On the omniscience of God

[Idolater]

Double predestination is just logically consistent Calvinistic (Augustinian) predestination.

I agree. I was a straight-laced Westminster canonical Clavinist for years, and this is what I believed. It didn't really matter that God merely passed over the Reprobate, instead of like, forcing them to choose Hell. Given Total Depravity, everybody was going to choose Hell unless God intervened (and Irresistibly), so it's impossible to contend imo that God isn't exactly choosing who will and who won't go to Hell when He Unconditionally Elected the Elect. Because Total Depravity entails necessarily that everybody is going to Hell if we all had our natural druthers. So therefore NO non-Elect are going to Heaven, which means Unconditional Election is a choice about both who is and who is not (i.e. going to Hell) going to Heaven.

It is hideous blasphemy.

Judas was in no way predestined to do the things he did.

That's weird, can you talk me through how you understand the relevant passages where Christ applies what appears to me to be on the surface, prophecies about particularly Judas, like that he is literally a Reprobate? He was singled out, in advance, at least, it appears that way. I'm not arguing it's true, I'm arguing, it has high initial plausibility, which needs a defeater. I'm asking you, OK, how do you see these passages Jesus applies to Judas?

God knew his heart and was using him to "fulfill" (i.e. parallel) certain passages in the Old Testament but there isn't a single syllable of the Old Testament that anyone would point to as an unfulfilled prophesy had he repented and refused to betray Jesus and God would have been completely elated had he done so.

Right, but then you're just kicking the can down the road, because if it wasn't Judas it would have been some other guy. And don't forget Paul says there's another guy coming too, who's similarly seemingly chosen.

There is NO SUCH THING as God "permissive will". It is not a biblical concept at all and the only reason the term exists at all is to rescue the doctrine of predestination which also is not a biblical concept as taught by Augustine and Calvin.

I'm not attached to the term. But how do you read Genesis 50:20? Again I'm not arguing, I'm asking for a defeater, because it has high initial plausibility that God PERMITTED (which I just take to mean, looked the other way, or winked at what they were doing) Joseph's brothers to do what they did.

Finally, the reason it cannot be the case is because God is just. God cannot predestine and actively control everything that happens AND punish people for sin AND be just. You get to pick one or the other. If God is just then these idiotic doctrines are false. If God is unjust then Christianity itself is false and you can go believe whatever you want because God doesn't exist and it no longer matters.

Ideas have consequences.

And what if there are only like one in ten thousand who would really choose evil when given the free and fair choice? Is God supposed to just arrange to have those people killed? What if one of them gets into power? What if God foresees that happening, but chooses /declares /decrees that He will wink at it, rather than intervene irresistibly? Does that mean He's unjust? I still wonder how Genesis 50:20 can be the Word of God, but it must be, and so it must cohere with everything else in the Bible.

 

[Idolater]

I don’t understand how He can know about something before He decrees to make it. That would mean He learns about a universe that exists, at least theoretically, that He had no prior knowledge of.

We just don't understand eternality. Like somehow the Lamb is sacrificed from the foundation of the World, and if you're going to argue that no, only our names are written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the World, I still think you have the same problem of not understanding eternality.

 

[Idolater]

No. I have never seen any Michael Douglas movie except for Ant-Man.

Just checking.

 

[Idolater]

You were questioning my faith

No I wasn't. Stop it.

and you can’t dance around it, or do you only hear what you want to hear? Like one of those people that sits all home all day and listens to CNN never listening to what others have to say. I bet you voted for Kamala Harris, didn’t you?

 

[Idolater]

There is no such thing as God's "decretive will".

And no, you are not a Calvinist in any sense of the word. The title you're looking for is Augustinian. Calvinism is reformed Augustinian doctrine.

I'm Augustian in as much as Augustine was Roman Catholic, yes.

Clavinism is cafeteria Augustianism. Clavinists just take what they like from Augustine and leave the rest.

 

[Clete]

Let's read it again:
Isaiah 46:21-24 -
Present your case,” says the Lord.
“Bring forth your strong reasons,” says the King of Jacob. “Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, that we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you are gods.

