Present doctrine of atonement fallacies

[Nic Samojluk]

"In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ suffered in man's stead..."

"The power that inflicted retributive justice upon man's substitute and surety, was the power that sustained and upheld the suffereing One under the tremendous weight of wrath that would have fallen upon a sinful world. Christ was suffering the death that was pronounced upon the transgressors of God's law." SDA BC 7A 667

"Without shedding of blood there is no remission for sin. He MUST suffer the agony of a public death on the cross, that witness of it might be borne without the shadow of a doubt." Ms. 101m 1897

"In the councils of heaven the cross was ordained as the means of atonement." Ms. 165, 1899

"Christ bore the penalty that would have fallen upon the transgressor...." RH, May 23, 1899.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

That is exactly what I am saying. The debt that was incurred by our father(Adam) was left unpaid. This debt was eternal death(2nd death). If Adam and Eve paid their own debt they would not have a resurrection to life. This debt is one we cannot pay ourselves and hope for a resurrection, for obvious reasons, there is no resurrection from the 2nd death.

What you are saying is that God set up a system where people could pay Him off when they sinned. It’s like God was selling indulgences long before the Catholic church ever came up with it. This is silly on several levels. First off, it implies that there is a price in God’s mind that would make sin worth it for Him. If that price was paid to God, He would be satisfied and the sin wouldn’t matter anymore.

God would NEVER put a price on that because there is no price that would make it okay for Him. It would be like me agreeing to allow a man to molest one of my children for the right price. There is NO price that I would accept for that.

Remember that it's sin that killed Christ, not the Father.

A great response. Why didn't I think about this before?

[Nic Samojluk]

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic

If your theory is correct, then how do you explain the fact that both the Bible and Ellen White did express the death of Christ on a contingency basis?

There are many, many other texts in both Scripture and the SOP which express future events on a contingency basis as well. I quoted a few of these earlier, but they weren't commented on.

Perhaps you need to post them again. Sometimes certain ideas are overlooked when the posting is rather long.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Richard:That's true, he knows the end from the beginning.

Nic:Read my previous posting. If God knows precisely what choices humans will make, then why would he inspire both Bible writers and Ellen White to describe the death of Jesus on a contingency basis?

The God knows the end from the beginning is often misunderstood. The idea is that if you start down a path, God knows the end of that path. It's not saying before you start the journey that God knows what journey you will choose, but that once you choose the path, God knows the end of that path. A classic example of this are the blessings and cursing of Deuteronomy. Jer. 18 also addresses this issue.

Interesting answer. Nevertheless, this is based on the assumption that each path leads inexorably to one and only one place. I see life more like the freeways and highways we have today. They are all inteconneted and you can't predict with accuracy which turn a driver may take.

This is evident when there is a police car pursuit. There is no sure way for the police to be sure where the chase will end.

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic

Yes, I did. I saw that post after I had reponded to your comments. I am always behind in my reading and answering. Right now I am several pages behind. I mark the place when I stop reading and I pick that spot the next time I am ready to read some more. There is no way for me to be able to read everything and be up to date on the comments being posted within the limited time I have. Besides, I am a slow reader.

Ok. I didn't read your post past seeing what the topic was, as I didn't see the point, as I couldn't respond. Again, if you wish to continue the discussion, you may repost your post elsewhere, and I'll respond.

Given my age and all the important projects I have in mind, that other side issue is of low priority for me at this point in time.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Interesting answer. Nevertheless, this is based on the assumption that each path leads inexorably to one and only one place. I see life more like the freeways and highways we have today. They are all inteconneted and you can't predict with accuracy which turn a driver may take.

This is evident when there is a police car pursuit. There is no sure way for the police to be sure where the chase will end.

The roads do lead to one place. The road to life leads to life. The road to death leads to death. This doesn't mean, of course, that one can get off of one road on go on the other.

God knows what the end of each road is, and He informs us. He'd much prefer that we be on the road to life.

