Sensei Meela

Eliminate 'a' (God's foreknowledge of event X) and 'b' (event X) does not happen. In this syllogism, it is the foreknowledge of the event which causes said event. One could eliminate 'a' and yet still produce 'b', I suppose, but at the expense of Omniscience.


A logical position, to be sure. But then, you are limiting an all-powerful God to only logical actions. And, I might add, if the future cannot be known until it becomes the present, how does one reconcile:

Acts 15:18 -"Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world."

unless you assert that the past, present and future all exist simultaneously? Such a position is contrary to our perceptions and experience (but not outside the realm of possibility) and renders a term like 'foreknowledge' meaningless.

I will note, then, the further complication that God cannot obtain knowledge, for He lacks nothing.

CJD

Ironically, it will be you and I fighting to sustain life while the fatalist just accepts her fate. You see, while I maintain belief in the sovereignty and exhaustive foreknowledge of God, I still am not privy to what that exactly is (save where mentioned in that highly-disputed ancient book). Thus, I will act. Inertia is not an option. I am accountable, but how? Precisely because when I make a choice, it is exactly the choice that I desired to make. If I am inclined one way, I will choose that way. If, however, I were to choose another way, I would just be showing my inclinations so to do. The alternative, incompatibilism (indeterminism, libertarianism, etc.), leads to absurdity.

In simple terms, Was there ever an idea uncaused, and if so, was there ever a man guilty of a crime?

p.s Open theism in particular is just re-hashed Hericlitus in Christian terms! Besides, one can be a panentheist and maintain an orthodox view of God (as most great theologians down through the centuries were—including Saint Paul). You would have been wiser, Vinnie, to have rejected libertarianism than to drastically reconstruct your theology to make the two "fit."

Also, people, don't waste time asking Vinnie about reconcilling his view with Scripture. There are obvious reasons behind his inability to do so.

Divinely Predetermined Yet Entirely Inclined So To Be, Yours,

CJD

**edited to add: This is exactly what I was getting at in previous posts.

Amlodhi

Perhaps you and others have researched the applicable possiblilities to the point that you are able to accept the premise on a logical basis. I, however, have not and my acceptance at this point would, therefore, be on a dogmatic basis.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Vinnie

My panentheism and theology ties in very nicely with the Gospel of Thomas--which I view as sacred scripture. I would be happy to answer any questions about said document and my beliefs.

And I have no need or desire to harmonize any Biblical passage with my theology. The Christian canon is not granted any precedence over science, history, philosophy or reason by myself.

Vinnie

7thangel

It was part of God's plan to not estate plainly his secrets even though it was revealed unto the believers. We can even see that to Christ preaching parables unto the Jews, and saying to his disciples, "Unto you it is given to know," but of the unbelievers, he said, "unto them it is not given." It is itself a command, that the secret of God should not be know by the unbelieving Jews, and rather unto them, the secret of God should be in parables.

Why do you think would Paul said that "God will judge the secrets of men through MY gospel" if he himself does not admit "difference" in preaching with the apostles? Peter, himself, acknowledge his difference to Paul through mentioning Paul saying, "as our beloved brother Paul also [b]according to the wisdom given unto him[/b[ hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood..." And in fact, we can see Paul preaching differently, teaching about the predestination as it can be inferred from the Scriptures, not only of fulfilment of the Scriptures on Christ as the other apostles did. Paul's gospel is different in terms that the other apostles do not clearly imply predestination in their preachings. And hence the prophecy speaks of the falling away of the Jews, and that Paul's preaching is concerned of the gentiles who would "rebuild" the church/temple, he spoke of "a day" though clearly he was writing to converted gentiles, implying that such "day" refers to the future after the fall of the Jews, and the first gentile believers.

Now, your demand that it should be written clearly so that all men might have knowledge is by itself an unconscious denial of God's predestination. Even as I clearly speak to you now of God's predestination, would you believe it? As Christ said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

7thangel

"We" actually both speak of the Jews and the gentiles. As Paul said, "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." Paul says that we can infer God through the creation itself. Even as Psalm says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." What I am saying is that we can both infer from the law of Moses, and from what we can infer from creation, the concept of god's salvation of man through His grace, grace that would make us conclude of God's predestination.

The law was added because of trangression, sort of to minimize the evil of sinfulness. Paul said, "But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

The death of Christ is the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law. Christ is the Lamb killed for the cleansing of all sins of the people, actually the elect. Basically, the participants/elect are the only ones being cleansed, not all.

Read what the purpose of the law is, as said of Paul. Christ himself said, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Paul was right, the law was added becuase of trangression, not because one can be saved through it.

I do not have much knowledge about the word "all." But even so, it would not make sense of which words would the word "words" would refer to. So Basically, just one offense would imply being accursed, even James understood the same way, saying, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." Compatible with what Paul was saying, that "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."