“Hold My Root Beer”: A Logical Argument for Future-Tensed Truth Values

As a Mere Molinist, I've always considered Open Theists to be my theological allies in the battle against exhaustive divine determinism (EDD). Of course, I knew why I wasn't an Open Theist and knew the problems with the view, but I had no desire to fight my friends in public. This is the case because I sincerely believe that EDD is far more dangerous than Open Theism.

But then my Open Theist friends, such as Warren McGrew and Pat Patel, started coming after Molinism in general and my work on the topic in particular. In fact, while discussing my specific work on YouTube, Dr. Alan Rhoda—theologian, philosopher, and advocate of Open Theism—made a bold claim:

“There is no good argument Molinists have given—or even could give—to make the case that there are in fact truths about how an indeterministic situation would develop.”

Now, I like Alan. He’s sharp, thoughtful, and genuinely engaged in the metaphysics of God’s knowledge. But that claim?

I took it as a challenge.

So I said, “Hold my root beer.”

Let’s roll up our sleeves and see if a good argument can be made after all—especially for those who take Scripture seriously and believe that logic still matters.

What’s at Stake?

The question is this:

Do future-tensed propositions about libertarian agents—like “Peter will deny Jesus three times”—have truth-values before the event happens?

Open Theists say “no.” They believe these statements are neither true nor false until actualized. But this puts them at odds with the entire biblical witness, the doctrine of divine omniscience, and—most importantly—the laws of logic.

The one we’ll focus on here is the Law of Excluded Middle.

A Quick Logic Refresher

The Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) says:

For any proposition P, either P is true or not-P is true.

For example, either “Jesus will return” is true, or it’s not. There’s no third option.

This is bedrock logic. It applies to past-tense propositions (“Judas betrayed Jesus”), present-tense propositions (“I'm typing this sentence”), and yes—future-tense propositions (“Judas will betray Jesus three times”).

To deny this law is to throw logic out the window. And if you do that before reading Scripture, then—as I like to say—there’s nothing stopping you from reading the Bible and concluding that Jesus was an atheist.

Enter: Prophecy

The Bible contains around 1,800 prophetic statements, many of which involve libertarianly free agents making future decisions. These are not deterministic scripts, nor are they mere probabilistic forecasts. They are declarations of what free people will do, often involving morally significant decisions, sin, or responses to divine grace.

Here are just a few examples:

• “Cyrus will set the exiles free” (Isaiah 44:28–45:1) → Spoken 150 years before Cyrus was even born. → Requires nearly two centuries of libertarian free choices:

  • Over 60 sets of ancestors had to freely meet, fall in love (or at least agree to marry), conceive at the right time, raise children through war, disease, and politics—all leading to the precise biological and historical conditions for Cyrus’s conception, birth, given name, his character formation, political rise, and eventual decree to release the Jews.

  • Conception not being prevented by miscarriage or infertility

  • Naming him “Cyrus” and raising him to be a specific kind of ruler

  • Political alliances, wars, and decisions leading to his rise

  • His freely chosen policy toward the Jews

• “Peter will deny me three times” (Matthew 26:34) → Jesus knew Peter’s future choices—despite Peter’s insistence he would not fall. → Requires Peter’s free betrayal, not coerced or predetermined. → Requires other libertarian agents moving around Jerusalem and confronting Peter.

• “One of you will betray me” (John 13:21) → Refers to Judas, who freely chose to betray Christ. → Jesus states: “The Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed” (Luke 22:22), affirming both divine foreknowledge and moral responsibility. → This fulfills earlier prophecy: “They weighed out my wages, thirty pieces of silver” (Zechariah 11:12–13), cited explicitly in Matthew 27:9–10 as fulfilled in Judas’s betrayal and death. → This wasn’t vague—it predicted a specific amount of money connected to a specific kind of treachery, long before Judas or his co-conspirators existed.

• “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matthew 24:34) → Includes massive free choices of leaders, followers, and persecutors that lead to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

• “The sons of Eli will die on the same day” (1 Samuel 2:34) → Prophecy tied to their continued unrepentant wickedness. → Involves multiple years of persistent sinful choices leading to their downfall.

• “Your kingdom will be taken from you and given to another” (1 Samuel 15:28, re: Saul) → Depends on Saul’s freely chosen pattern of disobedience. → Also involves David’s rise, which includes numerous contingent decisions (e.g., not killing Saul when he had the chance).

• “The Babylonians will conquer Judah” (Habakkuk 1:6; Jeremiah 25:9) → Requires layers of human planning, political unrest, war, and divine judgment—not all determined in the mechanistic sense. → Babylon’s kings were morally accountable for their pride and cruelty (see Habakkuk 2).

