Christianity and the Meaning of Life

[Vic C.]

What you should do is get a copy of Martin Luther's book titled, "The Bondage of the Will". If you get this book, and if you read it, then you will know more about Calvinism than those who oppose it in this thread. All of the objections to Calvinism I have had to deal with here are very amature, but that book goes even deeper than what you will see here. And, it is written in a very reader-friendly manner. You can get a copy at Amazon.com. Here is a link for the book:
The Bondage of the Will

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

Hello again, I had to truncate your link. It was causing the board to run too wide.

I will add that book to my list of books to read... man, that list is getting real long. LOL I was hoping you'd answer my questions in your own words though.

Peace,
Vic

 

[Guest]

Perhaps it is merely the dry medium of the forum that creates the impression of pomposity, but I find no "meekness and fear" about your style of defense, though you seem fond of 1 Peter 3:15.

I have set forth several scriptures from which the concept of "free will" may be deduced. Perhaps the HS will guide you to the same Truth when the time has come that you find more glee in scripture than in the art of debate and "logic".

Farewell and may God bless you as you grow in Christ.

Your funny,
you listed 2 Peter 3:9 as a verse which teaches "Free" Will.
Let me first say that this is the only verse you listed.
Next, this verse is not even about man, but it deals with God's purpose.
If you want to deduce "free" will from Scripture, then you might try to find a verse that speaks about man.
The verse means that God is longsuffering toward us (the elect), not willing that any (the elect) should perish, but that all (the elect) should come to repentance. The entire context of 1st and 2nd Peter is dealing with the elect, as I have already pointed out in previous posts. The Lord has placed His elect throughout History, and He converts them at His pleasure as He patiently completes His master plan.

You can not deduce anything about man's will from a verse that doesn't have anything to do with man's will. You'll have to try again.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Did Adam and Eve have freedom of choice, before the Fall?

No, no rational being is free from God. If anything could be free from God, then it would cease to exist. This fact alone makes it hard for any created being to have "free" will. This is a fact in metaphysics that our Arminian friends here have not considered. The Bible says, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being" Acts 17:22.

If no, then when did they lose it and where in the Bible does it say it was taken away from them?

They never had "free" will, and the Bible never says that they did.

If Man has no freedom of choice whatsoever, then why did God give Moses Commandments to follow and even insisted they follow them or there would be consequesces?

First, God is sovereign and has the right to command His creatures however He sees fit. He can also call them to give a response for their actions. This calling to give a response is where we get the word 'responsibility.'

Next, the commands inform us what we should do, not what we can do. They reveal to us who needs a salvation and who does not. Therefore, the sovereignty of God and knowledge of God's commands is what makes man responsible for sin, not "free" will. This is demonstrated almost daily by parents who punish their children who disobey them after they have been given orders. Parents say, "Why did you do that? You knew better."
Parents do not say, "Why did you do that? You should have used your "free" will to do otherwise apart from whatever motive that was influencing your mind."

You might even consider that when you ask a person "why" they did something, you are asking them what caused them to will this way or that.

Why would there be consequences for something that is out of their control, as in they didn't have a choice to obey or disobey... yet some did disobey indeed.

You are confused. You think the Calvinist position is that men do not have choices. This is wrong. The Calvinist position is that the choices a man makes are pre-determined. Big big difference.

There are consequences because God does not determine the minds of men to do things they do not want to do, but God does determine the minds of men to always do things they want to do. No one can say, "I didn't want to do that, but God made me." God determines the make-up of each person and how each person will respond to the motives God presents to their minds.

Why would God create them, give them Laws to follow, then [alledgedly] declare Man has no freedom of choice, but punishes them for their non-choices?

First, God does not declare that they have no "free" will, for they never had it in the first place. Next, God does all things for His own glory. Romans 11:36


Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[stranger]

Stranger,
until you define what you mean by "author of evil", then it is foolish to ask people if they adhere to your term. . . .But, until you define your term, you might as well say, "snark" as to say "author of evil."
Red Beetle

Hi red beetle,

I assumed you had read the posts to JM. My apologies.