Regarding the interconnected roads, that's how I believe God sees the future. That is, the interconnected roads represent all the different possibilities there are. God sees all the possibilities, but it's not possible to know ahead of time which possibility will become reality because that's not the way reality is. That is, reality is such that the future is comprised of possibilities until they become realities. Because that's the way the future is, it is not possible to see the future as fixed ahead of time, except in a contingent ways (i.e. "If you do this, then this is what will happen.")

[pnattmbtc]

A great response. Why didn't I think about this before?

[pnattmbtc]

Perhaps you need to post them again. Sometimes certain ideas are overlooked when the posting is rather long.

[fccool]

The obvious question would be then how does it all relay to specifics in prophecy. The prophecy about Papal system coming to rise was not a mere contingency. It was given to Daniel as a fact. Likewise the messianic prophecy by Isaiah is given in passed tense as though it already happen.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

The obvious question would be then how does it all relay to specifics in prophecy.

The prophecies are contingent, as laid out by Jeremiah 18.

Quote:

The prophecy about Papal system coming to rise was not a mere contingency. It was given to Daniel as a fact.

It was a contingent fact, as explained by Jeremiah 18.

Quote:

Likewise the messianic prophecy by Isaiah is given in passed tense as though it already happen.

The prophets are given visions or dreams, and relate what they saw. What they saw is, of course, past tense.

[fccool]

So, what you are saying is that Prophecy is merely a version of the future that God sees? It's uncertain?

Likewise, when we say that in the future there will come a power that will force people to follow Sunday... that means that it's likewise uncertain, and that father does not really know exactly when Christ will come, but it's merely contingent on our actions. Thus he will not come back unless we are done spreading the Gospel all over the world?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

So, what you are saying is that Prophecy is a version of the future that God sees?

Sure, what else could it be? (I removed "merely").

Quote:

It's uncertain?

It depends. There are elements of the future which are settled, or certain, and elements which aren't. For example, God knows what He will do in the future, so He can foresee what He will do and be certain He will do it. There's no uncertainty there.

Also, in certain instances, the character of an individual, or nation, can be settled, so it's certain what they will do (like Peter, for example. Prophecies about Satan are another good example).

But when it's possible for an individual, or nation, to make choices, then the prophecy is conditional, as Jeremiah 18 explains. A good example of this is Nineveh. Even though the prophecy was not stated in conditional terms, it was.

Quote:

Likewise, when we say that in the future there will come a power that will force people to follow Sunday... that means that it's likewise uncertain,

It's certain what will happen (in broad strokes, such as there will be a mark of the beast involving Sunday, etc.) because Satan's character is known, and settled. When it will happen is not certain.

Quote:

and that father does not really know exactly when Christ will come,

God knows when Christ will come in all of its possibilities. For example, EGW wrote that Christ could have come before now, as early, IIRC, as the late 1850's. She wrote this several times. If it is really true that Christ could have come in the future, then it can't be the case that God was certain that He wouldn't come then.

Quote:

but it's merely contingent on our actions.

Not just our actions, but the actions of many. But yes, it is contingent upon our actions. That's why it can be said that we can hasten or delay Christ's coming. If Christ's coming were on a fixed date, that couldn't be done.

Quote:

Thus he will not come back unless we are done spreading the Gospel all over the world?

Christ won't come until the world has been prepared for Him to come. That's why we exist as a church, and have been preaching all these years!

Quote:

Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own.

It is the privilege of every Christian not only to look for but to hasten the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, (2 Peter 3:12, margin). Were all who profess His name bearing fruit to His glory, how quickly the whole world would be sown with the seed of the gospel. Quickly the last great harvest would be ripened, and Christ would come to gather the precious grain. (COL 69)

[fccool]

Quote:

It depends. There are elements of the future which are settled, or certain, and elements which aren't. For example, God knows what He will do in the future, so He can foresee what He will do and be certain He will do it. There's no uncertainty there.

Also, in certain instances, the character of an individual, or nation, can be settled, so it's certain what they will do (like Peter, for example. Prophecies about Satan are another good example).