-Seems rather clear, does it not? Only an Open priori would deny it, means you are letting your theology inform scripture instead of being informed by it, so much so that you will not even entertain it! You rather jumped to a different text! That is excusing behavior, Clete!

You're wasting my time.

You can repeat your position as though I've said nothing at all until you're blue in the face with someone else.

 

[Clete]

Sure, if you read the concept into it in the first place, like here:

But God didn't say Adam would "die immediately" (please show me if I missed it).

Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Nor did He say Adam would die within the next 24 hours, since the phrase "in the day" does not have to mean "on the day".

Who's reading their doctrine into the text again?

And if Adam indeed died "in the day" he ate of the fruit, then there is no reason to redefine death as "spiritual separation from God" in the first place.

No one is redefining anything. That is what death is. That's what it has always been as I fully established biblically.

Maybe so, but it doesn't say that such separation is actually to be called "death", does it? I didn't see the word in the whole chapter.

Each individual point does not, by itself, prove the entire thesis, Derf. Read the entire argument and then respond.

No, he doesn't. You only read the concept into Paul's words.
Paul's words work just fine with real, physical death, knowing that future death ("in the day" kind of future) easily fits the words. And when Jesus rose from the dead, it gave us all hope that we won't stay dead forever when we die, just as God promised Adam and Eve in the Garden (though He was talking to Satan, His words are the promise that death, real death where people turn to dust, will be defeated).

"Paul's words work just fine with real, physical death" is YOU reading your doctrine into the text. The text itself states explicitly that, "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world..."! That entire sentence is in the past tense and it is so in whatever language you want to read it in. It isn't talking about a potential death or a death that is coming somewhere down the road.

Further, and WAY more importantly, this passage CANNOT possibly be talking about physical death because every single person in Paul's immediate audience and Paul himself are all physically dead right now! If the passage was talking about physical death, they and we would all be physically immortal.

No, it is from permanent death to resurrected life without judgment, as explained in the following verses:
[Jhn 5:25 KJV] Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
This "dead" is the people that we are discussing, and the question is whether they are guaranteed physical death or whether this is talking about "separation from God"--either could work. But a few verses later, Jesus explains He is talking about physical death, since they are "in the graves".
[Jhn 5:28 KJV] Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

Then why is John physically dead, Derf? How is it that every single person who has ever put their trust in Christ has physically died or will do so if they hang around long enough?

So the current call of the Son of God is assuring life in the future, despite people first going into their graves.

Exactly! So it isn't about physical life and death but about spiritual life and death! How is it that you didn't just concede the whole issue?

Yes, this is an assurance of the resurrection (made alive together with Him), as shown in the prior verse:
[Col 2:12 KJV] Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Being buried with Him is sharing in His physical death (by the metaphor of baptism), and in His physical resurrection (the metaphor ends with rising from the water).

The verse is written in the past tense, Derf. It isn't talking about a future happening but one that has already happened.

Also, water baptism is for previous dispensations but even if it weren't it isn't merely His physical death and resurrection that is symbolized in water baptism. We have not been saved from physical death but from spiritual death. Salvation isn't about our bodies but about our soul/spirit.

With the assumption that the concept of spiritual death is the right one. In either case, death being inherited from Adam is a way in which we share in his punishment for sin.

No sir! I would agree that it is consequence but it is NOT a punishment. If your child touches a hot stove, he gets burned as a natural consequence of his action, not as a punishment for it. The fact that Adam and Eve weren't wiped out of existence in punishment for their rebellion was a mercy and it is that mercy that we have to thank for being here. Both we and God have to tolerate the consequences of Adam's rebellion but, in the end, the eternal gain is worth the cost, for both parties.

I don't think Rom 7:9 works in your system, because it would suggest that all Gentiles are able to have a pass, since they didn't have the law.

A pass? No, not at all. In fact, they did (and do) have the law...

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.​

But you have multiple exceptions, exceptions for most all of humanity, that they have to die at least twice, once spiritually, and once physically.