Hi JM,
I am content to speak of 'evil' as 'sin nature' from which 'works' arise consistent with the propensity of that nature. eg. Gen 6:5 . . .Evil (ie the evil nature) is not created by God.
blessings: stranger

A later post . . .
Hi JM . . .
Does the following statement summarise or define the 'author of evil' argument adequately - regardless of the position taken on it:

If God created evil then He is the author of evil.

blessings: stranger

It may be better to continue in pm mode.

blessings: stranger

 

[Drew]

I worry that the situation re how we develop a position on matters like free will can be characterized as follows:

Scirptural Text A: A completely open-minded approach to this text leads to the conclusion that the text can be seen as either supporting or refuting the existence of some free will, contingent on certain assumptions that are brought to this text. This is clearly the case with texts like Eph 1:11. Considered as an isolated item of text, this text is indeed compatible with a "free will" reading as has been clearly shown in this thread.

Texts B,C,D, E......etc. all are similar to text A.

A person who approaches text A with an a priori inclination to believe in the absence of free will will resolve the ambiguity in the direction of "this text refutes free will". This is, I would claim, an unjustified conclusion.

Such a person will then examine the other texts in light of the unjustified interpretation that he has conferred on text A and resolve the ambiguity of these other texts in the direction of "this text refutes free will".

He will think this is a legitimate process of using "scripture to interpret scripture" when in fact it is not, for the simple reason that, had he been a different person and chosen to resolve the ambiguity of A in the direction of "this text affirms some free will", his subsequent interpretations about texts B, C, etc. would all go in the same "free will" direction.

I am not suggesting the project of determining what the scriptiures say on this (and other matters) is hopelessly subjective. I am merely expressing an opinion, based on some of the threads on the whole "Calvinism / Arminianism" thing, that this trap is easy to fall into.

Using scripture to intepret scripture can still lead to ambiguity for the reasons described above.

 

[Drew]

To know that God loves us and is our Father is to enjoy God’s goodness and grace. God’s love for us is the source of an unbreakable chain of causation which ends in our salvation and glorification. If any person believes the Gospel, then it is only because God first loved that person and elected to be gracious to that person from eternity.

It is true that God does not love every single person, for the Scripture tells us plainly that “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated†Romans 9:13.

True, Rom 9:13 does say that God hated Esau. Does this justify an assertion (as I think is strongly implied by RB) that people are elected to salvation (or damnation) from eternity? I don't think so.

It is true that preceding verses connect this statement to the notion of election. And obviously the "hating" of Esau is indeed directly supportive of God's purposes in implementing "election". However, this text by itself does not tell us what election really is, only that the loving of Jacob and the hating of Esau serves the purposes of election.

Does this mean that the Calvinist take on "election" (as I understand it) is mistaken? Of course not - the text is entirely consistent with that view.

However, additional material telling us more about the nature of election is required. And we should all watch out for the problem brought up in my earlier post - a stance that election means "predestination of some to salvation and others to loss" cannot turn out to be based on a set of texts that could be seen to also support a different take on what it means.

 

[JM]

Hi there. I have a few question. Hopefully you can answer them in a short and sweet way. I'm new at this Calvinism stuff. 8-)

Did Adam and Eve have freedom of choice, before the Fall?

If yes, then did they also have freedom of choice after the Fall?

If no, then when did they lose it and where in the Bible does it say it was taken away from them?

If Man has no freedom of choice whatsoever, then why did God give Moses Commandments to follow and even insisted they follow them or there would be consequesces?

Why would there be consequences for something that is out of their control, as in they didn't have a choice to obey or disobey... yet some did disobey indeed.

Why would God create them, give them Laws to follow, then [alledgedly] declare Man has no freedom of choice, but punishes them for their non-choices?

That should do for now.

What was the purpose of the Law Vic? We have freedom within our limits. We are slaves of sin, then slaves of Christ. In this analogy, where is the freedom?

christian_soldier wrote:
The notion that God is long suffering as He awaits the repentance of His 'elect' indicates the 'free will' of the potential repenter, to choose to repent or not.

The key phrase here is "to choose to repent or not".

C'mon, JM, I know you are not that obtuse.

Begging the question. God gives laws that no one can follow perfectly, thus breaking all of them, how is it different? You insert the idea and then fail to supply proof from the text we are discussing.