But when it's possible for an individual, or nation, to make choices, then the prophecy is conditional, as Jeremiah 18 explains. A good example of this is Nineveh. Even though the prophecy was not stated in conditional terms, it was.

Wouldn't that undercut your original premise. How is it that in one case God can know a choice and outcome with surety, and in other case He can only see possibilities? If all of us are free agents with a choice, how is it then based on your view in one case you have absolute certainty of the outcome, and in other case you don't?

[pnattmbtc]

Wouldn't that undercut your original premise. How is it that in one case God can know a choice and outcome with surety, and in other case He can only see possibilities? If all of us are free agents with a choice, how is it then based on your view in one case you have absolute certainty of the outcome, and in other case you don't?

I'm not sure what you're asking. I explained that some things are already settled, and some aren't. God sees all the possibilities. This doesn't answer the question? If not, please try restating it another way, and I'll see if I can understand what you're asking.

I think something that might be helpful would be to recognize that the issue is an ontological one, not an epistemological one. That is, the real question we're exploring is, what is the nature of the future. Is it comprised of possibilities, or of realities which we just can't see yet. I'm saying that it's the former.

What God sees simply corresponds to reality. It's the reality that drives everything. God's view of reality corresponds to reality exactly.

This is the logical problem of asserting that God sees the future of definite or certain events. That means that's what the future really is like, and if the future is certain/definite, then it's not determinable (as it's already been determined, since it's certain/definite).

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic

Perhaps you need to post them again. Sometimes certain ideas are overlooked when the posting is rather long.

Ok. Here are a few things from Scripture and the SOP:

Quote:

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the Lord. Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer. 18)

Quote:

3 And now, inhabitants of Jerusalem

and people of Judah,

judge between me

and my vineyard.

4 What more was there to do for my vineyard

that I have not done in it?

When I expected it to yield grapes,

why did it yield wild grapes? (Isa. 5)

Quote:

19 I thought

how I would set you among my children,

and give you a pleasant land,

the most beautiful heritage of all the nations.

And I thought you would call me, My Father,

and would not turn from following me.

20 Instead, as a faithless wife leaves her husband,

so you have been faithless to me, O house of Israel,

says the Lord. (Jer. 3)

From the SOP:

Quote:

Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.

The heart of the human father yearns over his son. He looks into the face of his little child, and trembles at the thought of life's peril. He longs to shield his dear one from Satan's power, to hold him back from temptation and conflict. To meet a bitterer conflict and a more fearful risk, God gave His only-begotten Son, that the path of life might be made sure for our little ones. "Herein is love." Wonder, O heavens! and be astonished, O earth! (DA 49)

Quote:

Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss. Then we shall cast our crowns at His feet, and raise the song, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." Rev. 5:12. (DA 131)

Quote:

Remember that Christ risked all. For our redemption, heaven itself was imperiled. At the foot of the cross, remembering that for one sinner Christ would have laid down His life, you may estimate the value of a soul. (COL 196)

[Nic Samojluk]

The obvious question would be then how does it all relay to specifics in prophecy. The prophecy about Papal system coming to rise was not a mere contingency. It was given to Daniel as a fact. Likewise the messianic prophecy by Isaiah is given in passed tense as though it already happen.

Yes, the glorious future of God's chosen nation with the Messiah reigning on David's throne in Jerusalem was also expressed with apparent certainty. The same can be said about the destruction of the city of Nineveh; yet those events did not take place.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

So, what you are saying is that Prophecy is a version of the future that God sees?

Sure, what else could it be? (I removed "merely").

Quote:

It's uncertain?

It depends. There are elements of the future which are settled, or certain, and elements which aren't. For example, God knows what He will do in the future, so He can foresee what He will do and be certain He will do it. There's no uncertainty there.

Also, in certain instances, the character of an individual, or nation, can be settled, so it's certain what they will do (like Peter, for example. Prophecies about Satan are another good example).

But when it's possible for an individual, or nation, to make choices, then the prophecy is conditional, as Jeremiah 18 explains. A good example of this is Nineveh. Even though the prophecy was not stated in conditional terms, it was.

