I think i’d reject both of those views & take door number three:
The alternate position is that God is unable to know LFW choices before they occur. Paidon, as an Open Theist, may have expressed that view here recently.
I’d say that that was a lesson in absolute and relative truth.
I think we both agreed earlier that, whether He actively purposes it or passively allows it, Neither position would fully vindicate God.
I think, though I enjoy the discussion, it seems we are just beating a dead horse at this point. Personally I just stict to the literal statements made that God is the author of evil for a greater purpose of good (Isaiah 45:7), that He “counsels all things according to His will”, and no that we arent tv’s we are clay in the Potters hand.
I think the only thing we would end up agreeing with is to disagree at the end of the day.
Didn’t i address this already & explain how that verse is in harmony with LFW & Open Theism?
Not sure. Might have missed it. But I don’t see how Christ would have been “slain before the foundation” if it wasn’t necessary or known to be necessary until AFTER the foundation of the world and the fall of man. Since the idea of open theism is lfw limits His knowledge to only what has already happened. Or in other words Christ couldn’t have been slain “from the foundation of the world” if God didn’t know Adam would use his lfw to disobey and thus necessitate Christ’s crucifixion.
Where does “forchosen” come in if He is not the one subjecting us to faith instead of us “choosing it”? In this verse it shows HE chose who to give faith to in this eon. Not that we chose it through some lfw. And IF you wanna spin it as “forechosen” just means He had “foreknowledge” of who would “choose faith” it would defeat the premise of open theisms idea that He doesn’t have foreknowledge.
Here is post #224 of this thread where I addressed the foundation verse.
I see. I’m using those verses to argue against open theism. Which is the defense against the “if God foreknows then it must be” argument that many lfw advocates struggle with.
If He arranged the fall then He is, de facto, the author of the fall and therefor mans sins and evils committed. And if He arranged it as so how “libertarian” and “free” was mans choice to be subjected to it and all that comes because of it?
The word there was “ra”. Concordantly translated it would be translated as evil.
Many translations Tranlate gehenna as hell. Doesnt make that translation invalidate its actual literal translation.
AFAIK Paidon is Open Theist & does not accept that “idea”.
Unless I’m mistaken I recall Him stating that God does not have foreknowledge because of free will.
I remember because, no offense to him, but i thought it was a bit ridiculous IMO that God does not have foreknowledge when scripture shows in many cases that He does. Though many open theist consider this application of foreknowledge as “accurate guesses” to explain prophecy.
What verse is that?
Either God doesn’t know the future
Or He does because He has purposed it as such.
I’d rather be wrong and give to much credit to God than not enough personally.
Same applies to His grace over all creation. I’d rather be wrong and overestimate His grace and mercy than to underestimate it.
Ephisians 1:4
Yes, but He is not the author of LFW choices.
Also might be gwtting off here soon.
I really have appreciated the civil discourse and strengthening and testing my beliefs and giving me an opportunity to look over and present them to you. As you, im sure, feel likewise. But I just don’t think God has consigned us to come into agreement in one way or another in this topic at hand. And thats ok. Because what I think we both agree on Gods grace, mercy and love is greater than any misunderstanding either of us may have.
Ultimately and i think someone said this before, DaveB I think his screename was, I think sometimes these minor topic end up overshadowing the things we do agree in which is of greater importance. And that’s God’s love and reconciliation of all things.
This might be weird but love ya buddy. And everyone here. Even if tempers might have slightly flared between some of us. It is an interesting topic but I just don’t think it’ll go anywhere no matter who may be right or wrong. And, as I’ve said before, I’m willing to admit it very well could be me. I just don’t see a concise explaination to the more troubling passages that seem at conflict with lfw for me to see it differently.
Also not getting off as in for good. Just got some things to do 
It seems the favorite anti LFW Scriptures are in Romans 9. The following are some sites i was reading yesterday that interpret Romans 9 in harmony with a pro LFW interpretation:
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/romans_9.html#romans9_19-21
http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/bubba9.php
I’ll leave you with that for now, as i also have some things to do.
Ill try to check them out when I get a second. I’ve also left some sources that might be food for thought for you as well. Even if we end up disagreeing with each other’s sources its always good to look in depth at other people’s side of a debate.
I behold pas as being the radical all. There are instances where all is less inclusive, but there is a word that is the super radical all koine of ta panta. Not panta, but that wee ta preceeding it. "From Him the all comes, through Him the all exists, and in Him the all ends.