~J~

 

[Vic C.]

What was the purpose of the Law Vic? We have freedom within our limits. We are slaves of sin, then slaves of Christ. In this analogy, where is the freedom?

What is the purpose of giving someone Laws, but declaring they have no choice in the matter of obeying or disobeying, then saying instead that their thoughts and actions were set in stone, like some comouter program? That was the basis of one of my questions. We really don't need to use diversionary tactics to confuse me more than I am about these Calivnistic teachings. My questions are sincere.

Before I declare these doctrines are the questionable teachings I believe them to be, I want to make sure my motives aren't biased and want to understand all I can about all the doctrines, including opposing belief systems. I want to make sure verses aren't taken out of context. After all, UR does make a case for themselves doing this. I do have that right to investigate, don't I?

Red, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I don't have time to give them much thought right now, but will meditate over them this evening.

Peace,
Vic

 

[Drew]

Although this is not so popular today, the Bible clearly teaches that God has loved some people from eternity, and has elected those whom He loved to be recipients of His grace. God justifies his elect only on the basis of Christ’s merit, imputes Christ’s righteousness to them, pardons their sins, adopts them as His own children, not for anything in them, or any foreseen work by them, but merely for His own good pleasure.

If this means that God in no way accounts for the distinguishing properties of a person when He (God) makes an "election" decision, and yet God's choice is not arbitrary, then I hold this view to be incoherent for reasons I will describe below. If the intent behind the quoted statement is to say something less (i.e. God does indeed take "personal specifics", at least in some small way, into account when electing), then the claim is not incoherent.

Here are my reasons for believing the strong version of the claim to be incoherent:

It is my understanding that some claim that God chooses an "elect" but that the way God chooses the members of the elect is such that He does not make this choice based on any characteristics of the person. If you believe that God's choice is neither arbitrary (essentially random) nor based on individual characteristics, then I submit the following for your consideration:

It does not appear that this a coherent position, because, unless God's choice is truly random, His choice must be based on some discriminating characteristic of the person He chooses (or does not choose).

There is a famous illustration of a hungry donkey presented with two buckets of oats. We imagine that the brain of the donkey is magically altered to render it incapable of identifying any distinguishing characteristics of the two buckets (although it does recognize the existence of 2 buckets). So, for example, the donkey can make no judgements like the following:

- Bucket A has more oats so I'll choose A
- The oats in bucket B look fresher, so I'll choose B
- etc.

If the donkey is not allowed (through this magical intervention) to make his choice based on characteristics that inhere in (belong to) the buckets, then the only option left for him is to choose randomly. Otherwise, he will starve.

For the situation of election, even God has no choice but to use discriminating properties to differentiate us one from another. You may say that I am imposing a human restriction on God. I don't think that I am. I think I am simply acknowledging the fact that God has created a universe where objects are differentiated from one another based on their inherent characteristics. If we think carefully about what makes Fred "Fred" and Joe "Joe" to an observer, we seem unavoidably drawn to conclude that it is only inherent characteritics that allow a third party observer to distinguish them: Fred is taller. Joe is smarter, Fred has more money, etc.

I submit that in order for God to choose to elect Fred (and not Joe), He has no option but to base that choice on something about Fred (or about Joe). Once you take away distinguishing characteristics. Fred and Joe seem absolutely identical to an external person, even God. So unless God "flips a coin", any selection He makes must be based on distinguishing characteristics.

 

[JM]

What is the purpose of giving someone Laws, but declaring they have no choice in the matter of obeying or disobeying, then saying instead that their thoughts and actions were set in stone, like some comouter program? That was the basis of one of my questions. We really don't need to use diversionary tactics to confuse me more than I am about these Calivnistic teachings. My questions are sincere.

Ok, common problems in communicating soveriginty and responsibility, so let me try to clear it up. The idea of free will needs to be clear to avoid confusion. You’ve probably noticed by now that I have claimed freewill and also have denied based on the context of the post or by what that poster is trying to say, so let me define what freewill is.

