[22:19] *** Joins: Nomos (kashubian@
[22:19] <Nomos> hi
[22:19] <Duke77> Hello
[22:19] <Duke77> wassup?
[22:20] * Nomos is thinkin
[22:20] <Duke77> -kjv Rom 8:30
[22:20] <KJVBot> Romans 8:30 > Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (KJV)
[22:20] * Duke77 was just looking at this verse...
[22:21] <Duke77> White used it on me in the debate from January 13
[22:21] <Nomos> an irc debate?
[22:21] <Duke77> "The Golden Chain of Redemption"
[22:21] <Duke77> no, live
[22:21] <Duke77> on his webcast
[22:21] <Nomos> oh
[22:21] <Nomos> I think I listened to that one a while back.
[22:22] <Duke77> there's a link to it on this page: http://www.a2z.org/acts/jwindex.htm
[22:22] <Duke77> Are you familiar with the "Golden Chain of Redemption?"
[22:22] <Nomos> your web layout is getting nicer.
[22:22] <Duke77> thank you
[22:23] <Nomos> golden chain of redemeption ... can't say I'm familiar with the phrase, but I can prolly guess what it means.
[22:23] <Duke77> I am considering a complete overhail of the website again... but not immediately
[22:24] <Nomos> overhail doesn't have anything to do with hail marys does it?
[22:24] <Duke77> White used it, as did another, whom I refer to as "Visitor01" attempting to show Calvinism/predestination
[22:25] <Duke77> hehe... overhall...:-) Freudian slip...
[22:25] <Nomos> ;]
[22:25] <Duke77> at first glance that verse sounds pretty convincing toward Calvinism...
[22:26] <Nomos> I suppose that depends upon how one is using the verse.
[22:26] <Nomos> and how one uses the terms in the verse.
[22:26] <Duke77> But the Catholic understanding of predestination includes God's foreknowledge....
[22:26] <Nomos> as it does in a reformed view.
[22:27] <Nomos> foreknowledge doesn't itself assume that God predestines those whom He knows will choose Him.
[22:27] <Duke77> God foreknew those who would accept Him... and those He has predestined, based on His foreknowledge, to be the Elect...
[22:27] <Nomos> foreknowledge is contingent - hence, reformed thinkers claim that God foreknew those whom He would choose.
[22:27] <Nomos> but the passage, nor any other, doesn't say He chose those whom He knew would choose Him.
[22:28] <Duke77> but the context of Rom 8:30 supports the Catholic understanding...
[22:28] <Nomos> -kjv rom 8 30
[22:28] <KJVBot> No such chap/verse: 8
[22:28] <Duke77> -kjv Rom 8:29
[22:28] <KJVBot> Romans 8:29 > For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (KJV)
[22:28] <Nomos> Where in that passage does it say that God's foreknowledge was contingent upon the choices of man?
[22:28] <Duke77> Those whom HE FOREKNEW....
[22:28] <Nomos> sure.
[22:28] <Nomos> foreknew according to what?
[22:29] <Duke77> the foreknowledge precedes the predestination.
[22:29] <Nomos> yea, sure.
[22:29] <Nomos> Do you see the problem with merely assuming that foreknowledge is contingent upon man's choice?
[22:29] <Nomos> it's not in the passage.
[22:29] <Nomos> Let me ask you this.
[22:29] <Nomos> Do you believe, theoretically, that it is possible for God to foreknow whom He would predestine according to His choice?
[22:30] <Duke77> What is He "foreknowing" then? Clearly He foreknew who would accept Him... and THAT is why they are predestined to heaven.
[22:30] <Nomos> I agree that predestination is contingent upon foreknowledge, but foreknowledge isn't necessarily contingent upon the choice of man.
[22:31] <Duke77> The foreknowledge of WHAT then?
[22:31] <Duke77> The WHAT is critical here...
[22:31] <Nomos> foreknowledge of whom He would choose.
[22:31] <Nomos> Why must the foreknowledge be solely contingent upon the choice of men?
[22:31] <Duke77> foreknowledge of Himself? That's a stretech... to say the least.
[22:31] <Nomos> not foreknowledge of Himself.
[22:31] <Nomos> foreknowledge of those whom He would choose.
[22:32] <Nomos> for the bible says, we were chosen before the foundation of the world.
[22:32] <Duke77> foreknowledge of His Own choice = foreknowledge of Himself.
[22:32] <Duke77> True, and WHY were we chosen? Because He foreknew....
[22:32] <Duke77> He foreknew, thus He predestined/chose
[22:33] <Duke77> This is totally in line with Catholic teaching.
[22:33] <Nomos> foreknowledge refers to knowledge of something before it happens ... do you agree?
