quote:
How.... vertue.... uughhhhhh:
If God is truelly Impotent and Omniscient, then he could think and act like a person if he wanted to or if it served his purposes.
To me, it doesn't make any sense for God to even have the capacity to have purposes. Purposes are thoughts, and thoughts are invariably fallable.
You have to think what the nature of a being that is everything would be. The nature of an entity that doesn't think, it is thought. It couldn't have a will or goals or a plan of any sort because those are all fallable, corruptable thoughts.
from an unused root meaning to shade; TWOT - 1923a; n m
AV - image 16, vain shew 1; 17
1) image
1a) images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods)
1b) image, likeness (of resemblance)
1c) mere, empty, image, semblance (fig.)
"Let us make man, for whose sake the rest of the creatures were made: this is a work we must take into our own hands. In the former he speaks as one having authority, in this as one having affection; for his delights were with the sons of men, Prov. 8:31. It should seem as if this were the work which he longed to be at; as if he had said, "Having at last settled the preliminaries, let us now apply ourselves to the business, Let us make man. Man was to be a creature different from all that had been hitherto made. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth, must be put together in him, and he must be allied to both worlds. And therefore God himself not only undertakes to make him, but is pleased so to express himself as if he called a council to consider of the making of him: Let us make man. The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it and concur in it, because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Into that great name we are, with good reason, baptized, for to that great name we owe our being. Let him rule man who said, Let us make man.
Archers Roxxors!
quote:
The Otaku Penguin had this to say about John Romero:
Maradon...You say thought corrupts. Come on man, even if you don't beleive in the ornagized religion's perceptions of god, HE'S GOD FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.
So, what sort of thought is incorruptible?
Incorruptible thought would not have free will, because free will would mean the freedom to choose corruption.
Incorruptible thought wouldn't be much like thought at all, in fact.
quote:
To me, it doesn't make any sense for God to even have the capacity to have purposes. Purposes are thoughts, and thoughts are invariably fallable.&&&&&&So then, does that mean it is impossible for any thought at all to be infallible? And who is to say that God's Thought, if indeed he does have such, would have to be fallable. Can you show me exactly why thoughts have to be fallable?
You have to think what the nature of a being that is everything would be. The nature of an entity that doesn't think, it is thought. It couldn't have a will or goals or a plan of any sort because those are all fallable, corruptable thoughts.
&&&&&&I don't think of God as a being that is everything though. That is Panthiesm, BTW. If it is thought, and it can't think because thoughts are fallible, then it is fallible because it is thought.
Archers Roxxors!
Archers Roxxors!
quote:
We were all impressed when vertue wrote:
&&&&&&So then, does that mean it is impossible for any thought at all to be infallible? And who is to say that God's Thought, if indeed he does have such, would have to be fallable. Can you show me exactly why thoughts have to be fallable?
Thoughts are the result of free will. Free will includes the freedom of fallability, the freedom to be wrong. See my previous post.
quote:[/QUOTE]
&&&&&&I don't think of God as a being that is everything though. That is Panthiesm, BTW. If it is thought, and it can't think because thoughts are fallible, then it is fallible because it is thought.
Not nesscessarily, thought grows in free will but it can be said that it stems from an inexplicable, utterly pure drive to become more than what you are.
To me, God is most likely the source and the embodiment of that drive.
quote:
vertue got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
If all thought is corruptable, then there isn't free will there either.
All thought is corruptable because of free will.
quote:
Thoughts are the result of free will. Free will includes the freedom of fallability, the freedom to be wrong. See my previous post.&&&&&&&How are Thoughts the result of Free will?
Not nesscessarily, thought grows in free will but it can be said that it stems from an inexplicable, utterly pure drive to become more than what you are.
&&&&&&&&&Please show me how thought grows in free will. And does thought *always* come from the pure drive to become more than what you are? Does it always succeed?
To me, God is most likely the source and the embodiment of that drive.
&&&&&&Maybe. God could be the embodiement of our drive to become better, since I think that he wants that for us. But why does that mean that he cannot think? I mean, sure he cannot think like people but he is still a rational being I think.
Archers Roxxors!
quote:
All thought is corruptable because of free will.