I'm not following you. Don't lose the context. People die spiritually when they sin and they die physically when their spirit leaves the body. Jesus did this once and only once and you also will only do it once. People don't die over and over again is the point here. It isn't trying to teach that you are a monolithic being with only a physical body and no spirit or soul. In other words, whether you're talking about physical or spiritual life and death, it is still just one person that is dying. Jesus was body, soul and Spirit just as we are (only without the capital S) and He - all of Him - died once and won't be dying ever again and we are likewise appointed to die once, not over and over again.

The only exceptions I can think of to this general idea is what I've already mentioned about Enoch and Elijah and then also when, at the final judgment, all of God's enemies are thrown into the Lake of Fire which the bible specifically refers to as "the second death", a concept which is not explained. We do know, however, that it is not talking about physical death because it happens after this Earth is gone. We also know that it is a very definite and permanent separation from God and from anything and everything that is good.

 

[Clete]

I agree. I was a straight-laced Westminster canonical Clavinist for years, and this is what I believed. It didn't really matter that God merely passed over the Reprobate, instead of like, forcing them to choose Hell. Given Total Depravity, everybody was going to choose Hell unless God intervened (and Irresistibly), so it's impossible to contend imo that God isn't exactly choosing who will and who won't go to Hell when He Unconditionally Elected the Elect. Because Total Depravity entails necessarily that everybody is going to Hell if we all had our natural druthers. So therefore NO non-Elect are going to Heaven, which means Unconditional Election is a choice about both who is and who is not (i.e. going to Hell) going to Heaven.

Nonsense. There is no such thing as "the elect" in the way you are meaning it here. If it did exist, God would be unjust. If God is unjust then He doesn't even actually exist and this is all academic.

That's weird, can you talk me through how you understand the relevant passages where Christ applies what appears to me to be on the surface, prophecies about particularly Judas, like that he is literally a Reprobate? He was singled out, in advance, at least, it appears that way. I'm not arguing it's true, I'm arguing, it has high initial plausibility, which needs a defeater. I'm asking you, OK, how do you see these passages Jesus applies to Judas?

Psalm 41:9 "Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me."

Psalm 55:12-14 "For it is not an enemy who reproaches me; then I could bear it. Nor is it one who hates me who has exalted himself against me; then I could hide from him. But it was you, a man my equal, my companion and my acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together, and walked to the house of God in the throng."

Zechariah 11:12-13 "Then I said to them, 'If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.' So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, 'Throw it to the potter'—that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter."

Psalm 109:6-8 "Set a wicked man over him, and let an accuser stand at his right hand. When he is judged, let him be found guilty, and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office."

If Judas never existed or if Judas had repented, which of those passages would be considered prophesies?

NONE OF THEM!

They'd just be bible verses where someone was saying something pertinent to what was going on at the time.

Now, God very obviously was planning to have someone close to Him who would betray Him and so some or perhaps all of the happenings and statements in the Old Testament were made with that goal in view but you couldn't prove that to be a fact and it doesn't need to be a fact. God could just as easily chosen to have certain passages paralleled as things developed. He could have, for example, put the figure of "thirty pieces of silver" in the mind's of the Sanhedrin just as the transaction was happening just to add one more passage that He was "fulfilling" (paralleling).

Right, but then you're just kicking the can down the road, because if it wasn't Judas it would have been some other guy. And don't forget Paul says there's another guy coming too, who's similarly seemingly chosen.

No. There would not have been any absolute requirement for there to have been some other guy. If there hadn't been a betrayer then Jesus could have just gone into town on His own volition and been taken by these same people.

I'm not attached to the term. But how do you read Genesis 50:20? Again I'm not arguing, I'm asking for a defeater, because it has high initial plausibility that God PERMITTED (which I just take to mean, looked the other way, or winked at what they were doing) Joseph's brothers to do what they did.

Genesis 50:20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.

I don't understand the question.

You are surely conflating two (or more) unrelated issues.

