Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Molinism, concerning middle knowledge - esp BD

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Molinism, concerning middle knowledge - esp BD

    According to Molina, God has three kinds of knowledge: natural, middle and free. For those following Molinism, please explain how Scripture supports "middle knowledge".

    Middle knowledge states that God cannot know the future free acts of men in the same way He knows other things absolutely. Thus, this middle knowledge is dependent upon the free acts of what men will do. God, in His “omniscience”, waits for men to act and then will choose them to be saved based on their choice to be saved???

    God, then, becomes dependent upon the acts of men instead of on His own eternal decrees. And since the actions of men are contingent, the knowledge of such acts would be contingent as well. The free acts of men cannot be true acts until they are actually acted. Thus, God cannot know something as true until men, in time, act out their free choices. Then God’s knowledge becomes true. How does middle knowledge respond to the following passages?

    Isa 46:10-11 “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.”

    Acts 17:24-25, “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.”

    Col. 1:17, “And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.”

    Acts 17:28, “…for in Him we live and move and have our being…”

    Rom. 11:33-34, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor?”

    Psalm 147:5, “Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.”

    Heb. 4:13, “And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.”

    Acts 15:18, “Known to God from eternity are all His works.”

    Ezekiel 11:5, “Then the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and said to me, "Speak! 'Thus says the LORD: "Thus you have said, O house of Israel; for I know the things that come into your mind.”

    Many blessings,
    RW

  • #2
    I am basically a classical Arminian (who believes that Arminius IS an reformed theologian!) and I do not subscribe to Molinism.

    I don't see any limitation on foreknowledge that requires such a strained position.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'd be interested in any replies by Molinists. I don't know a whole lot about it, but from listening a bit to William Lane Craig - he sounds like a regular Arminian. I've heard Molinism described as philosophically sophisticated Arminianism.
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        I would agree that Molinism is philosophically sophisticated Arminianism. Perhaps it's not being completely fair to the valiant attempt of Molina to reconcile these two basic conundrums which have fractured Christianity for so long - God is sovereign, man is responsible - but I find Molinism and the middle knowledge argument a failed though admirable attempt.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by grit View Post
          I would agree that Molinism is philosophically sophisticated Arminianism. Perhaps it's not being completely fair to the valiant attempt of Molina to reconcile these two basic conundrums which have fractured Christianity for so long - God is sovereign, man is responsible - but I find Molinism and the middle knowledge argument a failed though admirable attempt.
          Greetings Grit,

          Well from what I understand thus far, I would agree! "Sophisticated Arminianism"...it's what I refer to as 'learned theologianese'. Or an attempt to find harmony between grace and free will. "Can't we just all get along"...I mean what's the big deal anyhow? Why is it so wrong to present the gospel in a way that makes salvation by grace, but surely man must co-operate??? Right!

          Thanks for your input.

          Many Blessings,
          RW

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by RabbiKnife View Post
            I am basically a classical Arminian (who believes that Arminius IS an reformed theologian!) and I do not subscribe to Molinism.

            I don't see any limitation on foreknowledge that requires such a strained position.
            What do you think that Jacobus Arminius was just not properly understood???

            Many Blessings,
            RW

            Comment


            • #7
              I believe that the Council of Dorts, like rabid Calvinist today, were all to willing to label someone a heretic for not swearing allegiance to Calvin's 5 principles jot and tittle, instead of being willing to say "Grace, faith, free will, and sovereignty are all true and all a great divine mystery." Arminius was certainly not a Roman Catholic-- he was by definition a part of the Reformation. He didn't even agree with Luther and Zwingli on everything. He attempted, although dying before he could complete his work, to describe the complex relationship between grace, faith, free will, and sovereignty. To accuse Arminius of not believing in the sovereignty of God, as I hear the claim from many Calvinists, is simply untrue.