[22:33] <Duke77> very good... "something that happens" and the "subject" of the "happening" is "man" do you agree?
[22:34] <Nomos> That's not what I said.
[22:34] <Nomos> Do you agree with the stated meaning of the term?
[22:34] <Nomos> foreknowledge refers to knowledge of something before it happens ... do you agree?
[22:34] <Duke77> the subject of the happening is not Himself and His own decision... the subject is man... whom He foreknew....
[22:34] <Nomos> well, now you're just repeating yourself.
[22:35] <Duke77> He foreknew MAN
[22:35] <Nomos> I know what you believe, there's no sense in merely repeating it.
[22:35] <Duke77> -kjv Rom 8:29
[22:35] <KJVBot> Romans 8:29 > For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (KJV)
[22:35] <Duke77> For WHOM He foreknew...
[22:35] <Nomos> Do you agree with the understanding of foreknowledge?
[22:35] <Duke77> Not just what I believe... but what is in Scripture.
[22:35] <Nomos> foreknowledge refers to knowledge of something before it happens ... do you agree?
[22:36] <Duke77> Nomos... I agreed when I said "very good"
[22:36] <Nomos> right, but then you went on the misrepresent what I said, leaving an inference that you didn't really agree with what I had stated.
[22:36] <Nomos> So can you have foreknowledge of choices you're going to make tomorrow?
[22:36] <Duke77> I went on with what is in Scripture... I didn't follow your lead off the subject
[22:37] <Nomos> I have diverged from the subject.
[22:37] <Nomos> have not rather
[22:37] <Nomos> yeesh
[22:37] <Duke77> the subject is not a hypothetical here... the subject is "MAN" whom He "foreknew"
[22:37] <Nomos> Yes, God foreknew whom He would choose.
[22:38] <Nomos> you too can foreknow things that are future events contingent upon your choice.
[22:38] <Nomos> though, you cannot know these events the way an omniscient and sovereign God does.
[22:38] <Duke77> Right... so in foreknowing MAN what was He foreknowing? Not His Own decisions... He was foreknowing MAN... and his decisions.
[22:39] <Nomos> you can rigidly define the term foreknowledge to mean solely a reference to the choice of other beings, but there is no lexical nor contextual warrant for such a position.
[22:39] <Nomos> why wasn't God foreknowing His future decisions?
[22:39] <Nomos> we can foreknow our future decisions - God can't?
[22:39] <Duke77> The wording doesn't need lexical and contextual... it's right there for you in black and white...
[22:40] <Nomos> black and white phosphorous dots don't have meaning in of themselves.
[22:40] <Duke77> I didn't say we "can't" foreknow our decisions... but THAT is NOT the SUBJECT of verse 29 - MAN IS!
[22:40] <Nomos> the subject of verse 29 is man and man's predestination.
[22:41] <Duke77> "...whom He did foreknow."
[22:41] <Nomos> yes
[22:41] <Nomos> whom refers to man
[22:41] <Duke77> Great...
[22:41] <Duke77> we're in consensus then
[22:41] <Nomos> If you think that refutes the reformed position, I can only conclude you haven't understood it yet.
[22:42] <Duke77> I know that you would hold that position... but in time the Truth will win you over... at least I pray it will... think on what I have said tonight...
[22:42] <Nomos> Of course 'whom' refers to man - its, in English, in the oblique case - so obviously 'whom' cannot refer to the subject.
[22:42] <Duke77> I must be going though... wife is calling
[22:42] <Nomos> you haven't said anything to refute the reformed position.
[22:42] <Nomos> but, if you must go.
[22:42] <Duke77> I've said plent...
[22:43] <Nomos> well you've said plenty ... true.
[22:43] <Duke77> plenty... actually, God's Word did...
[22:43] <Duke77> it was God's Word that revealed it to me just today...
[22:43] <Nomos> but nothing close to a cogent argument that says God cannot foreknow his future choice.
[22:44] <Nomos> God's word can speak to you directly?
[22:44] <Duke77> there is nothing in the context that points His foreknowledge to His Own decision... rather (again) the subject of the foreknowledge is MAN....
[22:44] <Duke77> different subject...
[22:44] <Duke77> and wife is getting a bit antsy....
[22:44] <Duke77> we can pick this up again sometime...
[22:44] <Duke77> niters
[22:44] <Nomos> well then, you should go. :]
[22:45] <Nomos> alright.
[22:45] <Nomos> adieu
[22:45] *** Quits: Duke77 (CathApol@momndad.precpe.cableone.net) (Catholic Apologetics on #CathApol (Undernet and StarLink-IRC))
[22:51] *** Quits: Nomos (kashubian@ (Leaving)