One difference between Calvinism and Molinism for example, is logical priority. Many Calvinists, in order to make decrees the antecedent cause of all things which will come to pass within chronological time, will assert that Calvin’s god’s foreknowledge come logically posterior to the decrees. Where in Molinism, (and I assume by don’t really know – in orthodox) God’s foreknowledge comes logically prior to the decrees. This distinction of logical priority supports both a determinism/compatibilist free will (aka Calvinism) and indeterminism/libertarian free will (aka Molinism).
MaCarthur’s appeal to ‘a priori’ vs ‘a poseriori seems a little logically problematic. A priori knowledge is said to have its source in theoretical deduction. This would infer that Calvin’s god doesn’t know anything as “Certain” – just as “Possible”. Perhaps then he doesn’t know for certain that 1 + 1 = 2. The more logical assertion would be that Calvin’s god’s knowledge is both. Prior to the decrees it is knowledge of the “Possible” and after the decrees it is knowledge of things that are “certain”. Prior to the decrees, Calvin’s god knows the possibility that 1+ 1 = 2 and after the decrees he knows this for certain.
I think Calvinists are just in over their heads when it comes to these claims. And as they collapse under logical scrutiny the analysis reveals these appeals by Calvinists are much more semantic games than logic.
As a secondary note – the orthodox doctrine of omniscience is that it is an ESSENTIAL attribute. Which means at no point does God not have full and comprehensive knowledge and foreknowledge of all that is both “possible” and “certain”. If Calvin’s god does not have as “Certain” knowledge, that 1 + 1 = 2 prior to his decrees, then he doesn’t have full and comprehensive knowledge and he doesn’t have full and comprehensive foreknowledge.
For this reason, I am examining the Calvinist obsession with decrees as producing a compromised doctrine of divine omniscience – because it cannot in Calvin’s case be an ESSENTIAL attribute.
Active might be a step in the right direction. God is a living Being, not a dot or stone without emotions, which cannot be affected, if you know what I’m saying. ;-)
God is Open 
One difference between Calvinism and Molinism for example, is logical priority. Many Calvinists, in order to make decrees the antecedent cause of all things which will come to pass within chronological time, will assert that Calvin’s god’s foreknowledge come logically posterior to the decrees. Where in Molinism, (and I assume by don’t really know – in orthodox) God’s foreknowledge comes logically prior to the decrees. This distinction of logical priority supports both a determinism/compatibilist free will (aka Calvinism) and indeterminism/libertarian free will (aka Molinism).
MaCarthur’s appeal to ‘a priori’ vs ‘a poseriori seems a little logically problematic. A priori knowledge is said to have its source in theoretical deduction. This would infer that Calvin’s god doesn’t know anything as “Certain” – just as “Possible”. Perhaps then he doesn’t know for certain that 1 + 1 = 2. The more logical assertion would be that Calvin’s god’s knowledge is both. Prior to the decrees it is knowledge of the “Possible” and after the decrees it is knowledge of things that are “certain”. Prior to the decrees, Calvin’s god knows the possibility that 1+ 1 = 2 and after the decrees he knows this for certain.
I think Calvinists are just in over their heads when it comes to these claims. And as they collapse under logical scrutiny the analysis reveals these appeals by Calvinists are much more semantic games than logic.
As a secondary note – the orthodox doctrine of omniscience is that it is an ESSENTIAL attribute. Which means at no point does God not have full and comprehensive knowledge and foreknowledge of all that is both “possible” and “certain”. If Calvin’s god does not have as “Certain” knowledge, that 1 + 1 = 2 prior to his decrees, then he doesn’t have full and comprehensive knowledge and he doesn’t have full and comprehensive foreknowledge.
For this reason, I am examining the Calvinist obsession with decrees as producing a compromised doctrine of divine omniscience – because it cannot in Calvin’s case be an ESSENTIAL attribute.
Interested in your thoughts on that subject. :-]
Active might be a step in the right direction. God is a living Being, not a dot or stone without emotions, which cannot be affected, if you know what I’m saying. ;-)