Chapter 9 of the London Baptist Confession of Faith [1689] reads:
1._____ God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
( Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19 )
2._____ Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.
( Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 3:6 )
3._____ Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
( Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44 )
4._____ When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
( Colossians 1:13; John 8:36; Philippians 2:13; Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23 )
5._____ This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.
( Ephesians 4:13 )
[end quote]

I hope that helps to clear it up. A Calvinist will deny total libertarian freewill, meaning man in his natural state is able to do anything to better his spiritual state before God, including believing but confirm freedom of the will after regeneration. What’s it all for? It’s not for the purpose of saving man, that would be the anthropological view or the outcome of the plan, the Calvinist believes its for God’s glory alone. Man is saved for God’s glory. The chief end of man is to glorify God, not get saved, we are saved as a product of God’s plan.

Before I declare these doctrines are the questionable teachings I believe them to be, I want to make sure my motives aren't biased and want to understand all I can about all the doctrines, including opposing belief systems. I want to make sure verses aren't taken out of context. After all, UR does make a case for themselves doing this. I do have that right to investigate, don't I?

Sure! It’s decreed! Lol

Let me add, “The holiness of the elect is predestinated, and the sin of the non-elect likewise. Both alike are represented by the apostle as standing in a certain relation to the divine purpose and the divine action, and this purpose and action are designated by the one word proorise. God knows †that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually†and decreed man's sinful actions for a purpose. Just as Joseph’s brothers selling him into slavery was evil, it was decreed to happen by God with man being responsible for the act itself. In Genesis 50 we read “ye thought evil against me†and please notice the following “…God meant…†We see the evil intent of man with God meaning it for something. Vic you’re a smart guy, so I know you have objections to this, “How, in the first place, does God make the origin and everlasting continuance of holiness in an elect sinner a certainty without compelling and necessitating his will? By the regenerating and sanctifying agency of the Holy Spirit; by 'working in the will, to will and to do of his good pleasure'. Phil. 2: 13. Scripture teaches that this operation of the Spirit does not destroy the freedom of the will. 'If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed' John 8: 36. And the report of consciousness agrees with this; for the regenerate man has no sense of being forced and unwilling in any of his experiences and exercises.â€Â

More, Calvin, adopting Augustine's phraseology, concisely marks the difference between the two permissions in the remark, that 'God's permission of sin is not involuntary, but voluntary' Inst. 1:18:3. Both Augustine and Calvin had particular reference, in this connection, to the first origin of sin in angels and men. * But their statement holds true of the continuance of sin in angels and men. When God passes by all the fallen and sinful angels, and does not regenerate and save any of them, it is by a positive voluntary decision that might have been different had he so pleased. He could have saved them. And when God passes by some fallen and sinful men and does not regenerate and save them, this also is a positive voluntary decision that might have been different had he so pleased. He could have saved them. AND, 'The permissive decree as related to the origin of sin presents a difficulty that does not exist in reference to the continuance of sin. The certainty of the continuance of sin in fallen man is easily explained, by merely leaving the fallen will to its self-determination. But merely leaving the unfallen will to its self-determination would not make its apostasy certain; because it was endowed by creation with a power to remain holy as created, and there was no punitive withdrawal of any grace given in creation until after apostasy. How, under these circumstances a permissive decree which does not operate by direct efficiency can make the fall of a holy being certain, is an inscrutable mystery. Respecting it, Turretin (V1. vii. i) makes the following remark: 'Two extremes are to he avoided. First, that of defect, when an otiose permission of sin is ascribed to God. Second, that of excess, when the causality of sin is ascribed to him. Between these extremes, the orthodox hold the mean, who contend that the providence of God extends to sin in such way that he does not involuntarily permit it, as the Pelagians say, nor actively cause it as the Libertines assert, but voluntarily ordains and controls it'.

Peace,

~JM~

 

[Guest]

If this means that God in no way accounts for the distinguishing properties of a person when He (God) makes an "election" decision, and yet God's choice is not arbitrary, then I hold this view to be incoherent for reasons I will describe below. If the intent behind the quoted statement is to say something less (i.e. God does indeed take "personal specifics", at least in some small way, into account when electing), then the claim is not incoherent.

