Of course, you haven't explained in what way(s) Ralston has botched the doctrine of divine prescience, nor what the proper doctrine of divine prescience is, nor were either of these articles about Divine Prescience.OK, fair 'nuff. Enough particulars of Grammar. I was just tweaking you on the basis of your chosen screen name (well, not entirely... certain glaring errors of grammar are pet peeves o' mine, but mostly I was just funnin').
Beyond the fact that I still find Ralston to be suspect of Spiritual Idiocy (even possibly, outright Heresy) on the basis of his blasphemous botch of John Milton...
...as concerns his cardinal errors regarding God's Prescience, Ralston alludes to it in his first essay:
We now appeal to the candid mind to determine if this is not precisely the kind of moral freedom which President Edwards allows to man, on account of which he strongly pleads that he is properly a free agent and justly accountable. Most unquestionably it is. He contends that man is a free moral agent because he may do as he wills, when his will is as unalterably fixed by necessity as the pillars of heaven. Such liberty as the above can no more render its possessor a free, accountable moral agent, than that possessed by a block or a stone.
And Ralston cements his error concerning God's Prescience in his second Essay:
The truth is, the prediction depends on the foreknowledge, and the foreknowledge on the event itself. The error of the necessitarians on this subject is, they put the effect for the cause, and the cause for the effect. They make the foreknowledge the cause of the event, whereas the event is the cause of the foreknowledge. No event ever took place merely because God foreknew it; on the contrary, the taking place of the event is the cause of his having foreknown it.
In his contention that, "the taking place of the event is the cause of his having foreknown it", Ralston has simply left himself wide open to being yet another UNTHINKING advocate of Man's Sovereignty over God's Foreknowledge who is easily smashed by "The Hammer of Augustine" -- Matthew 11:20-27.
MATTHEW 11
20Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
QUESTION:
- God foreknew Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom's free choice NOT TO REPENT in the case of His non-performance of such Miracles; AND
- God foreknew Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom's free choice TO REPENT in the case of His performance of such Miracles; AND
- God CHOSE to NOT perform these Miracles in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom; a choice which had as its perfectly foreknown result the NON-Repentance of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom unto Eternal Damnation -- just as He foreknew.
True, or False?
How can Ralston possibly maintain the idiocy that "the taking place of the event is the cause of God having foreknown it", when it is precisely the Election of God which DETERMINES what the "taking place of the event" (Man's Choice) SHALL BE???
Ralston would make the Foreknowledge of God a hostage to the Decisions of Man.
But it is the Election of God which determines what the Decisions of Man SHALL BE.
Gah! You triple-posted on me!
I don't have the use of a copy/paste function, so keep that in mind. I just realized something a while ago--that split infinitive I was talking about was actually me ending a sentence with a preposition. (Doh!)
I fail to see how the statement that President Edwards "contends that man is a free moral agent because he may do as he wills, when his will is as unalterably fixed by necessity as the pillars of heaven" is an error. How would the fact that man may 'will as he will' make him free? As to the second objection you have, I believe Ralston is using the term 'foreknowledge' in the proper sense of prescience, which isn't causative. That would be the realm of God's omnipotence.
Finally, as to the Hammer of Augustine, how does God's foreknowledge of events imply causation of said events? In other words, God foreknew that people would repent if he performed miracles in Chorazin, Bethsaida, Tyre, and Sidon; but does that mean that his foreknowledge was the cause? At the very least, Matt. 11 does not touch the issue. It simply states that God foreknew what would happen--not that his foreknowledge caused it to be so.