That would emply that thought existed before free will. Is it possible to think without free will? Ask the Calvinists if they think.(Whether they actually do or not only God knows 
)
Archers Roxxors!
quote:
The Otaku Penguin had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Mara, that's why we call it Faith =pAnd Sage, we still have free will. Look at it this way...
Kag boots up his computer, he has to choose whether or not he wants to play DS or CS. God knows what he is going to choose, but is not in Kag's face saying "CHOOSE DS YOU ASSHOLE!" Instead, Kag has the choice of what he wants to do. God is not predetermining what you're going to do, he just knows what you're going to do.
Look at it this way: if God knows for certain what you're going to do before you do it, then you have a 0% chance of doing anything but that. How is it free will if you have no ability to do anything but what God foresees? You may think you're choosing between actions, but that's only an illusion, because you can do only one.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Emil, I would appreciate hearing, in a PM, if possible, where you got your "4 priests wrote the new testament" idea. I have heard such a theory regarding the old testament, but as to the new testament, it flies in the face of every historical account I have read. As a part-time preacher myself I'd like to keep informed on what's out there.
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
But keep in mind that most of the structural breakdown in things was more or less made up in the dark ages off of Jewish qaballah references, etc. Angels as put forth in Judeo-Christian theology (winged beautiful people) didn't crop up in history til after the proto-Jews were freed from captivity by a Phonecian Zoroastrian King. Have to remember that most religions back then borrowed ideas from one another. There were divine spirits prior, but they weren't angels as we know them til after. Didn't have names for a long time either (for instance, the angel blocking the door to Eden with the fiery sword has, according to scholars, been either Michael or Gabriel.)
The idea that Lucifer is a fallen angel is something of a mistake. It was popular since the Dark Ages, when there was the belief that there had been a war in heaven and that Lucifer was an angel who got tossed out. It's great mythology, but the history suggests that the reference to the light bearer was in fact a reference to a king favored by God with good grace who fell from the beneficent graces of good (in other words he went bad). There's no reference to Lucifer anywhere else in the original texts.
And, contrary to popular belief, Satan does not equate to Lucifer.
If you look at old references, Christian text scholars suggest that you could equate the role of Satan to being something like the prosecutor in a trial. Like in the case of Job. Job's faith is on trial. He's the defendant. The angel in the role of Satan ("Adversary") at the time tests that faith. It prosecutes a stringent test on him, with God acting as judge.
Of course a lot of that stuff changed when Christianity broke away from Judaism. Satan suddenly equated to Lucifer, who equated to the Beast, the 666 references, etc, all of which are New Testament stuff taken from the Revelation of John. *shrugs* Was made worse in the dark ages when the Church was all-powerful in the lives of people and people in monasteries started contemplating too hard. Heresies over disagreements in the lore that wasn't a part of things to begin with.
But it's a very interesting book and subject nonetheless.
disclaimer: I'm not challenging anyone's religious beliefs. Christianity is a valid theo-philosophical belief system. If offended by the above, take a chill pill
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Okay...back to the original subject...if you want books on angel lore in a dictionary form (detailing names of angels, references, etc) I can suggest a few. I went through a phase a while back where I was big into the angel thing out of curiousity.But it's a very interesting book and subject nonetheless.
Um, Deth? You forgot to name the book.
Found them on Amazon when I looked for "Dictionary" and "Angels". I'll find them if folks are really interested.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
[ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: Azrael/Cthon ]
quote:
Okay...back to the original subject...if you want books on angel lore in a dictionary form (detailing names of angels, references, etc) I can suggest a few. I went through a phase a while back where I was big into the angel thing out of curiousity.&&&&&&Most people seem to be very interested in angels, even if they do not really care all that much about God.
But keep in mind that most of the structural breakdown in things was more or less made up in the dark ages off of Jewish qaballah references, etc. Angels as put forth in Judeo-Christian theology (winged beautiful people) didn't crop up in history til after the proto-Jews were freed from captivity by a Phonecian Zoroastrian King. Have to remember that most religions back then borrowed ideas from one another. There were divine spirits prior, but they weren't angels as we know them til after. Didn't have names for a long time either (for instance, the angel blocking the door to Eden with the fiery sword has, according to scholars, been either Michael or Gabriel.)