Here are my reasons for believing the strong version of the claim to be incoherent:

It is my understanding that some claim that God chooses an "elect" but that the way God chooses the members of the elect is such that He does not make this choice based on any characteristics of the person. If you believe that God's choice is neither arbitrary (essentially random) nor based on individual characteristics, then I submit the following for your consideration:

It does not appear that this a coherent position, because, unless God's choice is truly random, His choice must be based on some discriminating characteristic of the person He chooses (or does not choose).

There is a famous illustration of a hungry donkey presented with two buckets of oats. We imagine that the brain of the donkey is magically altered to render it incapable of identifying any distinguishing characteristics of the two buckets (although it does recognize the existence of 2 buckets). So, for example, the donkey can make no judgements like the following:

- Bucket A has more oats so I'll choose A
- The oats in bucket B look fresher, so I'll choose B
- etc.

If the donkey is not allowed (through this magical intervention) to make his choice based on characteristics that inhere in (belong to) the buckets, then the only option left for him is to choose randomly. Otherwise, he will starve.

For the situation of election, even God has no choice but to use discriminating properties to differentiate us one from another. You may say that I am imposing a human restriction on God. I don't think that I am. I think I am simply acknowledging the fact that God has created a universe where objects are differentiated from one another based on their inherent characteristics. If we think carefully about what makes Fred "Fred" and Joe "Joe" to an observer, we seem unavoidably drawn to conclude that it is only inherent characteritics that allow a third party observer to distinguish them: Fred is taller. Joe is smarter, Fred has more money, etc.

I submit that in order for God to choose to elect Fred (and not Joe), He has no option but to base that choice on something about Fred (or about Joe). Once you take away distinguishing characteristics. Fred and Joe seem absolutely identical to an external person, even God. So unless God "flips a coin", any selection He makes must be based on distinguishing characteristics.

You are restricting God by treating Him as if He were a mere man.
The will of man is induced and moved by the strongest motive presented to it, not God. God is the highest good and is self-moving: I am that I am (Exodus 3:14). God does not change, and therefore is not changed (Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17). No created being can move God to do anything. God states this plainly in the Scriptures. The Bible says, "But He is in one mind, and who can turn Him?" Job 23:13. The rhetorical question affirms that God is not affected or effected by His creation. God is in complete control and is the only Being who has free will.

I think you continually show that you have a low view of God and a high view of man. The Bible says, "What is man that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man that thou visitest him?" Psalm 8:4.

Therefore, before your secular notion can even be considered, you will need to show how the temporal mutable finite creature can effect change in the eternal immutable perfectly good infinite God.

Supralapsarian and Calvinist William Twisse, in his classic work, "The Riches of God's Love", deals with this notion in the 1600's. The temporal can not effect the eternal. It is God that effects the creatures.


Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

The donkey and the two equal buckets of oats is a classic example in secualr philosophy which is used to show that the will of man is determined.

If all things are equal, though the donkey is hungry, then it will starve, for it needs some difference in the two buckets to induce its will to choose between the two. In other words, it will starve because it can not choose which oat to eat first. The idea is that something must cause the donkey to prefer to eat one rather than another.

Comparing God to a donkey is probably something I would not recommend.

You mentioned the secular psychological notion that the brain is what thinks.
Calvinism does not hold that the brain is what thinks. The brain does not think. The soul does. Those elect, whose bodies and brains are in the grave, are present and conscious with the Lord. Christ told the theif on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise, and this is so, though his brain is long since returned to dust. You may be interested in reading the philosophy of George Berkeley, who used Scripture to argue that the brain is not what thinks.

George Berkeley was a Calvinist minister. His philosophy remains impregnable and contrary to the assumptions and criticisms of modern positivism ( which is what our current scientific method is based upon). His two best known works are titled, "A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge" and "Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous." The latter is easier to read. Careful, Berkeley's idealism may mess with your mind. Much of the movie "the Matrix" can be seen to come from Berkeley or even Nicolas Malebranche's Occasionalism.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Drew]

I think that the donkey analogy is instructive. An intelligent reader will of course know that I am not suggesting that God is like a donkey.

The problem that I am addressing in respect to the Calvinist take on election without reference to personal characteristics is that it is fundamentally incoherent to us - it makes no sense and therefore cannot be a useful item of knowledge that informs what we believe and the way that we live.