              Arminius was not nearly the heretic he was accused of being. The difference between Arminius and Calvin was as much semantic and rhetorical as theological. They agree on 99%+ of doctrine, yet the entire church goes to war over the 1%.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RogerW View Post
                According to Molina, God has three kinds of knowledge: natural, middle and free. For those following Molinism, please explain how Scripture supports "middle knowledge".

                Middle knowledge states that God cannot know the future free acts of men in the same way He knows other things absolutely. Thus, this middle knowledge is dependent upon the free acts of what men will do. God, in His “omniscience”, waits for men to act and then will choose them to be saved based on their choice to be saved???
                OK BrckBrln, I am an avowed Molinist, FWIW.

                Actually, Middle Knowledge does not state any such thing as Roger posted above. Middle Knowledge says that God has and uses knowledge far more than we usually give Him credit. What MK does is explain how God is sovereign over the actions of men without strictly overriding every act. IOW, as you posted in another thread recently, God can use the evil acts of men, and plan them as well, without being responsible for the actual acts. That is hard for many to swallow. But MK gives a vehicle for explaining how that could be.

                Can you give us a quote on the bold above? What MK does say is that IF God did not know certain free knowledge kind of knowledge He could still be sovereign. Of course God DOES know such free knowledge, or else he would not be God. Have you been researching sites which oppose MK and which don't really know what it teaches or going to those which support it? I'd suggest the latter. MK doesn't limit the knowledge (or actions) of God, it expands it. Other views of God's knowledge either say He has no such knowledge (open theism, for e.g.) or that God doesn't avail Himself of it (Reformed view).

                Originally posted by RogerW View Post
                God, then, becomes dependent upon the acts of men instead of on His own eternal decrees. And since the actions of men are contingent, the knowledge of such acts would be contingent as well. The free acts of men cannot be true acts until they are actually acted. Thus, God cannot know something as true until men, in time, act out their free choices. Then God’s knowledge becomes true. How does middle knowledge respond to the following passages?
                Don't confuse the philosophy of middle knowledge with the theological stances of election or free will.

                Whether or not God becomes dependent on the acts of men does not depend on MK any more than it depends upon the simple foreknowledge viewpoint or the Calvinistic-Augustinian viewpoint. These are simply views regarding God's omniscience/knowledge. What we do with them depends upon our personal theology.

                Originally posted by RogerW View Post
                Isa 46:10-11 “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.”

                Acts 17:24-25, “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.”

                Col. 1:17, “And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.”

                Acts 17:28, “…for in Him we live and move and have our being…”

                Rom. 11:33-34, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor?”

                Psalm 147:5, “Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.”

                Heb. 4:13, “And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.”

                Acts 15:18, “Known to God from eternity are all His works.”

                Ezekiel 11:5, “Then the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and said to me, "Speak! 'Thus says the LORD: "Thus you have said, O house of Israel; for I know the things that come into your mind.”

                Many blessings,
                RW
                Roger,

                You should carefully research Molinism before starting a thread and posting inaccurate data about what middle knowledge teaches. What you have posted here is not correct. BTW, you posted those scriptures as if in some way they contradict the philosophy of Molinism (middle knowledge).

                BD
                3 John 4 - "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my [spiritual] children walk in the truth.

                BadDog!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BrckBrln View Post
                  I'd be interested in any replies by Molinists. I don't know a whole lot about it, but from listening a bit to William Lane Craig - he sounds like a regular Arminian. I've heard Molinism described as philosophically sophisticated Arminianism.
                  Hmmm, well I am a Molinist, and that sure doesn't work for me.

                  Molinism is a philosophy, not a theology. It is a description regarding God's knowledge or omniscience. Personally I like it because of my particular view of election/free will... I have always seen both as biblically supported. But there seemed to be contradiction for this to be so. Middle knowledge provided a philosophical background for explaining this mystery. There's an excellent book to check out 4 of the knowledge of God positions:

                  Divine Foreknowledge, Four Views - edited by James K. Beilby & Paul R. Eddy.