I (and other Open Theists) do not deny that God not only permits certain things to happen but that He also guides history and orchestrates certain events for various reasons. This is not at all what the doctrines of Calvinism (or Augustinian Catholicism) is talking about when they talk about God's "permissive will".

The term "permissive will" presupposes what Calvinists accept as it's reciprocal, which is God's "perfect will". The problem is that it is a contradiction.
How, you ask...

Well, because God's "perfect will", the Augustinian's teach, is what God wants and His "permissive will" is absolutely every single other event that happens. The problem is that the same Augustinians also teach that every single thing that happens only does so because God predestined it to happen.

Why did He predestine it? For His glory, they say! Which is perfect, they also say!

In other words, they teach that what God has predestined is optimally good; it is the "highest rule of perfection" as Calvin put it and so even by Calvinism's own standard, there is no such thing as God's "permissive will" because all of it, every single event that happens is God's "perfect will"! When you have two categories and every single thing in one category fits into the other, then one (or both) of the categories isn't real.

And what if there are only like one in ten thousand who would really choose evil when given the free and fair choice? Is God supposed to just arrange to have those people killed? What if one of them gets into power? What if God foresees that happening, but chooses /declares /decrees that He will wink at it, rather than intervene irresistibly? Does that mean He's unjust?

So, you cannot cling to a premise and then pretend like it's a problem when you conjure up a scenario where that premise would be false. This is specifically what it means to "beg the question". You cannot have it both ways.

In other words, your question starts with the premise of free will and then objects based on God either controlling or foreseeing (i.e. infallibly) everything that happens.

As for whether it is just for God to manipulate His enemies, I don't even understand the question. That is to say that I don't understand what level of depravity a mind must be in for the question to be asked. God works for, with, along side of, around, against, and in spite of all kinds of various people, whether they be human, angelic, demonic or whatever, in order to accomplish His goals. The extent to which your actions are your own is the extent to which you will be held responsible for them by God. How is that even a little bit hard to wrap your mind around? It absolutely should be 100% intuitive to the point of literally being childishly simple. If it is not, it indicates that you've made a very serious error.

I still wonder how Genesis 50:20 can be the Word of God, but it must be, and so it must cohere with everything else in the Bible.

Well, it doesn't have to cohere with your doctrine and that's were the real problem lies. You do not really care what the bible says, you care about what your church says. If your church says something that contradicts the bible, it is always the doctrine that wins the day - always - and what you're asked to do is not to figure out how they cohere but just the opposite. You're asked to turn off your mind and accept as truth what you're told to accept as truth whether it makes any sense or not. This is your true kinship with Calvinism. This is the real DNA which you both share.

 

[Clete]

I'm Augustian in as much as Augustine was Roman Catholic, yes.

Clavinism is cafeteria Augustianism. Clavinists just take what they like from Augustine and leave the rest.

Silly nonsense. Calvinism is Reformed Augustinian theology. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk and there's not a dime's worth of difference between what Luther taught and what Calvin codified in his "Institutes" and which became what we call "Calvinism".

These men were not arbitrary in their rejection a various Catholic doctrines. If anyone was arbitrary about what he accepted or rejected it was Augustine! He twisted and bent and even outright rejected any doctrine he desired so as to conform it to the Neo-Platonism that he so adored.

 

[Crede2]

No I wasn't. Stop it.

You absolutely were and I’m done playing this game with you. Goodbye.

 

[Lon]

You're wasting my time.

You can repeat your position as though I've said nothing at all until you're blue in the face with someone else.

This ever, when you are emotionally connected to your topic. Good? Can be, but give God that passion! We don't have to agree, Paul and Barnabas did not, both godly men. This is somewhat huge, likely 'two separate ways' but neither of our efforts wasted. To this day, I've no idea whether Paul was right or Barnabas was. In Him

 

[Lon]

No I wasn't. Stop it.

As an addition, entertain you aren't honest with yourself. You often contradict, may inadvertently lie to yourself, even. Something to ponder and forgive the intimacy of such a post, but it is evident to several on TOL. Try to let your yes be yes. It may (likely) play into your theology on point, and we need to follow God in Truth and Spirit.

