I'd like to address the textual issues presented in this post. I am inclined to agree with cheapham that Acts 17:28 by itself is not the best text to understand God's providence. I am also inclined to agree that Hebrews 1:3 and the use of the word control may not go together well. I believe Brad should define what he means by control. Concerning Colossians 1:17, yes this text speaks of God as creator and sustainer of all things (through Christ, cf Colossians 1:16) but does give a good starting point from which to establish the extent of God's providential governing.

But Acts 17:28 is my main focus in this comment. While 'ham is right that a text citing a Greek poem or philosopher (I've seen different sources cited for this verse), I do think that if taken in light of the whole discourse, it does do what Brad is suggesting. It is taking that statement in Acts 17:25 in which Paul says, "[God] himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything," and puts the personal quality that Paul speaks of in Acts 17:27 when he says, "Yet he is actually not far from each one of us." But instead of turning to the Old Testament for support, Paul is bridging the gap between himself--a Pharisaical, Palestinian Jew--and his audience--educated Athenians. Upon studying this discourse last night and this afternoon, I have really been impressed by the fact that it is not the Greek poet and/or philosopher that is quoted that is to be considered inspired, but rather Paul's use of the statement. He is melding horizons with the Greeks by showing from their own literature that what he is saying is true; that their unknown God that Paul is proclaiming to them is not served with human hands but he gives us our very existence. We must be served by him in order for us to even exist. So I think that the better text to support Brad's case here is Acts 17:25, and not Acts 17:28.

first, i agree on your opinion on the "Christian" tag. i've changed that to "Calvinistic"...

i'll respond to you other questions later...

I'm curious why Acts 17:28 is part of your support for the definition of God's Providence. Should Greek writers like Posidonius and Aratus so heavily define our Christian theology? Col 1:17 merely points to God as creator and sustainor...not controller, so free will need not be even discussed with such a passage. Also, one would have to really stretch the meaning of "phero" in Heb. 1:3 to come to a conclusion on "control" as you put it.

Can you qualify the first sentence of you paragraph defining Foreknowledge? Even though I don't feel you've adequately displayed that God has perfect foreknowledge, I think you must distinguish between "plan" and "foreordain", because they are completely different concepts and have very different ultimate outcomes...yet there seems to be some confusion between the two.

Finally, I must admit that I don't appreciate that you've slapped "Christian" onto these doctrines, as if they are the official beliefs of all Christians. That would make those Christians who disagree feel as if you don't believe them to actually BE Christians...a very unhelpful rhetoric to be sure. If you were contrasting a specific "Christian" rendition of foreknowledge with say, a similar yet specific "Hindu" concept...I would understand. However, in this case I only see the use of the label as overly bold and ultimately hurtful to the overall discussion.