&&&&&&The Hebrew word for Cherub is pronounced as Ker-oob and is spelled K@ruwb(The @stands for the E sound. Like my First name Is Yehoshua, but is spelled Y@hoshua.) This can mean
1) cherub, cherubim (pl)
1a) an angelic being
1a1) as guardians of Eden
1a2) as flanking God's throne
The idea that Lucifer is a fallen angel is something of a mistake. It was popular since the Dark Ages, when there was the belief that there had been a war in heaven and that Lucifer was an angel who got tossed out. It's great mythology, but the history suggests that the reference to the light bearer was in fact a reference to a king favored by God with good grace who fell from the beneficent graces of good (in other words he went bad). There's no reference to Lucifer anywhere else in the original texts.&&&&&&Lucifer is in the Hebrew Heylel which means "in the sense of brightness". Heylel is
Lucifer = "light-bearer"
1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer
1a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
2) (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of BabylonAnd, contrary to popular belief, Satan does not equate to Lucifer.
That is most likely true. Although the bible does mention Satan, or the Devil, many times it never refers to him as Lucifer. Of course, if he was Lucifer, then by the time of the NT he was no longer Lucifer but Satan. Who knows if Satan is Lucifer or not in reality.
If you look at old references, Christian text scholars suggest that you could equate the role of Satan to being something like the prosecutor in a trial. Like in the case of Job. Job's faith is on trial. He's the defendant. The angel in the role of Satan ("Adversary") at the time tests that faith. It prosecutes a stringent test on him, with God acting as judge.
&&&&&That is an interesting Idea. The New Testament Speaks differently though. The book of Revelation specifically Speaks of Satan, and although it does not call him an angel, it does say that he had angels as followers.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.Of course a lot of that stuff changed when Christianity broke away from Judaism. Satan suddenly equated to Lucifer, who equated to the Beast, the 666 references, etc, all of which are New Testament stuff taken from the Revelation of John. *shrugs* Was made worse in the dark ages when the Church was all-powerful in the lives of people and people in monasteries started contemplating too hard. Heresies over disagreements in the lore that wasn't a part of things to begin with.
&&&&&&Somethings may have not been there before, some may have. I don't know. I do know that most Protestants aren't Sola Scripture like they claim to be though.
But it's a very interesting book and subject nonetheless.
&&&&&Yes, it most certainly is.
disclaimer: I'm not challenging anyone's religious beliefs. Christianity is a valid theo-philosophical belief system. If offended by the above, take a chill pill
&&&&&&I am not offended. Very well done.
Archers Roxxors!
Archers Roxxors!
On to whoever called God an egoist. Quite frankly, I would hate to live alone, by myself in absolute void. Two words for the state that brings to mind: d00d, SUXX0R!!!11
Explain to me how, if my actions are known in advance, I can have free will.
If it is 100% certain that I will choose a particular course of action, by definition it means I'm not free to choose another one. Which means, by definition, I have no free will.
Free will means I actually decide what I'm going to do, and that each decision point has multiple possible outcomes, each with an associated positive probability. Prescience is predetermination.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
No one really knows what Bloodsage meant by this
Simple semantics, dude. How does he do that?--Because he can!&&&&That is always a possibility I suppose.
Explain to me how, if my actions are known in advance, I can have free will.
If the way you define free will is that the outcome is not known my anyone, then no, you don't have free will. However, YOU do not know the outcome, therefore, there is at least the illusion of free will for you. And you are still choosing your own path, regardless if that path is already known to another. If I know everything that you are going to do for the next 5 minutes, does that in any way change the fact that you choose to do that? I am not forcing you to, I just know that you are going to do it. If I told you what I know then that might change things though.
If it is 100% certain that I will choose a particular course of action, by definition it means I'm not free to choose another one. Which means, by definition, I have no free will.
&&&&&&Yes, but you don't know which course of action you are certain to choose yet.
Free will means I actually decide what I'm going to do, and that each decision point has multiple possible outcomes, each with an associated positive probability. Prescience is predetermination.
&&&&&Would it be correct to say that Free Will does not exist outside of time?
Archers Roxxors!
So . . . you've admitted that free will is an illusion, and we're simply given the ability to pretend we're making decisions, while our lives run their predetermined courses.