• “Jesus will be born in Bethlehem” (Micah 5:2) → Fulfilled through a Roman census called by Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1–7) → Joseph and Mary travel at the right time, though pregnant—a highly contingent, historically embedded moment.

• “They will look on the one they have pierced” (Zechariah 12:10; fulfilled in John 19:37) → Involves the Roman soldiers’ freely chosen crucifixion and spear thrust into Jesus’ side.

• “Not one of His bones will be broken” (Psalm 34:20; Exodus 12:46; fulfilled in John 19:33) → Roman soldiers freely decide to break the legs of others—but choose not to break the legs of Jesus. Each of these prophecies is rooted in real historical freedom—not divine determinism. And yet, the truth of the propositions was secure before the events occurred. Were these propositions true when spoken?

  • If yes, then future-tensed propositions have truth-values.

  • If no, then Scripture presents God as gambling with crazy guesses, not declaring truth.

  Let’s be clear: these are not coin-flip predictions. These are truthful declarations about the future actions of morally responsible libertarian agents, made in advance, without causal determinism. And that’s devastating to Open Theism.

A Clarification Before the Formal Argument

A quick clarification before we proceed. The argument you're about to read is not aimed directly at counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (CCFs)—the “would” statements Molinists are best known for, such as “If Peter were in circumstance C, he would freely deny Jesus.” Dr. Alan Rhoda’s objection specifically targets CCFs, but he also denies that future-tensed categorical propositions have truth-values.

What I’m offering here is a closely related—but distinct—argument. It focuses on future-tensed categorical propositions like “Peter will deny Jesus three times.” These aren’t counterfactuals, but they still involve libertarian agents making morally significant choices.

Defending the truth-value of such future-tense propositions doesn’t entail the truth of CCFs. But if Open Theism requires denying even these, then it’s already in deep trouble. A separate case for CCFs is worth making—and I plan to in a future post called "Hold My Root Beer: A Logical Argument for Counterfactual Truth Values")—but this is the first domino.

If this first domino falls, the rest don’t even get a chance to stand.

The Deductive Argument

Let’s get formal. Here's a logical, LEM-based argument that any Bible-believing Christian should take seriously:

The Argument from Prophecy and the Law of Excluded Middle

1. For any proposition P, either P or not-P is true (law of excluded middle).

2. Many biblical prophecies involve future-tensed propositions about libertarian free agents.

3. Therefore, at least one such proposition is either true or false.

4. If even one such proposition is true (or false), then an omniscient God would know it.

5. Dynamic Omniscience and Open Theism (DO/OT) deny that such propositions have truth-values and deny God knows them.

6. Therefore, DO/OT are logically incompatible with biblical prophecy and divine omniscience.

Final Analysis:Bible-believing Christians have strong reason to affirm the existence of future-tensed truth values—and to reject Open Theism.<1>

Why It Matters

This isn’t just a philosophical quibble. If you deny LEM to save Open Theism, you're not just rejecting classical theism—you’re rejecting classical logic.

Worse, you’re stuck saying things like:

“Well, the statement ‘Cyrus will release the Jews’ was neither true nor false for 150 years.”

And that’s not a theological position. That’s a metaphysical coin toss.

The Molinist Solution

Molinism preserves:

• Libertarian freedom (yes, you’re still responsible and the source of your choices),

• Divine omniscience (yes, God really does know the future—all of it), and

• Logical coherence (yes, logic still works—even for Christians).

It allows us to say God can sovereignly direct the course of history—including the actions of free creatures—because He knows what they would freely do in every possible circumstance. That’s middle knowledge. And that’s powerful.

Bottom Line

Alan Rhoda said no good argument could be given for future-tensed truth values regarding libertarian agents. But if you affirm the law of excluded middle, human libertarian freedom, and believe in biblical prophecy about free human agents, then you're already basically there.

And if even one prophecy—say, Isaiah’s prediction about Cyrus—is true before it happens, then game over.

Cyrus is a virus for Open Theism.

Now give me back my root beer.

Stay logical. Stay biblical. Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18).

— Dr. Tim Stratton

Notes

<1>Reformulated Syllogism (Plain Language)

1. If biblical prophecy contains true future-tensed statements about free agents, then those propositions have truth-values.

2. If they have truth-values and God is omniscient, then God knows them.

3. Open Theism denies both (1) and (2).

4. Therefore, Open Theism contradicts biblical prophecy and divine omniscience.

5. Therefore, Open Theism is false (reductio).