Reasoning from the foreknowledge of God to the end of moral intents is a recipe for error and confusion. When starts to assume that if God foreknows something it of necessity must come to pass and nothing that one can do could change the outcome, one has started down a path to fatalistic error. First, no man knows how Gods foreknowledge works and no one can presuppose that because God foreknows, that which He knows is necessitated. Further more, even if one claimed that everything that God foreknows will of necessity come to pass, in reality all that could be said is that which God foreknows will come to pass, NOT that it will come to pass by necessity. Furthermore, no man has the mind of God and can determine with any certainty whatsoever that which He foreknows unless He grants to man that knowledge by way of certain prophesy or promise. There are at least two, not one, possible way God’s foreknowledge could work. God is not limited to coercing events due to foreknowledge, but can foreknow matters of perfect choice as well. This is revealed to man as true by the fact that he holds man accountable, blameworthy or praiseworthy for their intents and subsequent actions. God is just. He places within the heart of every man certain knowledge of the principles of justice. This knowledge is granted intuitively knowledge and needs no additional support or evidence to be understood and believed. These first truths of reason are universal in scope. All men of reason know and acknowledge that these intuitive truths are true, and any attempt to discredit them is stopped at the bar of every man’s conscience. Yes, men can and do deny or attempt to discredit them, but even in their denial they act in accordance to them every day. One such truth is that in order to anything blameworthy or praiseworthy, one must have choice. This choice consists not in simply acting in one way as opposed to another. That may or not be choice. Choice is centered in the will of man and consists in the capacity to form contrary intents. In morality, those intents can be blameworthy and selfish, or praiseworthy and benevolent. If man is held accountable, man must have the power of contrary moral choice, without which no morality can be predicated. Even small children realize this truth beyond a shadow of a doubt, and use it often without the slightest training to do so. They have an intuitive sense of justice and know intuitively that they can not be rightfully blamed or punished if they did not determine by their own will, free form force or coercion. The theologian can try and convince the child that they are guilty for their actions, but to no avail if they instinctively know they were not at fault and that their actions were not the product of their will choosing to perpetrate a certain act. On the other hand, the theologian may try to convince them that they could have done nothing other than what they did, but if their conscience affirms that their intents and actions were indeed the results of their own selfish will, the conscious faithfully testifies to their guilt. Certainly the conscience can be seared to act as IF though they have no conscience, but if they ever get to the point that they honestly cannot determine the intrinsic value of the action, they are no longer moral agents and cannot be held responsible morally for their actions. We may lock them up and isolate them from society for their own protection and the protection of those around them, as we often do in our mental facilities, but we will never in a just society punish those that have no ability to understand the intrinsic value of moral commands. We would term them as morally insane and as such outside the jurisdiction of moral law and its sanctions. Every attempt to understand God’s foreknowledge must also include that which of absolute certainty we know, granted to us by God, when it comes to the arena of morals. We can with absolute certainty know that if we are to be blamed and justly punished for our formed intents and subsequent actions, that such intents and actions are not the product of fate, coercion, force, or the mere fact that God in his Omnipotence foreknew the outcome of our decisions. The mind clearly can accept the fact that God’s foreknowledge is not likened to ours, i.e., limited by things of necessity, but can and does foreknow, at least in the arena of moral, matters of perfect choice. God’s abilities far exceed our own limited ones, and can foresee that which lies beyond our finite abilities. It is amazing to me that as a general rule the first to throw stones at God having abilities to foreknow matters of perfect choice are those that cry the loudest that God’s ways are higher than our ways. Due to the limited manner in which we can foreknow, it is simply assumed that God is no different and has the same limitations as finite man. So much for His ways being higher than ours. When establishing ones theology, one needs to exercise caution to reason from the things we know with absolute knowledge intuitively granted to us by God, to the deeper truths of His Infinite Foreknowledge that clearly reach far beyond our limited abilities. We must avoid reasoning from that which is beyond our abilities lest such we confuse the things we of certainty can and do understand. I believe it was Algernon Sydney that stated something along this line: ‘True fortitude of knowledge consists in not allowing the things we do not know to confuse the things which we do know with certainty.’ To reason despite intuitive God-inspired knowledge is to embrace error into our thinking and insure fallacy within our formed conclusions in the realm or morals and morality.