment he was going to afflict on some individuals. 

These open theists also argue that God has prophecies that don’t occur or don’t occur according to what God originally said.  For example, the 400 years (Gen 15:13) of captivity was actually 430 (Exodus 12:40). The Jeremiah prophesy of 70 years in captivity was only around 60-66 years.

My Evaluation:

The problem with the Open Theists is that they don’t quite explain their position on God’s knowledge. It seems to change over the conversation (see below).

The argument that Gen. 15 has God fudging the details in order to have his prophecy come to pass is inaccurate. These numbers were never meant to be the exact times for the duration of these events, but just a round number for them. Since God never intended it to communicate such, it is not an error:

The discrepancy between the two figures may easily be explained by the Genesis figure simply being a round number, or one that is the minimum figure, that is, at least four hundred years. The number in the present verses would then be the specific figure for the length of the sojourn. The fact that 430 years is the specific figure is confirmed in verse 41 where it says the Hebrews left Egypt, literally, ‘on this selfsame day’.

Currid, J. D. (2000). A Study Commentary on Exodus: Exodus 1–18 (Vol. 1, p. 262). Darlington, England; Carlisle, PA: Evangelical Press.

Another argument was certain passages teach that God is surprised, learns, regrets, observes, and changes his mind. My major objection to this argument is that these things don’t entail that God doesn’t know everything. This has been a point I’ve argued multiple occasions:

http://spirited-tech.com/2020/01/29/open-theisms-underdetermination/

This really is just an objection that anthropomorphic language in certain situations has no real content. So, this really is the contention of their debate, but it doesn’t get flushed out and discussed.

This is where I wish to take a look at some of the passages used to undermine language about God knowing everything. I didn’t find this compelling because it just assumes that we don’t believe in Hyperbole and other linguistic tools like such. I’ll only go through two examples to illustrate the sleight of hand tactic:

In 2 Sam 14:20, we have a conversation between Wise Woman of Tekoa and King David over Absalom. She lavishes compliments and arguments on David in order to get him to act on the issue of Absalom. In her flattery, she says that the King “is like an angel of God in discerning good and evil” and “wisdom like that of an angel of God—he knows everything that happens in the land”. It seems rather obvious that these are mere attempts at flattery rather than making any serious comparisons between the two. It seems invalid to argue that cases like this disqualify any possible case that it refers to God actually knowing everything. These need to be observed in context and not merely in throwaway proof-texting. Does this also mean that God knew only as much as David did about the events in the land?

In Ecclesiastes 1:14, this is clearly the author’s exaggeration to illustrate the futility of human activity. Does this passage show the Arminian passages are using it in some hyperbolic sense? The Open Theists don’t show such a thing.

Thoughts on the Discussion:

This starts off with a discussion about 1 Samuel 10:1-7. In this passage, God knows beforehand knows several free acts of human beings. So, naturally, the question arises, how can God know such things if Open Theism is true? Will Duffy states that his opponents are assuming that if God can know some future free choices, then he must know all of them. The problem Duffy is missing is that if Open Theism were true, then God couldn’t know any future choices. To think he knows any is to show Open Theism is arbitrary. God magically knows certain future choices, but can’t know others for no apparent reason. Duffy, in the last effort, states that God can through his providence can set these events up to occur. The problem is that still doesn’t leave God actually knowing that these events will occur. What evidence does he suppose God spoke with the individuals in this passage? Duffy mentions since this is happening the same day as God is foretelling the events, then it is easy for him to predict what will happen. The problem is that it is too specific regarding certain things stated, being held, etc that aren’t able to be predicted if LFW is the case that Open Theist maintains makes other choices unknowable. This is where Arminians might struggle to deal with because they are a few mysterians when it comes to human choices. Furthermore, they just switch to Dan 11 prophesy that was hundreds of years before.

Duffy makes a slight comment “That’s present knowledge, God knows that” when asked about whether he knows the weight of a snail. The issue is that Duffy will later reject that God necessarily has present knowledge as he sails on the winds of every Open Theist doctrine his way.

Duffy argues that the Arminians are assuming a theory of time that entails the future actually already exists in order for it to be known. Duffy doesn’t hold that the future exists and therefore it isn’t able to be known. The problem is whether Duffy holds whether the past is knowable. According to A-theory of time, the past is present moments that have gone out of being and only the present moment exists. This is Duffy’s view, but if he were consistent, then he would maintain God and everything else can’t know the past because it no longer exists.

Duffy states that Isa 40-48 is about God bringing about future events and not about him being able to know them. The problem is that God is also asked about his knowledge of past events and not about whether he brought them about. Furthermore, God is telling and declaring these past/future events to them. It doesn’t entail that it means he is bringing them about (event with agents with LFW he is unable in and of himself to do that anyway).