                  It has 4 viewpoints to foreknowledge and omniscience. The resident expert of a particular view gave a brief explanation of his view, and then the 3 other views explained the problem, from their perspective, with that particular view. Very handy, and fair treatment. The 4 viewpoints were:

                  1 - Open Theism by Gregory Boyd
                  2 - The Simple-Foreknowledge View by David Hunt (Generally the Arminian position)
                  3 - Middle Knowledge by William Lane Craig (Also called Molinism after a 16th century Catholic priest, Luis Molini, who debated with another priest on this.)
                  4 - The Augustinian-Calvinist View by Paul Helm.

                  FWIW, MK limits God's knowledge less than any of the other 3 views above. That's one reason I feel comfortable with it. BTW, many highly respected theologians and philosophers hold to middle knowledge within Arminianism, Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, etc.. People from Liberty Seminary, Dallas theological Seminary, Talbot Seminary, etc..

                  I recommend anyone seriously interested in researching this to get this book. It is a fair treatment of the four common positions on God's knowledge. Then you can decide for yourself. But be prepared to learn new terms IOT be prepared to study this area of Christian philosophy such as compatibalism, free knowledge, necessary knowledge, middle knowledge, counterfactuals.

                  I think I should make a short post giving an example, from scripture, of middle knowledge. There seems to be a lot of confusion.

                  BD
                  3 John 4 - "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my [spiritual] children walk in the truth.

                  BadDog!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RabbiKnife View Post
                    I believe that the Council of Dorts, like rabid Calvinist today, were all to willing to label someone a heretic for not swearing allegiance to Calvin's 5 principles jot and tittle, instead of being willing to say "Grace, faith, free will, and sovereignty are all true and all a great divine mystery." Arminius was certainly not a Roman Catholic-- he was by definition a part of the Reformation. He didn't even agree with Luther and Zwingli on everything. He attempted, although dying before he could complete his work, to describe the complex relationship between grace, faith, free will, and sovereignty. To accuse Arminius of not believing in the sovereignty of God, as I hear the claim from many Calvinists, is simply untrue.

                    Arminius was not nearly the heretic he was accused of being. The difference between Arminius and Calvin was as much semantic and rhetorical as theological. They agree on 99%+ of doctrine, yet the entire church goes to war over the 1%.
                    Amen!

                    Jacobus Arminius graduated from a Calvinist seminary. He had some issues with some of the teachings of Calvinism. But he agreed with much more than he objected to. What bothers me is when Calvinists assume if someone is not a 4 or 5 point Calvinist that they are Arminian.

                    BD
                    3 John 4 - "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my [spiritual] children walk in the truth.

                    BadDog!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RogerW View Post
                      Greetings Grit,

                      Well from what I understand thus far, I would agree! "Sophisticated Arminianism"...it's what I refer to as 'learned theologianese'. Or an attempt to find harmony between grace and free will. "Can't we just all get along"...I mean what's the big deal anyhow? Why is it so wrong to present the gospel in a way that makes salvation by grace, but surely man must co-operate??? Right!

                      Thanks for your input.

                      Many Blessings,
                      RW
                      Salvation IS by grace. And just what is cooperation anyway? Is it cooperation to acknowledge that you are a sinner? ...that you need to be saved? ...to believe what you have been told about your sin and Jesus Christ is true? It does not make it less of grace that God allowed mankind a choice in the matter.

                      BD
                      3 John 4 - "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my [spiritual] children walk in the truth.

                      BadDog!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BadDog View Post
                        Molinism is a philosophy, not a theology. It is a description regarding God's knowledge or omniscience. Personally I like it because of my particular view of election/free will... I have always seen both as biblically supported. But there seemed to be contradiction for this to be so. Middle knowledge provided a philosophical background for explaining this mystery.
                        Calvinists have also provided a philosophical solution to the theological problem as well.