 

[Clete]

This ever, when you are emotionally connected to your topic. Good? Can be, but give God that passion! We don't have to agree, Paul and Barnabas did not, both godly men. This is somewhat huge, likely 'two separate ways' but neither of our efforts wasted. To this day, I've no idea whether Paul was right or Barnabas was. In Him

Lon, you just repeated your position. You quoted again the exact same verse and restated your exact same interpretation of it (and yes, it is your INTERPRETATION of it) as though my post didn't even exist at all!

Do you understand how insulting that is?

How you're not on my ignore list is a true mystery. I think it's because something tells me that you are somehow unaware that this is what you're doing. All I know is that I'm not going to play the game. If you want to take the argument I've made and respond substantively to the actual points I've articulated then great, otherwise just don't bother to respond at all. We'll get along much better.

 

[Lon]

You're not reading the verse. let's look at it again, and later let's include the following verse for a little confirmation:
[Isa 46:10 KJV] Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
[Isa 46:11 KJV] Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken [it], I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed [it], I will also do it.

Note that it is through 'the man that executeth my counsel.' Thus part of 'knowing' it through us as well. It doesn't have to be EDF necessarily,, but it is more than Open Theism intimates.

First, it never says that God KNOWS the end from the beginning, but that He "DECLARES" it from the beginning, and He explains that His declaring is "by My counsel" and "according to My pleasure". So, reiterating, IF the verse is to be used to say "God knows all future events", then the reason He knows them ACCORDING TO THE VERSE BEING QUOTED is that all those future things are God's counsel and God's pleasure.

Sure, but remember the verbs are passive, not active. It means all actions, not just his own.

Yes, you can argue that the verse does not claim that God is the author of sin, but in doing so, you are affirming my argument, because then and only then can we actually say that "all future things are not what is being talked about in that verse.

You explain this in a moment but I don't think it logically follows.

So what about the next verse? does it clarify? It certainly does:
[Isa 46:11 KJV] Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken [it], I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed [it], I will also do it.

Again, these are foreknown actions of another. Such is knowing upon another's actions and only dealing with Isaiah 46:10. See the rest: “Bring forth your strong reasons,” says the King of Jacob. “Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, that we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you are gods.

God explains that the man coming from the east is "executing MY counsel", and goes on to explain how it works: first God speaks something (same idea as "declares" i vs 10), then God brings it to pass. First He plans something, then He does it.

True for verse 10. The scope is from the beginning, meaning He doesn't just know, but is involved in all of history, like cultivating soil. Realize too, Open Theists with current all-knowledge, admit something about God, that He knows what is going on this second and can stop any of it, if it doesn't cause sin.

Now, let's apply this to sin. You would say that God knows about the weeds growing, and if Is 46 10 and 11 apply, then the weeds are "executing God's counsel" and bringing to pass His plan, that He declared. So

Scripture jumping, not a bad thing, but can be. I don't particularly want it to inform our Isaiah 46:10 passage. Rather, there isn't an intimation that knowing all things 'author's' sin. I know there is sin in the world. I don't author it, other than anything I don't do as a believer to oppose it.

if sin is including, God's plan is that ALL sin is something that God purposed to happen (according to that reading of Is 46:10), and it is according to HIS PLEASURE, All sin. Every white lie, and every rape and murder of a child

Again, I know the world is full of sin, have lived enough years and knew at least predictively that sin was killing millions of unborn babies. Rather my knowledge has fostered attempts to assuage it. Same with God.

Yes, but you've missed the argument. the argument was, as stated above, that IF Is 46 is used to show EDF, then it has to include the reason God gives for how He knows those things, which is that it was all His idea in the first place.

I agree. Isaiah 46:10 isn't part of the 'mark of God' challenge from those earlier verses. Rather this is a continuing of God's message to the people and foretelling judgement. Isaiah is that man in Isaiah 46:10. EDF isn't in this verse per say, but it is rather God's telling of judgment.

I included it because Credo did and wanted to talk about it in his inclusion. I'd not have included it personally as a proof-text.