Fisher brings up the when David asked God if the people of Keilah will hand him over (1 Samuel 23:12). The problem is this is better understood counterfactually. If David would have stayed in Keilah, then the people of  Keilah would hand him over to Saul.

Fisher states that people can know the future, but the problem with that is he doesn’t mean God knows that something will happen. God knows like we all know who will win the SuperBowl. God makes an inductive inference about what will probably happen.

I’ve discussed 1 John 3:20 on other occasions. 

Fisher was asked whether he is able to see or better stated empirically evaluate thoughts. He replies that it depends on what it means to “see”. This was to undermine the appeal to Hebrews 4:13. It was quite obvious that we don’t look and observe people’s thoughts.

Fisher appeals to trinitarianism to defend his notion that God is a multi-bodied being. This sort of mistake about the hypostatic union has been made before by Fisher:

http://spirited-tech.com/2021/10/27/the-theological-brights/

Fisher states that Divine “thinking” proves Open Theism. This just doesn’t follow and it is obvious that Divine mental activities would just be timeless acts of the mind.

Duffy challenges the Arminians to show a Bible verse about Divine epistemology. They didn’t grasp that and just cited average Classical theists/ Arminians thoughts about it regarding logical priority and so forth. Duffy cites Gen 18 to show that God knows by going to observe things. This brings up questions about whether the Open Theists affirm Omnipresence. The obvious fact of the matter is that they don’t. They show that if Duffy’s citation is correct, then God lacks present and past knowledge of the deeds that are happening in Sodom and Gomorrah. This is where it gets even worse for the Open Theists. How can God have “Visual Omniscience” if he isn’t aware of what is happening in various cities? Is one of God’s bodies possess a different ability for knowledge? Does he have different abilities for knowledge at different times? If so, then they have no reason to remain Open Theists because God may possess a body that knows everything. This leaves a skepticism regarding whether any of these passages truly tell us what God knows.

Duffy states that God must-go places to see what is happening (or has happened). He was asked whether he affirms God is omnipresent. He states that it isn’t relevant, but it clearly is given he needs to go to areas to know what has happened or is currently transpiring. So, the obvious reason is Duffy denies omnipresence in the traditional sense. God can be anywhere he wants but isn’t aware of everything currently occurring.

This leads to an issue I’ve brought up on other occasions. But if God is ignorant of the past, then how can he be the judge of all the earth in the eschaton? How is God going to hold people accountable if he isn’t paying attention to all the evil in the world? In Fisher’s and Duffy’s theological systems, he can’t.

Chris Fisher brings up Psalm 53 to show that God is looking from heaven down at humans to see if there is any righteous. There are two ways this can be dealt with. Firstly, it could be pictorial, just like when God talks about the Church, or as he did Israel and Judah in the OT being his unfaithful brides. These don’t entail God actually is married. They are pictorial for something else. God doesn’t need to look down in order to know we are wicked or good. Secondly, this may be referring to God in his immanence. This idea is that God takes nature to himself in order to relate to humans. So, God can look and be disgusted with the wickedness of man qua his immanence by taking on a created nature. This was where the Open Theist seem to have gotten the better of the Arminians. 

The Open Theists raise the question about Jer. 3:7 and Isa 5. Duffy asked a question about the purpose of the winepress that God made. Firstly, it isn’t literal, God didn’t actually make a winepress to drink the fruits of their good deeds or the blood of the obedient Jews. It is clearly using imagery to show God’s disappointment in his covenant people, and Dan Chapa pointed out the imagery of a legal court in Isa 5. Thirdly, why would God be surprised that unbelieving Jews remain unbelieving Jew when he is observing their deeds and can look at their hearts? 

Chris Fisher states that Jesus didn’t know the end date in Mark 13:32. Even the Father doesn’t know it on Open Theism. So, his prooftext can be turned around on him. This has been discussed before in the context:

http://spirited-tech.com/2018/03/01/why-didnt-jesus-know-the-day-or-hour/

A discussion that occurs over Isaiah in 40-48 is setting standards for what the true God of the world attributes is. It turns to Isa 41:20-23 on whether doing good or evil is relevant to being God. The “good or evil” is a Jewish idiom for “something whatsoever”. It is a challenge to the false gods to do anything.