                        I think I should make a short post giving an example, from scripture, of middle knowledge. There seems to be a lot of confusion.
                        That would be nice. For some reason I have trouble understanding it.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BadDog View Post
                          There's an excellent book to check out 4 of the knowledge of God positions:

                          Divine Foreknowledge, Four Views - edited by James K. Beilby & Paul R. Eddy.

                          BD
                          Thanks for the recommendation.
                          You were made to think. It will do you good to think; to develop your powers by study. God designed that religion should require thought, intense thought, and should thoroughly develop our powers of thought.

                          Charles G Finney



                          http://holyrokker.blogspot.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Middle knowledge - an introduction

                            I would like to give a brief intro to middle knowledge (MK). But first I need to ask Roger why he created a thread on middle knowledge including my name (BD) in the thread name and yet never let me know that he had done so? I am particularly perturbed because what he has posted here regarding middle knowledge is simply not what MK teaches. That was neither fair to the philosophy of MK or myself. Before you put something down, find out what it really teaches first.

                            Some of you, likely most of you, have struggled to reconcile the apparently opposing ideas of God's predestination and election and man's free will. One such attempt to do so is referred to as "middle knowledge." Personally, I don't like the name, as I think if misunderstood it misrepresents the view of the knowledge and omniscience of God in that system, while IMO it is perhaps higher there than in any other theological system.

                            I imagine that there are varieties of "middle knowledge," and my own position on the matter will be yet another as well. Some oppose "middle knowledge," saying that it places God at the whim of man. As I understand it, it does not. Instead, in this system some see God as having chosen to give man the ability to choose - He created man in His image, and that's part of the package. In one sense, He didn't exactly do that with angels - I'm not sure of all the distinctions. Yet even angels have the ability to choose. You see, what one does with this philosophy depends on your particular theology. MK is not a theology. It is a philosophy regarding God's knowledge. Those who hold to God's sovereignty and election simultaneous to man's free agency might say then that God remains fully sovereign and need not act independent on others within His creation. Just as God knows the future, His knowledge of possible futures is part of His omniscience, and should not be ignored. The fact that He is intimately aware of things we have no idea about and makes decisions and acts based on such knowledge out of compassion is not capricious by any means.

                            The foundation for MK is that God holds different kinds of knowledge. God has what is termed necessary knowledge – that is knowledge that can never be false. This encompasses things like the laws of physics and basic mathematical truths, for example. God also has free knowledge. But free knowledge is knowing the world as it actually is – including the past, present and the future as well.

                            The difference between free knowledge and necessary knowledge, though, is that "God could lack [specific free] knowledge and still be God. He must have this sort of knowledge to be God, but its content would be different. For if he would have created a different world, his free knowledge would be different."
                            The Only Wise God, by William Lane Craig
                            If actions are truly free, some argue that they cannot exist until the person choosing them makes that choice. Since they don't exist, there is nothing for God to know. That is the foundation for a theological view of God's knowledge called "open theism." IMO, it does not necessarily follow that because a choice has yet to be made that God cannot know future contingent events and even what the person will choose as well. Augustinian-Reformed adherents typically say such knowledge does not exist, unless it actually happens. Yet God's Word supports His knowledge of contingencies. Knowledge of such contingent events (which may or may not actually happen) is what is referred to as middle knowledge.

                            For example, in 1 Samuel 23:6-13 we read about an instance in which Saul had been pursuing David, who was hiding with his few men in the city of Keilah.
                            1 Samuel 23:6-13 (HCSB)So David rescued the inhabitants of Keilah. Abiathar son of Ahimelech fled to David at Keilah, and he brought an ephod with him.

                            When it was reported to Saul that David had gone to Keilah, he said, "God has handed him over to me, for he has trapped himself by entering a town with barred gates." Then Saul summoned all the troops to go to war at Keilah and besiege David and his men.

                            When David learned that Saul was plotting evil against him, he said to Abiathar the priest, "Bring the ephod."

                            Then David said, "Lord God of Israel, Your servant has heard that Saul intends to come to Keilah and destroy the town because of me. Will the citizens of Keilah hand me over to him? Will Saul come down as Your servant has heard? Lord God of Israel, please tell Your servant."