Quote:

Likewise, when we say that in the future there will come a power that will force people to follow Sunday... that means that it's likewise uncertain,

It's certain what will happen (in broad strokes, such as there will be a mark of the beast involving Sunday, etc.) because Satan's character is known, and settled. When it will happen is not certain.

Quote:

and that father does not really know exactly when Christ will come,

God knows when Christ will come in all of its possibilities. For example, EGW wrote that Christ could have come before now, as early, IIRC, as the late 1850's. She wrote this several times. If it is really true that Christ could have come in the future, then it can't be the case that God was certain that He wouldn't come then.

Quote:

but it's merely contingent on our actions.

Not just our actions, but the actions of many. But yes, it is contingent upon our actions. That's why it can be said that we can hasten or delay Christ's coming. If Christ's coming were on a fixed date, that couldn't be done.

Quote:

Thus he will not come back unless we are done spreading the Gospel all over the world?

Christ won't come until the world has been prepared for Him to come. That's why we exist as a church, and have been preaching all these years!

Quote:

Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own.

It is the privilege of every Christian not only to look for but to hasten the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, (2 Peter 3:12, margin). Were all who profess His name bearing fruit to His glory, how quickly the whole world would be sown with the seed of the gospel. Quickly the last great harvest would be ripened, and Christ would come to gather the precious grain. (COL 69)

Excellent answer! We don't like uncertainty, and Jesus din't like uncertainty either; nevertheless he lived as if the future was certain. When the future is umncertain, the only hope is faith in God's providence. God will not leave us alone to fight the battle of life.

[fccool]

Quote:

This is the logical problem of asserting that God sees the future of definite or certain events. That means that's what the future really is like, and if the future is certain/definite, then it's not determinable (as it's already been determined, since it's certain/definite).

Epistemology and ontology blend together on God level. It's one and the same issue. Let me explain:

epistemology deals with nature of knowledge

ontology deals with nature of existence and reality

God has perfect knowledge, and likewise He is reality and not merely understands it or occupies it. Before everything was God was. God is the ultimate and infinite reality that's beyond grasp on the level of the creation... if we could understand God on creation level, then incarnation would not be needed. God is a multi-dimensional being, and explaining the true nature of God to us would be like explaining a Pyramid to a person who lives in two-dimensional world. It's impossible for us to understand God from ontological perspective... that's why people tend to humanize God... give Him some arms and legs, and a head. He's just a huge guy with a white beard who hovers above the globe with tears in his eyes... or He's just someone who is on the throne somewhere in the Orion's belt galaxy. Egyptians were right after all.

The point is that we can't know God through ontologically, we can only know Him epistemologically.

Yet, the way God knows and sees the reality is as reality trully is, and I agree on that with you. Although I don't quite understand your limitation on His ability to see things as they will be likewise as they are.

In case of Peter and Judas you chalked it up to "self-confidence"... thus because Peter was self confident, he would deny Christ 3 times. Yet there are some very important specifices:

1) Deny 3 times

2) Deny before [censored] crows

God seen the reality of the future as though it was present exactly how it would happen... not a mere possibility. Likewise the specifics in the prophecy, like Christ's robe was gambled on... was not a mere possibility. Sure it was contingent on many things, but miraculously these things came about just as predicted... and not in any other manner. WHY?

[pnattmbtc]

Epistemology and ontology blend together on God level. It's one and the same issue. Let me explain:

epistemology deals with nature of knowledge

ontology deals with nature of existence and reality

God has perfect knowledge, and likewise He is reality and not merely understands it or occupies it. Before everything was God was. God is the ultimate and infinite reality that's beyond grasp on the level of the creation... if we could understand God on creation level, then incarnation would not be needed. God is a multi-dimensional being, and explaining the true nature of God to us would be like explaining a Pyramid to a person who lives in two-dimensional world. It's impossible for us to understand God from ontological perspective... that's why people tend to humanize God... give Him some arms and legs, and a head. He's just a huge guy with a white beard who hovers above the globe with tears in his eyes... or He's just someone who is on the throne somewhere in the Orion's belt galaxy. Egyptians were right after all.

