The name was settled.

You should know the answer to that. What do you think? Pardon me for throwing this back on you, but I've written pages and pages of what difference this would make, so I'm interested in what, if anything, of what I've written has "stuck."

(Here's a comment regarding "Cyrus", in Isa. 44:28– Isa. 45:1.)

This passage is one of the most persuasive evidences of divine foreknowledge in the Bible. The verse proclaims the Lord as the one “who says to Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall carry out all my purpose’; and who says of Jerusalem, ‘It shall be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid.’ Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue the nations before him…”

According to the traditional view of the book of Isaiah, Isaiah recorded this prophecy about Cyrus over a hundred years before Cyrus was born. The passage is clear evidence that the Lord foreknew that a king named Cyrus would arise and would be instrumental in rebuilding Jerusalem.

At this time in world history, it fits the Lord’s overall providential plan to return the Israelites to their land. He thus takes unilateral control over a small portion of the immediate future and determines that it shall come about in a certain way. He even predetermines what the name of the king who shall release them shall be, undoubtedly as a sign to the Israelites that he—not the idols they were inclined to chase after—was responsible for setting them free (see 46:9–11; 48:3–5).

This passage is not a “crystal ball” sort of prediction. It is rather a declaration of what the Lord himself is going to accomplish. He is going to “grasp the hand” of Cyrus and direct him. This doesn’t imply that everything about Cyrus was directed by God or that Cyrus was not a free moral agent outside of God’s declared intentions. And it certainly doesn’t imply that everything about the future is foreknown by God. It only implies that whatever God has already decided he’s going to do in the future is known by him before he does it. He foreknows it by knowing his own intentions in the present. (http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-theism/responses-to-objections/how-do-you-respond-to-isaiah-4428%E2%80%93451/)

Tom, thank you for addressing the Cyrus question. I'm glad you concede there are times when God works to ensure the future plays out in accordance with His plans. And, regarding what has "stuck", it seems you believe any idea that forces the future to be single-threaded also means we are not truly free to make choices that result in an outcome different than what God watched play out. But I don't understand why you think so.

Why would you consider this a concession? I've made this point many times.

God is always working to bring about His will. The whole point of His prophecy was to give confidence that He is able to perform the things that He says.



God doesn't say, "Know that I am God because I know what will happen before it happens, because I can see the future" but "Know that I am God because I will do what I say I will do."



By "forces the future to be single-threaded," you understand I'm speaking logically, right? Like if I say, "Construct a four sided figure, all with 90 degree angles, with all sides the same length" I'm "forcing" this figure to be a rectangle, because the constructed figure must be a square, and all squares are rectangles.

So, in a similar way, if you state something which "makes" the future single-threaded (like the construction "forces" a square to be made), then that implies certain things (i.e. being single-threaded implies certain things, like being a square implies certain things).

So when you say you don't understand why I think so, which part are you not understanding? Are you not understanding why there are certain things you have said which imply the future is single-threaded? Or why the future being single-threaded would imply that we are not free to make choices that result in an outcome different than God knows will happen?

"Free" probably isn't the clearest word. "Capable" would be more accurate, I think.

Again, I am convinced God's experience in time and space has no effect on our experience in time and space. We have the ability and freedom to make any choice we please. Nothing hinders us.

God knows the exact day and hour Jesus will return. The reason He knows is because He exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously.

Is this one difference it would make? MM has complained several times about my comments. But, if it's single-threaded, if God knows exactly what I'll do, then he complaining (with the idea to "change" me), is pointless if the future is like history. It's already written and his complaints cannot have any effect on me as my actions are already written in stone. He only is under an illusion that his complaints will have an effect.

Kland, your observations seem to assume God existing in the past, present, and future simultaneously somehow robs us of our ability and freedom to choose as we please.

PS - I'm sorry you feel I have complained about you or intended to change you. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, I have simply confessed I do not enjoy your comments or studying with you.

It would have an effect if we thought about it. If we're willingly ignorant about logic, then it might not.



Nothing hinders from doing what you please, but you couldn't choose anything different than that. That is, there's only one choice possible, which is the one that has "already played out."