                            The Lord answered, "He will come down."

                            Then David asked, "Will the citizens of Keilah hand me and my men over to Saul?"

                            "They will," the Lord responded.

                            So David and his men, numbering about 600, left Keilah at once and moved from place to place. When it was reported to Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he called off the expedition.
                            In this story, Saul heard that David was hiding in Keilah. David discovered that someone had told Saul this. Then He asked God what would happen if... we see here that God knew that if David were to remain at Keilah, then Saul would come to get him, and that if Saul were to come to get David, then the men of the city would hand him over to Saul. You can see why MK is referred to often as the knowledge of "would-of"s - of counterfactuals.

                            David specifically asked God, if such-n-such happens, then will this transpire, and God answered him. So God does know the possibilities - all of them. That's why I do not prefer the name "middle knowledge," for this system has a very high view of the knowledge of God, yet often when people first hear this name they assume that in some way that such a view has a limited view of God's knowledge. The reason I object to open theism is because it is contradicted by such examples as this one in 1 Samuel. In open theism, God cannot know the future. But since He understands our present world, and knows everything that has ever happened, He makes really good guesses. (Please do not confuse open theism and middle knowledge. Actually, the Reformed viewpoint is closer.)

                            Some assume that all genuine knowledge is based on either immediate perception or some causal inference. IOW, we can only know something if we experience it or experience its effects. But that is thinking like men. God is not a man. He is sovereign over His creation.

                            Another example of God's free knowledge can be found in Isaiah 45, where God speaks directly to Cyrus, the conqueror of Babylon 150 years before he was born! Craig says regarding such free knowledge, "God’s knowledge seems to encompass future contingencies: God foreknows Nebuchadnezzer’s divinations to determine his battle routes (Ezekial 21:21-23). Even more remarkably, just as God knows the thoughts that humans have, so he foreknows the very thoughts they will have." Psalm 139 is a powerful testimony to God's knowledge of man's thinking and future actions

                            So God knows every single event in human history - even the smallest detail... past, present, and future. That is some pretty awesome knowledge! That also includes every detail of the entire universe, as well as every single thought and attitude that every single one of us thinks, how the insects will move, what every creature on this earth will do - there is nothing outside His knowledge.

                            Isaiah 55:8, 9 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways," says the Lord. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts."

                            God knows all truth. If reality were in some way different, though, God’s knowledge would be different as well, of course. God not only knows the truth to be true and what will happen, but as I said earlier, He also Knows all possibilities in the web of life.

                            Perhaps I should explain a few other things that "middle knowledge" (I'll refer to it as MK) does not teach first.

                            MK also does not say that God knows what future choices men will make (accumulated), and hence simply works so as to cause things to work out based on this knowledge - that He is unable to override mankind. He is able, and often does. Thank God He does, or so many of my poor choices would come back to haunt me! I mean, there is some truth to that statement. The difference is in God's choosing to give mankind freedom to choose - the ability to make decisions and act on those decisions, within the framework of the personal control that God has allowed each individual. God remains sovereign though. And again, the previous was but the babbling of someone who holds to election and free will simultaneously... MK is not a theology and does not teach the above. It provides a framework for some who attempt to understand how it could be.

                            One thing which MK does do is help explain how God can be sovereign, causing evil events to occur as well as good ones, and yet not be responsible for such actions. That is why some reformed theologians have embraced MK.

                            But there is no way to discuss God's sovereignty and ignore His tremendous knowledge. Just read Psalm 139 and it blows you away. Yet there is no way to logically not hold God responsible for man's bad choices otherwise - if we say that God completely ignores man's desires and intentions to act, and forces or manipulates him to do what He wants in every instance. Also, there is no way that scripture would command man to do something that he is not capable of doing - in such a theology.