The point is that we can't know God through ontologically, we can only know Him epistemologically.

Yet, the way God knows and sees the reality is as reality trully is, and I agree on that with you. Although I don't quite understand your limitation on His ability to see things as they will be likewise as they are.

[fccool]

1) Knowing Peter's character has nothing to do with specifics of the prophecy. He did not just say... you will deny me, but He said you will deny me 3 times. Very exact, and very precise. It's not mere knowledge of character, but also of the events as these unfold.

2) Yes I do agree with these points, yet I would not agree in terms of a movie. In movie, the characters follow a pre-determined script that author writes. This is not the case with God. He watches the movie that we write, yet it does not mean that He can't see the end of the movie for each and every one of us.

THE POINT OF YOUR ILLUSTRATION IS THAT GOD DOES NOT DECIDE FOR ME TO CHOOSE THE PIZZA. IT'S MY DECISION TO CHOOSE PIZZA THAT HE FORESEES. JUST BECAUSE HE FORESEES THE END RESULT DOES NOT MEAN I DON'T HAVE FREE WILL TO CHOOSE PIZZA. IN THAT CASE I CHOOSE PIZZA BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WANTED NOT BECAUSE GOD FORCED ME TO DO SO BY MEANS OF FORESIGHT.

Forgive the caps , I'm just tired of emphasizing it.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

1) Knowing Peter's character has nothing to do with specifics of the prophecy. He did not just say... you will deny me, but He said you will deny me 3 times. Very exact, and very precise. It's not mere knowledge of character, but also of the events as these unfold.

He could have said 5 times, 10 times, it wouldn't matter. As long as there was the opportunity to deny, Peter was going to just keep denying Christ. That was his character, and not difficult for Jesus to see.

Quote:

2) Yes I do agree with these points, yet I would not agree in terms of a movie. In movie, the characters follow a pre-determined script that author writes. This is not the case with God. He watches the movie that we write, yet it does not mean that He can't see the end of the movie for each and every one of us.

Saying the future is like a movie re-run has nothing to do with a script being written. It has to do with the outcome being certain. That's the point of the illustration.

Quote:

THE POINT OF YOUR ILLUSTRATION IS THAT GOD DOES NOT DECIDE FOR ME TO CHOOSE THE PIZZA. IT'S MY DECISION TO CHOOSE PIZZA THAT HE FORESEES. JUST BECAUSE HE FORESEES THE END RESULT DOES NOT MEAN I DON'T HAVE FREE WILL TO CHOOSE PIZZA. IN THAT CASE I CHOOSE PIZZA BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WANTED NOT BECAUSE GOD FORCED ME TO DO SO BY MEANS OF FORESIGHT.

Forgive the caps , I'm just tired of emphasizing it.

THIS IS NOT FREE WILL. UNLESS YOU ARE A CALVINIST. Forgive the caps , I'm just tired of emphasizing it.

Seriously, I've made this point several times. Free will, according the definition SDAs use, is simply not what you're saying. I understand that this is how you're using it, and the argument is fine for Calvinists. But our tradition is Arminian. The definition you are using is not consistent with Arminianism. Do you agree with this point? If not, I can provide more evidence for this. This really isn't controvertible. The argument that is raised, by Arminianists, in regards to this discussion, is not what free will is (it is what I have defined previously), but whether free will is logically consistent with exhaustive definite foreknowledge.

It seems to me that we're agreeing on the point of my illustration, which is that there is a logical contradiction between this idea of God's foreknowledge and free will (incompatilistic/libertarian definition; the Arminian one). Yes?

[fccool]

I know and understand what Calvinism/Arminianims is. I've spent quite a bit of time during my education career to carefully study both. Here's Arminian view for you:

# Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation (see also prevenient grace). They possess free will to accept or reject salvation.