The inevitable conclusion, of course, is that there is no personal responsibility without free will. If we have no freedom to choose a course other than the one God has foreseen, then we should not be held responsible for sinning, right?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Check out the big brain on Bloodsage!
Simple semantics, dude. How does he do that?--Because he can!Explain to me how, if my actions are known in advance, I can have free will.
If it is 100% certain that I will choose a particular course of action, by definition it means I'm not free to choose another one. Which means, by definition, I have no free will.
Free will means I actually decide what I'm going to do, and that each decision point has multiple possible outcomes, each with an associated positive probability. Prescience is predetermination.
Your post seems to rely heavily on "definitions" yet in the same post you dismiss these same "definitions" as semantics. Consistency is your friend. Yes, he can do these things, because he is omnipotent. It seems relatively simple and certainly logical enough. Your problem, Bloodsage, is that you are attempting to place finite boundaries on the infinite.
On to the main point of your post. Prescience is not predetermination. Your fate may be carved in stone, but you are the one doing the carving. Your future is shaped by your actions and your choices. God does not interfere in this, he only sees the choices you will make. He does not coerce you or force you to a path of His choosing. Your choices are no one's but your own. God simply provides the opportunity and knows what will come of them. The fact that He knows is completely irrelevant.
quote:
Time is not an individual entity, so that would not be a correct statement. There is no objective time.
? What do you mean? I asked would their be freewill outside of time, as in if one did not exist inside of time, then would they not be under the constraints of time.
quote:
So . . . you've admitted that free will is an illusion, and we're simply given the ability to pretend we're making decisions, while our lives run their predetermined courses.
No. We don't pretend that we are making decisions, we are making them. That does not change just because our courses are already known. Which is, btw, not the same thing as predetermined. Predetermined means already chosen, there is a difference between Chosen, and known. It is not an illusion for us, because we do not know the outcome. If you knew the outcome, then you would not have free will, but you don't know, do you?
quote:
The inevitable conclusion, of course, is that there is no personal responsibility without free will. If we have no freedom to choose a course other than the one God has foreseen, then we should not be held responsible for sinning, right?
But we are still choosing. When what we have chosen, and God has only forseen, and not fordetermened, then I think we are responsible. If God had predetermined that we do something, then I think that we are not responsible for that. Like Judas, I do not think that he is responsible for what he did. It was predetermined(doubtless othe Christians will disagree with me)
Archers Roxxors!
How can God do these things? He's omnipotent. How do we know he's omnipotent? Because he does these things.
Circular.
You've not answered the question. If God knows I am going to do action A, what are the odds I will do action B instead?
If there is zero chance I will do anything other than action A, how can I be said to have free will?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Archers Roxxors!
You are missing the point of my argument.
First, there is no such thing as "outside time," because there is no objective, separate entity called "time."
Second, prescience is indeed predetermination with respect to free will.
Why does it matter if someone thinks they are choosing, when their choice is already known? There is no real choice, in that there is zero chance of them doing anything other than what was foreseen. Choice involves the freedom to take more than one path.
Which is not possible if the outcome is known with certainty.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
vertue had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Actually, I have been thinking, and would like to know, where in the bible does it say that God is Omniscient?
I'm not aware that it does, but it's a commonly held assumption.
Of what use is an all-powerful, not-quite-all-seeing God?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
ACES! Another post by The Otaku Penguin:
He gave us free will. So yes.
Yeah. The flooding thing wasn't divine intervention at all. 
quote:
Bloodsage wrote
vertue,
You are missing the point of my argument.First, there is no such thing as "outside time," because there is no objective, separate entity called "time."
@@@@@@@@@Define Time. My professor said that God exists outside of Time and Space. What about Eternity?
Second, prescience is indeed predetermination with respect to free will.
@@@@@I don't agree. I think that there is a difference. One is choosing, the other is knowing.
Why does it matter if someone thinks they are choosing, when their choice is already known?
@@@@@@@Because they are choosing. It would be different if you said "Why does it matter if someone thinks they are choosing, when their choice is already been determined." Determined and known are not the same thing. Not even when it comes to free will. God did not say that you are going to do this because I decided that that is what you are going to do. Instead he said that this is what they are going to do, this is what THEY will decide. That is, if he is Omniscient.
