What Does "Foreknowledge" Mean In The Bible?

[TER]

I would just admit from the outset that I make no such claim.

Lol, you don't need to you! You actions and approach to the Christian faith says it for you!

[TER]

No. I didn't mean strictly the Eastern Orthodox denomination. But it's easy to prove. Just read any two church fathers and take note of their differences. None of them agreed on everything. Just like no two people today do.



No they don't. Neither one of those churches make such a claim with one single voice speaking as "the church." Many individual members of those churches may claim that. But those individuals don't speak for their entire denominations.

And even at that, even if someone claims that Justin taught the apostolic faith, that doesn't mean that every single thing he said was apostolic. No educated Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christians claim that.

Saints can err. No one is perfect except for God. Of course there will be differences in certain theological opinions.

But it is through the consensus of the Saints, (just as it was in the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts), whereby the Holy Spirit reveals the truth.

So, with regards to free will and predestination, we most certainly have a consensus and teaching which is shared by the vast majority of the early Christian writers. The other thread demonstrates this. But yet, you still deny it. Why?

[Sola_Fide]

Saints can err. No one is perfect except for God. Of course there will be differences in certain theological opinions.

But it is through the consensus of the Saints, (just as it was in the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts), whereby the Holy Spirit reveals the truth.

So, with regards to free will and predestination, we most certainly have a consensus and teaching which is shared by the vast majority of the early Christian writers. The other thread demonstrates this. But yet, you still deny it. Why?

Look at how far you have to run away from the text of the Bible. What a sad commentary that gives for you TER.

[Sonny Tufts]

What if there was a point in commanding men to do what they cannot do.

What then?

What if pigs could fly? What if one could square the circle?

You would need to show that there is such a point and that all other possibilities are ruled out (e.g., that God is a sadist who likes to punish people who fail to do what's impossible). You have suggested that the point is that by commanding man to do the impossible God shows man that salvation comes from Him alone. But if this is the point, God could have made it much more accessible to man simply by telling him in no uncertain terms that grace is completely up to God and not in any way dependent on what man does or doesn't do. Instead, your version of God is a con artist who pulls a bait-and-switch by commanding the impossible to people, some of whom try their very best to obey but who are later told, "You fell for it, didn't you? Well guess what? All your striving to obey was for naught, because you didn't win the grace lottery. And to show you just how big a sucker you are, I KNEW you wouldn't win the grace lottery when I commanded you."

And don't give me your standard excuse that "God has a good reason for stringing people along; we just don't know what it is." That's your cowardly copout when you can't explain something.

[Superfluous Man]

You would need to show that there is such a point and that all other possibilities are ruled out

Nobody needs to show what God's reason for doing something is as a prerequisite for taking God at his word that he has a good reason.

[Superfluous Man]

Saints can err. No one is perfect except for God. Of course there will be differences in certain theological opinions.

But it is through the consensus of the Saints, (just as it was in the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts), whereby the Holy Spirit reveals the truth.

So, with regards to free will and predestination, we most certainly have a consensus and teaching which is shared by the vast majority of the early Christian writers. The other thread demonstrates this. But yet, you still deny it. Why?

The thing is, the saints have a consensus on precious little. There is certainly no consensus among them on the issues of predestination and free will. And listing quotes from a mere few dozen writers who appear to be in agreement, when those quotes are lifted from their contexts and placed side-by-side does not demonstrate that.

Consensus means 100%, not vast majority. But I don't believe it's even possible to say that a vast majority agreed in detail on predestination and free will.

[TER]

The thing is, the saints have a consensus on precious little. There is certainly no consensus among them on the issues of predestination and free will. And listing quotes from a mere few dozen writers who appear to be in agreement, when those quotes are lifted from their contexts and placed side-by-side does not demonstrate that.

Consensus means 100%, not vast majority. But I don't believe it's even possible to say that a vast majority agreed in detail on predestination and free will.

That's because you don't want to believe, and therefore you will always hold a prejudiced disposition of the evidence presented to you.

If only you chose to believe, you would learn even more wonder and beauty of the Christian faith.

[Sola_Fide]

That's because you don't want to believe, and therefore you will always hold a prejudiced disposition of the evidence presented to you.

If only you chose to believe, you would learn even more wonder and beauty of the Christian faith.

One of the things I've never heard you talk about (maybe you don't know) is the philosophies that surrounded the debates and discussions in the first 4 centuries. For instance, did you know that many of the early apologists were fighting against Stoicism and the ideas of fate? That is what informed some of their statements about the will.