Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God
Source:
Blue Letter Bible
URL Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/stud ... n/jonathan_edwards/sinners.cfm
Published: Mar 7, 2015
Author: Jonathan Edwards
Post Date: 2015-03-07 00:07:19 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Bible Study Ping* Subscribe to *Bible Study Ping*
Keywords: None
Views: 28400
Comments: 80
(A Sermon Preached at Enfield, July 8th, 1741 at a Time of Great Awakenings, and Attended with Remarkable Impressions on many of the Hearers.) Their foot shall slide in due time.— Deut. 32:35. In this verse is threatened the vengeance of God on the wicked unbelieving Israelites, who were God’s visible people, and who lived under the means of grace; but who, notwithstanding all God’s wonderful works towards them, remained (as Deut. 32:28) void of counsel, having no understanding in them. Under all the cultivations of heaven, they brought forth bitter and poisonous fruit; as in the two verses next preceding the text.—The expression I have chosen for my text, their foot shall slide in due time, seems to imply the following things, relating to the punishment and destruction to which these wicked Israelites were exposed. 1. That they were always exposed to destruction; as one that stands or walks in slippery places is always exposed to fall. This is implied in the manner of their destruction coming upon them, being represented by their foot sliding. The same is expressed, “Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction (Psalm 73:18).” 2. It implies, that they were always exposed to sudden unexpected destruction. As he that walks in slippery places is every moment liable to fall, he cannot foresee one moment whether he shall stand or fall the next; and when he does fall, he falls at once without warning: Which is also expressed in “Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction: How are they brought into desolation as in a moment? (Psalm 73:18-19)” 3. Another thing implied is, that they are liable to fall of themselves, without being thrown down by the hand of another; as he that stands or walks on slippery ground needs nothing but his own weight to throw him down. 4. That the reason why they are not fallen already and do not fall now is only that God’s appointed time is not come. For it is said, that when that due time, or appointed time comes, their foot shall slide. Then they shall be left to fall, as they are inclined by their own weight. God will not hold them up in these slippery places any longer, but will let them go; and then, at that very instant, they shall fall into destruction; as he that stands on such slippery declining ground, on the edge of a pit, he cannot stand alone, when he is let go he immediately falls and is lost. The observation from the words that I would now insist upon is this.—“There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God.”—By the mere pleasure of God, I mean his sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God’s mere will had in the least degree, or in any respect whatsoever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment.—The truth of this observation may appear by the following considerations. Poster Comment: And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-39) not displayed.
.
.
.
#40. To: A Pole (#38)
It's a long way from the old widow giving her last coin to the poor as alms in the NT to Tetzel's shameless huckstering among German peasants to build the insanely wealthy pope a new haunt to glorify himself with and store his vast art treasures. That is where the "living Tradition" took the Western church. Admittedly, the Orthos don't have such blatant and shameless schemes in their history but Rome has never repudiated its own power to do such things, a reason why the Orthos may acknowledge the primacy of Rome but keep a certain distance from any bishop of Rome.
NBC: ‘Virgin Mary grilled cheese’ sells for $28,000 Unreal. No, I did not know that. OR, the other. Prots naturally ridiculed the Holy Toast auction, much as Martin Luther ridiculed the excesses of the papal tax as practiced by Tetzel, the pope's bagman. OUCH. You DO understand were this FR, that the Viking Kitties would make quick work of your insolence and inconvenient historical mention.
Nice explanation, TC. Salvation by fear-alone is as suspect to me as the notion of salvation of works-alone. Fair point, but in Edwards' defense, he seemed to be appealing to an option and realization that for some he needed to push the START button. For others, it caused pause enough to hit the, 'MAINTAIN WARP-FACTOR 9, MR. SULU!'
I survived there a long time and, though they tried, they didn't get me banned for such comments. I was actually being fairly nice in my post here at LF. I was more no-holds-barred at TOS.
Mr. Bombastic? Love to see those threads. These days the FR religious mods are far less tolerant and far more hypersensitive.
My point is that this one sermon does not really represent the entirety of the message of the New Testament canon. Jonathan Edwards might, were he still around, explain that his message was directed toward a particular congregation and their laxity and complacency. And he might defend it on the same grounds as those we would justify Paul's various epistles (other than Romans perhaps) to address problems and errors and rising heresies in local churches which Paul established or among whom he had a considerable reputation as an apostolic authority despite the fact that he was not a personal disciple of Jesus. In short: Christianity is vastly more carrot than stick. Dang, I'm going to run out of hoary worn-out clichés at this rate.
Moi?