There is no real choice, in that there is zero chance of them doing anything other than what was foreseen. Choice involves the freedom to take more than one path.
@@@@@Unless God purposely removes from his knowledge the foreseen, only to redraw it if needed (I have no idea where this came from, it just poped into my head)
Which is not possible if the outcome is known with certainty.
@@@@@If God is Omnicient, then there is most likely no such thing as free will, if nothing can exist outside of time, as you say. If he is not, then there could be such a thing as free will.
Do you remember what I said about God knowing all of the possibilities, and all of the Possibilities that come from choosing any of those? What if he did not know which ones we would choose, but just knew what the possibilities for each option were?
Archers Roxxors!
There is 0% chance of you making any other choice because you have in fact made the choice. Its like saying that you should be able to go back in time and reweave the fabic at any point you so desire so as to go back and change your decisions. According to your view, because the future is foreseen then the choice is already made, when its the other way around. It is because that choice has been made that that future will be foreseen. The choice dictates the foresight, the foresight does not dictate the choice.
quote:
Yeah. The flooding thing wasn't divine intervention at all.
Free will and not facing the consequences are not the same thing.
Archers Roxxors!
God maybe omnipotent and all but he has little to no interaction with his followers. Angels are as easily corrupted as humans. Demons are creatures created for torture of damned souls(Not harmless innocents). Lucifer is in fact an angel. God is quite arrogent. Most prophets were nothing more than good clerics. Jesus may or may not be a myth. Canada is definately a myth. Jewish, Christian, and muslim all worship the same god. God is not a name. Adam was kicked out of eden for stupidity and for listening to Eve. Lucifer never appeared as a serpent, the snake did it of its own free will. The snake may or maynot have caused animals not to talk and its tongue to be split(very bad christian myth). Priest are rightous nutjobs. Most Catholics are in fact crazy. All Catholics LOVE to argue. I am not really a priest. And hell is meant for JUST punishment(no innocents are sent there).
Thus ends my long winded comentary on religion.
quote:
NecroPriest wroteyay religion, the one thing I know alot about:
@@@Lets see
God maybe omnipotent and all but he has little to no interaction with his followers.
@@@@@Wrong
Angels are as easily corrupted as humans.
@@@@@Possible, I suppose
Demons are creatures created for torture of damned souls(Not harmless innocents).
@@@@Don't know, what I do know is that demons are Corrupted Angels.
Lucifer is in fact an angel.
@@@@@Lucifer was a King of Babylon. Whether he was actually an angel or not I don't know.
God is quite arrogent.
@@@@How so?
Most prophets were nothing more than good clerics.
@@@@@Do you even know what Prophecy means? It means to hear from God, and then to tell others what he told you.
Jesus may or may not be a myth.
@@@@@Jesus most likely was not a Myth.
Canada is definately a myth.
@@@@@@True, true
Jewish, Christian, and muslim all worship the same god.
@@@@@Nope, guess again
God is not a name.
@@@@Correct, his name is Yahweh. He is also called El, Elohim, and Yahweh with various words behind it like My provider, My banner, ecx.
Adam was kicked out of eden for stupidity and for listening to Eve.
@@@@Something like that.
Lucifer never appeared as a serpent, the snake did it of its own free will.
@@@@That is unknown. Although certainly possible.
The snake may or maynot have caused animals not to talk and its tongue to be split(very bad christian myth).
@@@@Animals may have not been able to talk at all. It depends on whether the Serpent was actually satan, or if Satan gave it the power of Speech.
Priest are rightous nutjobs.
@@@@@Some are, yes. So are you.
Most Catholics are in fact crazy.
@@@@@ So, you are saying that about 1.5 billion people are crazy?
All Catholics LOVE to argue.
@@@@Sometimes. They don't like to lose though.
I am not really a priest.
@@@@But your still a nutjob, right?
And hell is meant for JUST punishment(no innocents are sent there).
@@@@I certainly hope so.
Thus ends my long winded comentary on religion.
@@@@Interesting, did you think that up yourself?
Archers Roxxors!
Archers Roxxors!
How does that make any sense at all?
And, even if your point is granted, it means there are no choices, because they were made before I was born. In short, before I could possibly make them.
Why is it you don't see the convenient silliness inherent in your assertion that it's okay for God to do mutually exclusive things because he's omnipotent? How do you know this?
