Natural and Free Knowledge

God’s Knowledge: In thinking about God’s knowledge theologically it was customary for many years, until and including the Reformation, to distinguish between God’s necessary knowledge and His free knowledge. The distinction is obvious and natural. God’s necessary knowledge includes several kinds of truths. It is the knowledge of matters such as the truths of mathematics (for example, 2+2=4). It is also the knowledge of truths such as the whole is greater than the part and no circle can be a square. God’s necessary knowledge also includes His knowledge of all possibilities, such as possible people, the possible lives they could … Continue reading Natural and Free Knowledge

Determinism and Skepticism

It is sometimes stated that Determinism entails skepticism. That is presented by certain libertarians to undermine one’s confidence in Calvinism. It seems that they have a problem with accidental beliefs. Here was the response of Hays to Spencer Toy on this problem: Spencer Toy said: As William Lane Craig has stated, once a person embraces determinism of any sort a strange vertigo sets in. One very well may believe true things, but only because they’ve already been determined to believe those things just as much as their opponents have been determined to believe false things. In such a system, nothing can be … Continue reading Determinism and Skepticism

A delicate flower

As you probably can tell, this is another post about the notorious Professor Leighton Flowers. He has made a few new videos (probably in preparation for his upcoming debate). Flowers has the spiritual gift of not being able to add any new content to the conversation. He also provides no alternative for us to turn too. The good of Flowers is that he will weed out the Calvinist that doesn’t study. That allows for Calvinist to better formulate their beliefs. It is through refinement we come to stronger and better positions.I won’t be providing a full rebuttal to his videos. These are just my comments about … Continue reading A delicate flower

Compatibalist and Semi-Compatibalist

Over at T-blog a good conversation that I wish not to be lost in a comment section. Paul Manata and Peter Pike are two very intelligent men that had an interesting conversation about freedom and responsibility. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/06/divided-front-libertarians-at-odds-with.html Peter said: Paul said: — Mentally insane people choose “what they desire,” yet I wouldn’t call them free or responsible (at least civically responsible. Responsible before God would entail a larger story, Adam, the fall, headship, so forth). — Just to show that not all us T-bloggers are in lockstep….. I would disagree in that I WOULD call such actions “free.” However, I would agree … Continue reading Compatibalist and Semi-Compatibalist

Sudduth- Eternal Now

This was a Paper written by Dr. Michael Czapkay Sudduth. I retrieved it from the wayback machine and have reproduced it here. From: Oxford Tutorial Paper, February 16, 1994 In the present paper I want to consider whether, or to what extent, the theory of divine timelessness in the classical theist tradition resolves the apparent conflict between God’s omniscience and the future free actions of human agents. Simply put: Is divine foreknowledge compatible with human freedom, if it is assumed that God is a timeless being? After setting forth the prima facie incompatibility problem based on a libertarian view of … Continue reading Sudduth- Eternal Now

“god of this world”

2 Corinthians 4:1-6 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, 2 but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of … Continue reading “god of this world”

Shamounian Mistakes

In an exchange with Sam Shamoun in his comment section. Sam tries to debunk Calvinism and he fails to do so. I informed him that he missed the point in his video attacking Calvinism. I explain that the reformed perspective on Colossians 1:20 is directed towards an eschatological interpretation and that he is inconsistent in his interpretation. I argued he ended up creating difficulty between the members of the Trinity. That reformed Christians maintain that faith is the means by which we are united with Christ and is not irrelevant. He deleted my original statements and I will try to … Continue reading Shamounian Mistakes