An Argument That The Witness Doctrine of Foreknowledge is Contradictory

P1) “Whatever God foreknows must inevitably come to pass.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 852)

P2) “Jehovah God foreknew and foretold the Messiah’s sufferings, the death he would undergo, and his subsequent resurrection.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 858)

C) Therefore, Christ (faithful) death and (glorious) resurrection was ‘inevitable’.

P3) Christ was “still a free moral agent” who had “freedom of choice – either to be faithful or unfaithful.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, pp. 67-68)

C2) Therefore, (according to Witness theology) infallible foreknowledge does not negate free will.

P4) There is no good reason why this should only hold true with respect to merely a few persons, actions, or events.

C3) Therefore, Witness theology should concede that exhaustive foreknowledge does not obviate “freedom of choice.”

P5) Witness theology denies that exhaustive foreknowledge is compatible with "freedom of choice."

C4) Witness theology is contradictory.

12.19.2024: I think a Witness will argue that C2) should be qualified in the following manner: infallible foreknowledge does not necessarily negate free will. Likewise, I think that a Witness would deny P4), at least if these persons, actions, or events are foreknown by God via a certain method.