And no one has explained exactly how free will can exist in a situation where the outcome is known beforehand. How am I choosing, when there is only one possible outcome?
More focus, less hocus pocus, please.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
This one time, at Bloodsage camp:
Look at it this way: if God knows for certain what you're going to do before you do it, then you have a 0% chance of doing anything but that. How is it free will if you have no ability to do anything but what God foresees? You may think you're choosing between actions, but that's only an illusion, because you can do only one.
Wrong. You see, we have free will. We can do what we want.
How so?
How can anyone do what they want if the results are known in advance, and there is 0% chance of selecting anything except the foreseen action?
Knowing the future constrains the future.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
The Dominican or Thomist solution, as it is called, teaches in brief that God premoves each man in all his acts to the line of conduct which he subsequently adopts. It holds that this premotive decree inclines man's will with absolute certainty to the side decreed, but that God adapts this premotion to the nature of the being thus premoved. It argues that as God possesses infinite power He can infallibly premove man--who is by nature a free cause--to choose a particular course freely, whilst He premoves the lower animals in harmony with their natures to adopt particular courses by necessity. Further, this premotive decree being inevitable though adapted to suit the free nature of man, provides a medium in which God foresees with certainty the future free choice of the human being. The premotive decree is thus prior in order of thought to the Divine cognition of man's future actions. Theologians and philosophers of the Jesuit School, frequently styled Molinists, though they do not accept the whole of Molina's teaching and generally prefer Suarez's exposition of the theory, deem the above solution unsatisfactory. It would, they readily admit, provide sufficiently for the infallibility of the Divine foreknowledge and also for God's providential control of the world's history; but, in their view, it fails to give at the same time an adequately intelligible account of the freedom of the human will. According to them, the relation of the Divine action to man's will should be conceived rather as of a concurrent than of a premotive character; and they maintain that God's knowledge of what a free being would choose, if the necessary conditions were supplied, must be deemed logically prior to any decree of concurrence or premotion in respect to that act of choice. Briefly, they make a threefold distinction in God's knowledge of the universe based on the nature of the objects known--the Divine knowledge being in itself of course absolutely simple. Objects or events viewed merely as possible, God is said to apprehend by simple intelligence (simplex intelligentia). Events which will happen He knows by vision (scientia visionis). Intermediate between these are conditionally future events--things which would occur were certain conditions fulfilled. God's knowledge of this class of contingencies they term scientia media. For instance Christ affirmed that, if certain miracles had been wrought in Tyre and Sidon, the inhabitants would have been converted. The condition was not realized, yet the statement of Christ must have been true. About all such conditional contingencies propositions may be framed which are either true or false--and Infinite Intelligence must know all truth. The conditions in many cases will not be realized, so God must know them apart from any decrees determining their realization. He knows them therefore, this school holds, in seipsis, in themselves as conditionally future events. This knowledge is the scientia media, "middle knowledge", intermediate between vision of the actual future and simple understanding of the merely possible. Acting now in the light of this scientia media with respect to human volitions, God freely decides according to His own wisdom whether He shall supply the requisite conditions, including His co-operation in the action, or abstain from so doing, and thus render possible or prevent the realization of the event. In other words, the infinite intelligence of God sees clearly what would happen in any conceivable circumstances. He thus knows what the free will of any creature would choose, if supplied with the power of volition or choice and placed in any given circumstances. He now decrees to supply the needed conditions, including His corcursus, or to abstain from so doing. He thus holds complete dominion and control over our future free actions, as well as over those of a necessary character. The Molinist then claims to safeguard better man's freedom by substituting for the decree of an inflexible premotion one of concurrence dependent on God's prior knowledge of what the free being would choose. If given the power to exert the choice. He argues that he exempts God more clearly from all responsibility for man's sins. The claim seems to the present writer well founded; at the same time it is only fair to record on the other side that the Thomist urges with considerable force that God's prescience is not so understandable in this, as in his theory. He maintains, too, that God's exercise of His absolute dominion over all man's acts and man's entire dependence on God's goodwill are more impressively and more worthily exhibited in the premotion hypothesis. The reader will find an exhaustive treatment of the question in any of the Scholastic textbooks on the subject.