Yes, but that's not the argument. The verse is expressing God's knowledge of FUTURE events by HIS OWN COUNSEL and FOR HIS OWN PLEASURE.

True. I'm just saying if it means EDF to Credo, I'm not seeing it as authoring sin.

Not if He always knew it would happen because it Pleases Him that it happens. Why would He?

Not the argument. You're arguing for something else that wasn't the subject of my post.

I'm trying to say that there is not real reason for an Open Theist to deny God EDF specifically because you believe it intimates God is the author instead of just 'knower' of sin. You do entertain it:

I don't think this is true, since "moving the goalposts" from eternity past, or even "from the beginning" to when something is actually happening allows the openist to claim that God is working the best solution for the time, RATHER THAN HIS OWN COUNSEL AND PLEASURE from the beginning.

Yet, it means the same thing. It means, right now, that sin exists and atrocity is currently in progress somewhere on the planet. We together don't believe that, by the same ideas that think God author's sin if He knows the future would apply to sin happening now, would it not? I don't believe God authored sin, never have.

Obviously it has dealt with both the righteousness and the mercy of God.

It does, and you've been shown before. God seems to work things out for the best for them that love Him and are called for His purposes.

Do you mean by God? Or verses you've given in a discussion prior? Of course I believe Romans 8:28 Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

I don't really see why that's relevant to the use of Is 46:10 to prove EDF. Are you losing focus on your own argument?

It was relevant, let's backtrack: If anyone sees Isaiah 46:10 as 'declaring,' I see it too and would not have included it in amongst the other verses. As Credo brought it up, I did want to discuss it that he can see with us, the extent of its meaning.

Rather, the previous verses aren't connected. They were a challenge between "what God can do and men cannot."

I can declare something and make it happen in limitation, such that we'd not see Isaiah 46:10 connected to a mark of being God, other than He can make anything happen He wants to happen, but it is not part of the passage describing the difference between God and men.

Rather, going back to the former verses, I was saying some Open Theists, knowing that logically present EDF also means the same as future EDF, they deny God has even current EDF or even simply definite knowledge unless He investigates. IOW, they keep going down the rabbit hole that logic demands and rather than allowing God perfect present knowledge of all things, they deprive Him of it: "Had no knowledge" Because they equate, as you do, that 'knowledge' means 'complicit.' It does not. While court can prove one guilty by association, and put people who know someone else was going to murder, in jail. It isn't always the case if they can prove no complicity.

These civil laws are not meant for God. We know He can stop any atrocity at any time. I just read an article from an African pastor where He did exactly that. But God knowing something and not intervening, I do not question. When I was abused as a child, I begged God to intervene. He did not, instead, like Paul "My grace is sufficient for you." I do not question, because I've been through the crucible and lived, God's goodness sustaining. If anything, it was something my abuser (whom I love) had to learn. If I'm willing to lay my life down for another, that was what God had me do, even before I knew the verse. I do believe it, and God through it, had worked on his heart and that he is close to God today because of it. I don't question His purpose. Joseph said to his brothers"You meant it for evil, God meant it for good." THAT is amazing grace! He went through the crucible! (helped me with my own). I rather embrace God's definite knowledge and good plans, even when circumstances or intimation might lead away from that conclusion. God is faithful and just.

 

[Lon]

Lon, you just repeated your position. You quoted again the exact same verse and restated your exact same interpretation of it (and yes, it is your INTERPRETATION of it) as though my post didn't even exist at all!

Do you understand how insulting that is?

How you're not on my ignore list is a true mystery.

Love. It endures all things. Thank you.

I think it's because something tells me that you are somehow unaware that this is what you're doing. All I know is that I'm not going to play the game. If you want to take the argument I've made and respond substantively to the actual points I've articulated then great, otherwise just don't bother to respond at all. We'll get along much better.

Not necessary. This is a mountain, but not 'the' mountain. Will keep in prayer. God has used you in my life. I pray that in some small way, I can pay it back. Agreement notwithstanding. In Him -Lon