(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best pneumatology books

>Being omniscient, he foreknows everything that will happen. If he already knows what will happen in the future, is it possible that there is more than one sequence of events that could occur? For him to foreknow what will happen, does the future not have to be predetermined? If the future is predetermined, is free will possible? My conclusion was that free will is incompatible with the existence of an omniscient being.

I recommended this elsewhere, but I would suggest you read The Invisible Hand by R.C. Sproul. In one chapter, he does an excellent job of explaining this issue. There are other resources on the topic as well, if you really want the question answered.

I will just say that because we're creatures, we see the world (and particularly the future) as existing in contingencies. If I sleep in tomorrow, I will be late. If I skip lunch, I will be hungry. We consider contingencies in our mind and make an appropriate decision. We do this not only because we don't know the future but also because we ourselves are contingent beings. If our parents had never met, we wouldn't exist. If our parents had neglected us, we would have died. It is firmly imbedded in our worldview to think this way.

God, on the other hand, is not a contingent being. His existence doesn't depend on any other thing, and he existed before anything else did. This provides him with a unique perspective, since he is the creator of all there is, including time. Just because he knows what will happen doesn't restrain the free will of the people involved. Rather, it indicates that because he exists outside of time, he can see the whole spectrum events without contingencies. We aren't fated to choose this thing or another, but we will choose this thing or another, and God knows about it.

I agree with HawkieEyes:

>God knowing what actions we will choose does not diminish the fact that we had the free will to make those decisions.

Hey! Welcome to the sub, thanks for your first time post.

Here is the best article I have read that concern's the Holy Spirits eschatological role in the life of the believer (The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit, Vos.)

The standard seminary text you will read on Pneumatology will be Ferguson's work: Sinclair Ferguson: The Holy Spirit (Contours of Christian Theology Series)

Here is a more modern treatment of the Holy Spirit, which was reviewed some time back on Reformed Forum: The Holy Spirit (New Studies in Dogmatics) ( Christopher R. J. Holmes (Author), Michael Allen (Editor), Scott R. Swain (Editor) -- Really, an all-star cast)

For this topic, there is only one book which is better than The Meaning of Tradition by Yves Congar. And that's Tradition and Traditions by the same author.

Also excellent is Faith Comes from What Is Heard by Laurence Feingold

In chronological order of my reading them:

1. The Apostolic Fathers
   
   
   
2. Paradise Restored
   
   
   
3. That You May Prosper
   
   
   
4. Kingdom, Grace & Judgment
   
   
   
5. Christ The Conqueror of Hell
   
   
   
   And for good measure, The Tao Te Ching (started reading it in high school...still reading it 37 years later), and The Open Society and It's Enemies.

Nope. I mean the type of Sophiology that's summarized in this book. It's a movement in 19th and 20th century Russian Orthodox thought that was focused on developing a fuller account of the relationship between God and the world than had previously been worked out in the Christian tradition.

The "both" answer is the mainstream answer for the Christian tradition, because the Incarnation--God entering into the life of the world--is the central doctrine of our faith. But it's also a very common position in other forms in Judaism, and it's even present in Islam (especially Sufism), despite Islam's generally strong emphasis on transcendence.

It came to pass. Agabus did not get it wrong. For a really good read on the subject (one that refutes Storms), pick up this book.

> I neither argue for or against theodicy anymore. I reject it.

I think I've come around to this way of thinking as well. To my mind, theodicies seem presumptuous, as though we can put our own borders and definitions around the edges of why God chooses to reveal Godself as God does. I found this book makes a strong argument against modern theodicies. The author's argument is that a lot of our thinking of God has been limited by assumptions that developed during the Enlightenment, which sought to place God on the level of other objects which can be studied in an academic way. One of the results was our stilted understandings of theodicy, based on assumptions which radically limit the mystery and wonder of God. While I read several of the chapters, you can get the gist of his argument just by reading the last chapter.

[my favorite book on the subject] (http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Spirit-The-John-Walvoord/dp/0310340616)

I've been increasingly drawn to the works of Yves Congar. Right now, I'm reading through his treatise I Believe in the Holy Spirit. It's quite long, and very dense, so if you're looking for something a bit easier, you might try this one.

There's also this short snippet from Ratzinger.

Steve Brown's Follow the Wind