There is a discussion over whether God’s knowledge is propositional:

http://spirited-tech.com/2019/02/19/gods-knowledge/

http://spirited-tech.com/2021/04/22/the-omniscient-lord-how-does-god-know-things/

There was a discussion over the difference between the notions of possibility/ability. This is a topic Calvinists have discussed numerous times:

http://spirited-tech.com/2017/04/25/how-to-flunk-soteriology101/

http://spirited-tech.com/2019/11/28/could-jesus-have-sinned/

Only if Arminians were kind enough to grant Calvinists this notion, then there would be fewer Arminians. In Matthew 26, Jesus states that he could call upon 12 legions of angels to defend him. The issue is how one cashed out these statements. It is possible to occur under different conditions, but not when the scriptures have to be fulfilled. As stated:

⁵² “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. ⁵³ Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? ⁵⁴ But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

There is a discussion around Eli’s sons. The Arminians showed the conditionality of God’s promise. It is quite obvious that God’s covenants don’t undermine previous promises and standards of God (Gal 3:17-21). This means the Mosaic covenant was still in effect for Eli’s sons (as pointed out), just as an example. That doesn’t need to be stated, because it is already assumed. Fisher thinks can God arbitrarily changes the terms of his agreement with Eli’s family. Gal. 3:15 seems to imply that God doesn’t arbitrarily change the terms of his agreements. Fisher in order to help Open Theism will throw God under the bus. It’s a bold strategy, but it doesn’t pay off for him. 

Chris Fisher states that if God creates enough people, then someone will have to love God. This isn’t true for Open Theists. God can create infinite non-believers. So, his point about raising children of Abraham from rocks doesn’t entail that any will trust in God. The point of that in Matthew 3:7-10 is to show that Jews aren’t inherently something special racially. That race doesn’t earn or merit divine grace. In the intertestamental period, beliefs about Jewish superiority in terms of God’s favor:

Yet in the intertestamental period, the general use of descent from Abraham, in the context of a rising merit theology, supported the notion that Israel was chosen because it was choice and that the merits of the patriarchs would suffice for their descendants (cf. Carson, Divine Sovereignty, 39ff.). But not only may God narrow Israel down to a remnant; he may also raise up authentic children of Israel from “these stones” (perhaps stones lying in the riverbed— both Hebrew and Aramaic have a pun on “children” and “stones”). Ordinary stones will suffice; there is no need for the “rocks” of the patriarchs and their merits (cf. S.   Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology [London: A. & C. Black, 1903], 173; see Ro 4). This and the not dissimilar thought in Matthew 8: 11– 12 prepare the way for Paul’s repeated emphasis on the fact that the true “sons of Abraham” are those who share Abraham’s faith, not necessarily his genes (Ro 4; Gal 3). Matthew 3: 9 not only rebukes the self-righteousness of the leaders but implies that participation in the kingdom results from grace and extends the borders of God’s people beyond racial frontiers (cf. 8: 11).

Carson, D. A.; Carson, D. A.. Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 5294-5302). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Eph. 1 was the source of this discussion. Clearly, if tied to the passages teaching that God has knowledge that mankind would fall into sin and devised a way they could be saved. The Arminians were in a tougher spot because they agree with a corporate election (at least as the sole focus). Fisher states this plan was devised because God needed a new plan of salvation for gentiles. The problem is God knew before there were gentiles that he would have to save them a different way (not by Law). That doesn’t help when you wish to argue that God doesn’t know whether anyone needed saving. Furthermore, the teaching is simply erroneous. Salvation was always meant to be the same way throughout all times.

http://spirited-tech.com/2021/01/05/the-abrahamic-dilemma-father-of-the-faithful/

Chapa argues the point I just made and has another objection. If no individual is in the set of the cooperate group, then it means God is destined to elect nothing. God didn’t even know at this point that he would make people and let alone that they would be saved through his Son taking a human nature to himself. The point is that “In Christ” applied to the group prior to creation lavishes the entire list of these blessings on the elect to receive it in the future. Fisher states that this is our union with Christ in our pre-fall state. The problem is this is would be their union with Christ before the world was and some of these teachings about redemption are only true of us after we have fallen. Duffy comes in for damage control to state that he knows his child will sin in the future. He’s a pelagian that holds to LFW. How does he know that other than guessing? He knows because his position isn’t true. 

I have dealt with the passage about Balaam:

http://spirited-tech.com/2019/01/23/god-isnt-open/

Fisher and Duffy dodged an important question about whether God doesn’t know what the right thing to do is in this passage. But doesn’t God pride himself on his practical knowledge, remembering his promises, and his moral knowledge doesn’t come from humans (Isaiah 40:13-15)? God once against isn’t even aware of Abraham’s thoughts nor the points.

The Open Theists raise several good points from other Biblical passages that recount the event. I don’t mind that God changed his mind. I understand the Classical Theists thoughts on it. Here is another take:

http://spirited-tech.com/2021/10/15/the-god-of-hope-an-explanation-from-a-covenantal-ontology/

Duffy in his closing states that in Hebrew 5:8 God learns. Let’s take a look for a moment:

⁸ Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered

This is clearly Christ in his incarnation. Duffy continues to deny the hypostatic union and must hold some form of Apollinarianism. Duffy knows that the Son changes qua his human nature.  This has been constantly pointed out to Duffy:

http://spirited-tech.com/2020/06/21/will-duffys-worldview/

Pray that he and Chris repent of these beliefs.

Further Reflection:

Reviewing Open Theism (Debate Review)