# Salvation is possible only by God's grace, which cannot be merited.

# No works of human effort can cause or contribute to salvation.

# God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ.

# Christ's atonement was made on behalf of all people.

# God allows his grace to be resisted by those who freely reject Christ.

# Believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace through persistent, unrepented-of sin

Arminian theology does not reject foreknowledge, it rejects predestination. It encourages view of God's foreknowledge. Here's the quote from the man himself:

"Inclination in God is natural towards His own creature, whether the man believes or not. For that inclination does not depend on faith, and uncertainty cannot be attributed to the will of Him who, in His infinite wisdom, has all things present to Himself, and certainly foreknows all future events, even those most contingent."

I'm arguing from Arminian perspective... you are arguing from perspective of Open Theism, not Arminian tradition.

Here's a quote from one of the traditional Arminians on your view of God's foreknowledge:

Quote:

As the sixteenth century drew to a close and the seventeenth century began, James Arminius made a clear break from the received position on some significant points. The most prominent of these was the rejection of the [unconditional] predestination doctrine, according to which God foreknows because he has predetermined. Yet while altering the basis for the foreknowledge, Arminius in no sense altered the strength of belief in that doctrine. This is especially important, since some have mistakenly identified the difference between the traditional view and open theism on the matter of foreknowledge as being a Calvinistic-Arminian dispute.

It is clear that for Arminius, divine foreknowledge was exhaustive and certain. Thus he wrote, "Inclination in God is natural towards His own creature, whether the man believes or not. For that inclination does not depend on faith, and uncertainty cannot be attributed to the will of Him who, in His infinite wisdom, has all things present to Himself, and certainly foreknows all future events, even those most contingent."

He is also equally clear, however, that this foreknowledge does not conflict with human freedom, because it does not make something necessary: "Prediction sometimes follows this prescience, when it pleases God to give intimations to His creatures of the issues of things, before they come to pass. But neither prediction nor any prescience induces a necessity of any thing [futurae] that is afterwards to be, since they are [in the divine mind] posterior in nature and order to the thing that is future. For a thing does not come to pass because it has been foreknown or foretold; but it is foreknown and foretold because it is yet [futura] to come to pass."

[fccool]

Open Theism – The Definition

Open Theism is a theological position that attempts to explain the concept of God’s foreknowledge. The essential question of Open Theism is, “Does God know the future?”

The overarching thesis of Open Theism is this --

1. God gave human beings a true free will.

2. If God knows the future, human beings cannot truly be free.

3. Therefore, God cannot know the future.

You, my friend, are not arguing from the Armenian tradition. Although Open Theists would claim their views stem from Arminian/Weslean tradition. Both Wesley and Arminius would reject the statements of Open Theism.

Here's from Wesley:

"In a word, God, looking on all ages, from the creation to the consummation, as a moment, and seeing at once whatever is in the hearts of all children of men, knows every one that does or does not believe, in every age or nation" (Works, VI.226-7).

Open Theism, as you describe, teaches contingency and not certainty (unless in cases where God is directly involved). Although Open Theism would be a progression by which theology changed from traditional Calvinism, I don't think that it would be fair to say that Open Theism is built on either Arminian/Wesley theology. It merely hijacks it.

It should be clear that Open Theism cannot be a development of Arminian theology. Classical Arminians did not reject God's foreknowledge because it is inseparable from Arminius own thinking not to mention that of Wesley. Arminians cannot reject God's foreknowledge because divine foreknowledge is the scripturally taught foundation of God's predetermination (i.e. predetermination is based on foreknowledge). So, I think a more honest position would be that Open Theism to which you ascribe is as much of a departure from Adminianism, as Arminianism was a departure from Calvinism.

[karl]

People have a difficult time accepting the seemingly exclusive concepts of God's foreknowledge and the free will of humanity,

I don't know why this is. Even scientists accept the Uncertainty Principle and the simultaneous phenomena of light's particle and wave properties (quantum mechanics.) Why is it so tough to accept that God already knows what you have not decided yet?