To be honest, I am not sure what Joen was saying. I was responding to the thread question - does prophesy negate free will?
I went back and read some of the previous comments too. You said this too:
Every effort by theologians to combine foreknowledge and free will amounts to nothing but sophistry and hand waving.
Why? What is being claimed is that the argument:
- Necessarily, P implies Q.
- P
- Therefore, necessarily Q.
And that is a logic error. You can conclude, “Therefore Q”, but you can’t conclude “necessarily Q”. In other words, if God knows ABC will occur, it follows that ABC will occur, but not that it must necessarily occur. ABC may not occur, but then God would have known differently.
Trying to reword - the causation is reversed. There is free will, the knowledge of the choice is there before the choice, but that doesn’t mean the choice was forced. The choice will happen, but if it were a different choice, the pre-knowledge would have been different.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/
Forgot to add this source:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-god-attributes-of-god/doctrine-of-god-part-14/