                            If one does not accept some form of MK, then he must say that God resists all of man's choices, and forces him to do something else, sometimes evil, IOT accomplish a purpose to choose some of mankind for salvation. That simply cannot be supported from scripture, and paints a picture of God which is neither accurate nor very attractive.

                            Now we know that God does work based on His knowledge of man's choices, as we see many examples of this in scripture. That does not make Him the puppet of man. To deny this does make man the puppet of God. God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply and to rule over His creation. Obviously, God allowed man to make choices in order to do so. MK helps us to understand how this can be so and yet God remain sovereign.

                            The most obvious example of God's working with the knowledge of what man will do is the Son of Man accomplishing God's plan while here on earth. Pilate convicted Jesus of a capital crime - or I suppose you could say that he refused to release Him even though he found no fault deserving crucifixion in Him. Jesus told him that if this were His kingdom, that the angels would fight to release Him from Pilate's power. And you can bet that God knows such things as well as you know your name! That's what MK is saying - merely explaining what we see happening in scripture.

                            Otherwise, what you have is God forcing Pilate to do what he did, then holding him accountable for his robotic actions orchestrated by God Himself. I refuse to believe that God works in such a subversive manner. That's my problem with the understanding of God's sovereignty that many hold.

                            So MK does not simply say that "God chooses, plans, and works based on Man's choices." It allows for those who claim that God has chosen to give man a free will (or "free agency") so as to make choices. MK assumes a knowledge of God much more comprehensive than Christians often assume. "Open theism," OTOH, assumes a knowledge of God much more limited than usually assumed by Christians. That's why I have a real issue with OT and I do not with MK.

                            MK is not simply a system based on God's foreknowledge. Some Arminians essentially say that God's election and His predestining is essentially only foreknowledge, not real predestination. They speak of a corporate election rather than an individual election. MK does not say either of these things. That is a critical distinction. God is sovereign. He does interact actively in this world. But just how He interacts is based on His understanding of all the possibilities out there. To say that He does not do so is to say that either His omniscience or that His mercy and love are limited - that He simply does not care about the consequences of His choices and will. With God's omniscience, there are many, many ways He could accomplish any particular desire He way have. But we should not assume that He is not aware of all of the interactions of His choices and actions. Of course He is aware of it - every last detail of it. He is God. He is sovereign. He certainly could force any of us to do what He wants regarding any particular part of that plan, but He chooses to give us freedom of action and choice.

                            Do you see how such a view of God has an elevated understanding of His omniscience and wisdom and His love and mercy, as well as His sovereignty?

                            One of the biggest issues with the point-of-view that it is God's sovereign edicts that govern all of man's choices is that this is essentially just fatalism. If God is the one who is making man choose this way or that, as most Calvinists propose, then should man really be held responsible for acting on those choices? (Some Calvinists are proponents of MK.) Are they truly choices at all? Undeniably, if God is forcing every man to choose a particular way, then no man has it in his own power to even choose otherwise. And if there are no options but one, then there really isn't a choice at all, ever - man is merely acting out a design preordained in God's play... Act 12, scene 47.

                            It is one thing to say that man cannot choose to do any good - it is quite another to say that man cannot choose... at all.

                            And regarding MK, many hold to election and free will simultaneously, yet never try to rationalize the apparent contradiction of their views - merely saying that they accept both freewill and election at the same time. Well, MK is an attempt to make some sense out of it.

                            Thx,

                            BD
                            3 John 4 - "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my [spiritual] children walk in the truth.

                            BadDog!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BrckBrln View Post
                              Calvinists have also provided a philosophical solution to the theological problem as well.



                              That would be nice. For some reason I have trouble understanding it.

                              BD: Well, the various philosophies of God's knowledge are very difficult for me to follow! The only advantage I may have is that I have been reading up on it for a few years now.
                              BrckBrln,

                              Yes, you're right. I did not mean to imply otherwise. There are many philosophies regarding God's knowledge.

                              BD
                              3 John 4 - "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my [spiritual] children walk in the truth.

                              BadDog!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X