Its best to leave him to his own misery.
That is an interesting statement.
My argument here is that traditional Calvinism (the Calvinism of John Calvin and Beza), held that "foreknowledge" is another word for prescience (and prescience based on decree). As evidence I offered this quote from John Calvin's Institutions:
"This foreknowledge
or prescience is not speculative but active… since he
foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen… it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment." (John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion (17340-17341). Signalman Publishing).
I understand if you do not believe Calvin's interpretation to be correct. I do not understand if you think that it is foreign to Calvinism. But my question is in what way does my disagreeing with another member make me miserable? This does not make sense to me (we don't even know each other).
If you disagree with anything I've posted about Calvin defining foreknowledge as prescience based on divine decree then let's talk about it. The quote is above (there are many in the Institutions we can explore as well).
I do not adhere to Calvinism (like I said on another thread, I do not hold to Penal Substitution Theory). If you disagree with the traditional Calvinistic definition of "foreknowledge" (Calvin's definition) that is perfectly fine with me. My point was that Calvin used the traditional (the "literal") definition while many contemporary Calvinists do not. I said that I agree with the "literal" definition.
I do not understand your comment in the context of this thread or any other post I have made on the Christian Board.