Supra.
Well that's clear as mud!
Fact is there's a genus of people out there who identify as Roman Catholics, but there are different species in that genus. The vast majority of people who identify as Roman Catholics are in one species, well over 90% probably in the World, and that species is what I'm calling regular or vanilla Roman Catholics simpliciter. But there are a variety of species who are irregular, exemplified by people such as Taylor Marshall, such as Timothy J. Gordon, such as Mel Gibson, that are in the public eye, but who are not regular old Roman Catholics simpliciter, and so they don't represent the vast majority of us. They are more nuanced in their views, and I'm forewarning anybody who's unaware, that just because someone identifies as Roman Catholic is not enough to prove that they are any kind of reliable source for what regular Roman Catholicism simpliciter is, especially on the margins, but even just generally sometimes.
Sure.
Man-made, as opposed to God-breathed, like Scripture was.
That applies to the Old Testament only, is that what you mean? I mean, in context, where that passage is found, there's no reason to apply it to the New Testament Scriptures, because there Paul is only talking about the Old Testament. Agreed?
The contents of the Bible were established as soon as scripture was finished being written.
As for "who" decided, God did, and:
What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:“That You may be justified in Your words,And may overcome when You are judged.”
God’s Judgment Defended - What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not...
www.biblegateway.com
In other words, the Jews, not the RCC a few hundred years later, were the ones who decided which books would be included as scripture.
That doesn't apply to the New Testament though. Who decided which books would be included as Scripture in the New Testament? Your argument only substantiates the Old Testament.
Supra.
You said, referring to my statement: "It's not so much "our future choices are not known to Him" as it is "our likely future choices are known to him, but we could still decide otherwise," and also "God does not infallibly know the future."":
"This is weird" followed by a period makes it a standalone sentence. Thus I am fully justified in telling you "saying it doesn't make it so," because as far as I could tell, you just said it, as though it does make it so, and then tried to further your argument without providing any explanation as to why.
If you were intending to explain WHY you think it is weird, then you need to use the subordinating conjunction word "because" to connect your clauses. "This is weird BECAUSE X-Y-Z."
That's how English works. Those are the rules.
You didn't follow them, and you're now complaining that your intent was not conveyed properly.
Not my problem.
Typically we just write a paragraph, and each paragraph is one basic thought, elaborated with more than one sentence. It's not like paragraphs are disparate sentences arbitrarily jammed together.
As I stated clearly above: At best this is confirmation bias.
He certainly has a lot better idea than we do. But He does not know for certain.
He doesn't know if a hurricane or an earthquake or a global pandemic is coming? Come on. You're exaggerating.
He does because it's entirely dependent on whether the President WANTS to post on social media, and we ALL know that he does, so the only situation, circumstance, or condition that's going to render him incapable of posting on social media is something God's going to KNOW about. Because it's definitely NOT going to be because suddenly President Trump doesn't WANT to post on social media! That's not going to be the reason why, that is positively ruled out.
People are what they are. I'm not saying they can't change, I'm saying they don't change, and so therefore it's possible to have infallible foreknowledge of what they're going to do in the future, as long as they're able. God alone would know situations, circumstances and conditions that would render them unable, whether they come to pass or not. So He would have additional knowledge beyond what we know, but even so we have Biblically provable infallibility in predicting what other people are going to do in the future, and we certainly have that about ourselves, as long as we're not exaggerating or being obtuse about it.
I made the point before you did. Supra.
Again, for the nth time now: No. One. Says. Otherwise!
That's right. So you should all be agreeing with EVERYTHING I'm saying. Because it all falls out of the fact He knows at least what we know. That He knows more than we know doesn't even enter into it.
Why do you think this? Don't you think He infallibly knows whether a tornado, hurricane, earthquake, sinkhole, tsunami, asteroid impact, heart attack, stroke, a cable snapping, a bridge collapsing, are going to happen or not? I assume you do, so I'm legitimately puzzled.
Look, I'm totally fine with God being able to look at the information He currently has, and understanding what any given action within those circumstances, and being able to extrapolate well into the future, just based on that information alone.
But that's an entirely different ball-game than saying "God infallibly knows which choices will be made in what order, at what time, in which location, under these circumstances"!
The latter is what I'm arguing against.
Ah. I see. I did
a thread on this idea that God kind of made the Universe like a watch, wound it up and it's just passively going through its motions according to impersonal laws of physics—that's a partisan view, one that I neglected to realize that many people buy into, it's assumed, but I have questions about that view is right, since for me it's similar to Deism.
Clete addressed this well enough.
No, it doesn't refute free will, Idolater.
The future is either settled, or at least partially open.
It cannot be both.
If the future is settled, then there's no free will, right?
I'll respond to whatever I want to respond to, sir. You let me worry about that.
You hand out advice freely on how I should write.
Supra, re Clete's post.
False.
You knkowknow, you could always just look it up...
It means "below." It's the opposite of "supra," which means "above."
Why not just say "below"? You advise me to stop using 'obtain'. How about you just use 'below'? or 'see below'?
No human has infallible foreknowledge. Period.
According to the only Biblical test we have for infallible foreknowledge, this is roundly false. I know I'm about to draw a breath. There, I did it. Biblically, I've passed the only test given to us by God, for determining whether a prophet is legit or not.
I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion, but I'm pretty sure it has to do with that word "infallible" being applied to my position somewhere where it isn't stated by my position.
I'm stating that there is no such thing as "infallible foreknowledge except for very specific circumstances.
Like, when Our Lord infallibly foreknew Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed? Or like how I infallibly foreknew RD here would respond to me right itt?
We know people, we know them well. God knows them, certainly at least as well as we do. He also knows upcoming circumstances and events, and so combining together His knowledges, plural, He makes a more complete foreknowledge of the future than we have access to, but it doesn't mean our own foreknowledge of the future free choices that people are going to make isn't solid, certain, infallible even—except for very specific circumstances—like you say.
Thought so. Glad you confirmed.
Just say "comes to pass." Or "happens." Or "is achieved."
"Obtains" needs an actor. An event is not an actor.
Not how the word is used in the literature.
Indeed!
The onus is on you to show that you've addressed my argument. It's very hard to prove a negative. Practically impossible.
Show how you've addressed my argument.
Because currently, you have not.
My argument is the 10 points listed above.
I addressed it. The reason God or anybody can know you'll answer the phone is because they know YOU. Are you the type who answers their ringing phone regardless? If not, then what circumstance, condition, situation, or event might prompt you to change your default? God's going to know that, even though we aren't. So the only thing separating your argument about God's foreknowledge, from our own foreknowledge, is an irregular event, circumstance, situation and condition, coming to pass. That's the "very specific circumstances" exception you mentioned above. Without "very specific circumstances", God's foreknowledge and our foreknowledge are the same, because it depends on how well we know the person in question, and both God and us know people very well.
This is addressed, and it does prove more than you want it to prove. It proves that we don't have free will, or that the future is settled, however you want to skin that cat, it doesn't matter to me.