Forget the donkey analogy if it offends you. The fact remains that our ideas about God have to be intelligible to us. And we have no conceptual "slot" in which to fit the notion that God's election is not based on personal characteristics, except to conclude that his choice is arbitrary.

I suspect that some may challenge the idea that our knowledge of God has to make conceptual sense to us in order to be of any use. So be it. Let the games begin.

And I completely disagree with your take on an immortal soul, but that is another matter, debated to death already.

 

[Vic C.]

And I completely disagree with your take on an immortal soul, but that is another matter, debated to death already.

No pun intended, right Drew? LOL :-D

 

[Veritas]

Well RED BEETLE,

I bet we all agreed with one part of your first post.

Question One, What is the chief end of Man?
Answer, Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.

I agree with that.

Anyways, I private messaged you a while ago, I don't think you've looked at my message to you yet.

 

[Drew]

No created being can move God to do anything. God states this plainly in the Scriptures. The Bible says, "But He is in one mind, and who can turn Him?" Job 23:13. The rhetorical question affirms that God is not affected or effected by His creation.

If no created being can move God to do anything, how you explain 2 Kings 20 where it seems that prayers moves God to change his plan in respect to Hezekiah.

In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover." Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly. Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' " Then Isaiah said, "Prepare a poultice of figs." They did so and applied it to the boil, and he recovered.

 

[Oscar3]

Red Beetle

I really enjoy reading your stuff and its good to have another cHRISTIAN here on the board.

May the Lord of Host bless you.

Just so you know Drew is not saved and he is an open Thiest although I am sure you figured that out already.

 

[Guest]

Drew wrote:

I think that the donkey analogy is instructive. An intelligent reader will of course know that I am not suggesting that God is like a donkey.

An analogy can not be true unless there is a point of coincidence.
So, a donkey must have some point of coincidence with God before the analogy could be instructive.

The fact remains that our ideas about God have to be intelligible to us. And we have no conceptual "slot" in which to fit the notion that God's election is not based on personal characteristics, except to conclude that his choice is arbitrary.

You make a sweeping generalization that claims no one can understand what the Bible says at Romans 9:11. Just because a person does not understand verse A does not mean that no person can understand verse A.

All truth is propositional, and that is why it can be understood in the first place. The Scripture is propositional revelation that can be understood by man. Martin Luther's book "The Bondage of the Will" goes over this as Luther deals with Erasmus' secular notion of the Incomprehensibility of God. If you have not read this book, then you should stop posting and go read it. This goes to all who have not read it. The book is really that good. Luther writes,
"But the notion that in Scripture some things are recondite and all is not plain was spread by the godless Sophists... I certainly grant that many passages in Scripture are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance; and it does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture. For what solemn truth can the Scriptures still be concealing, now that the seals are broken, the stone rolled away from the door of the tomb, and that greatest of all mysteries brought to light-- that Christ, God's Son, became man, that God is Three in One, that Christ suffered for us, and will reign forever...You see, then, that the entire content of the Scriptures has now been brought to light, even though some passages contain unknown works remain obscure. Thus it is unintelligent, and ungodly too, when you know that the contents of Scripture are as clear as can be, to pronounce them obscure...If words are obscure in one place, they are clear in another. What God has so plainly declared to the world is in some parts of Scripture stated in plain words, while in other parts it still lies hidden under obscure words."
(The Bondage of the Will, Grand Rapids, Michigan, January 2003, Revel, pages 71-72)

And I completely disagree with your take on an immortal soul, but that is another matter, debated to death already.

What, you still think the brain is what thinks?
Such an idea is a product of physical monism.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Well RED BEETLE,

I bet we all agreed with one part of your first post.



I agree with that.

Anyways, I private messaged you a while ago, I don't think you've looked at my message to you yet.

I'm sorry Veritas,
thank you for reminding me.
I will go look at it right now.

Red Beetle

 

[Vic C.]

If no created being can move God to do anything, how you explain 2 Kings 20 where it seems that prayers moves God to change his plan in respect to Hezekiah.

Hi Drew.

I don't think he is excluding prayer. After all, Jesus teaches us to pray in His name and it will be granted. ... and I'm not talking about praying for a Benz to appear in one's driveway. ;-)