Had to chuckle on that one:)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Can a person get to heaven solely by fear-induced obedience? Taking the NT canon within context I see the following: The Gospel of Christ has come, Christ has died, Christ has risen is one of Grace and Mercy. Grace that The Father would send His only begotten Son to die for us while we were yet sinners. Grace. However, an evangelist must point out 'what' a person is being saved from and 'why' Christ came in the first place. I think the sermons of Peter and Paul in Acts shows us the context of how the apostles preached the Gospel to those who had ears that could hear. Because those who do not have the ears which can hear will reject the Gospel.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
I recommend you never post that over at TOS:) The FRoman Jesuit hit squad will come for you. (/sarc of course). However, given the statement "No Church council is infallible" opens up a certain 'can of worms' with Sacred oral Tradition. If a council of majority of peers can have even minor errors then how are we to trust this oral Sacred Tradition not found in written Apostolic works in the NT canon? From an Eastern Orthodox position Sacred Scriptures, specifically the 27 book NT canon was endorsed by church fathers. So at least the canon of Holy Scriptures was something most could derive their doctrines and writings from. Is this correct from an Orthodox position?
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
It's a pretty pithy summary of the East's actual position. The Orthos would probably say that Rome deserves its Protestants. And vice versa.
I thought it was a grilled cheese sandwich. So there's toast too?
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
A toasted cheese sandwich is a form of toast. It was after all the toasty part that was considered holy by the credulous looky-loos. I never read any claims by the papists that the cheese portion or the flip side of the Holy Toast had any particular religious merit.
I was actually being fairly nice in my post here at LF. I was more no-holds-barred at TOS. FWIK folks don't get the zot on the religion forum. Although some Jesuit operators have tried to get Prots post on a "general blog" room to get them axed. Why one always needs to look up at the upper right hand corner to make sure they are in the religion forum:)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
A fair assessment.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
If you enjoy reviewing the excesses of the indulgences which sparked the Reformation -- among other prominent and very public worldly corruption by Rome and the "princes of the Church" -- you might enjoy Schaff's recitation of some of the facts of the era. CCEL: History of the Christian Churches, Volume VI, Phillip Schaff. It details the involvement of rulers and bankers and how they got their cut of Rome's indulgence loot, often receiving cash advances on future sale of indulgences. Luther was rather memorable on this topic of whether a pope could issue an indulgence to cover the sin of raping the Holy Virgin. Including a premeditated rape of the Virgin. And Luther had a point: there were absolutely no limits to the powers claimed by the corrupt worldly bishops of Rome. Nor did this represent the entirety of the scandals of indulgences issued by Rome and quite well-known to the public: In Rome, the residence of the supreme pontiffs, as we might well have expected, the offer of indulgences was the most copious, almost as copious as the drops on a rainy day. According to the Nürnberger relic-collector, Nicolas Muffel, every time the skulls of the Apostles were shown or the handkerchief of St. Veronica, the Romans who were present received a pardon of 7,000 days, other Italians 10,000 and foreigners 14,000. In fact, the grace of the ecclesiastical authorities was practically boundless. Not only did the living seek indulgences, but even the dying stipulated in their wills that a representative should go to Assisi or Rome or other places to secure for their souls the benefit of the indulgences offered there. Prayers also had remarkable offers of grace attached to them. According to the penitential book, The Soul’s Joy, the worshipper offering its prayers to Mary received 11,000 years indulgence and some prayers, if offered, freed 15 souls from purgatory and as many earthly sinners from their sins. It professed to give one of Alexander Vl.’s decrees, according to which prayer made three times to St. Anna secured 1,000 years indulgence for mortal sins and 20,000 for venial. The Soul’s Garden claimed that one of Julius II.’s indulgences granted 80,000 years to those who would pray a prayer to the Virgin which the book gave. No wonder Siebert, a Roman Catholic writer, is forced to say that "the whole atmosphere of the later Middle Ages was soaked with the indulgence-passion."1330 An indulgence issued by Alexander VI., in 1502, was designed to secure aid for the knights of the Teutonic Order against the Russians. The latter was renewed by Julius II. and Cologne, Treves, Mainz, Bremen, Bamberg and other sees were assigned as the territory. Much money was collected, the papal treasury receiving one-third of the returns. The preaching continued till 1510 and Tetzel took a prominent part in the campaign.1331 While these dreadful corruptions make easy fun for us modern Prots to poke fun at Rome, Schaff does outline how these indulgences were harmless enough -- rebuilding burned towns and some other worthy purposes -- gradually became utterly corrupt in the hands of succeeding popes who abused their supposed secret superpowers to "bind and loose" all things in heaven and therefore the bishop of Rome was, in effect, able to dictate to God what was a sin and what was not and who was in Purgatory and who was not, no matter what God thought about it. So these doctrines of papal supremacy and of a living tradition bestowed by a laying on of hands by the hierarchy came into a well-earned disrepute and gave rise to Protestantism and the Reformation.
There is no difference in this aspect between oral and written. Same guys same source.
9 And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death. 10 Then said the Lord, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night: 11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand;
A great effort and work on the part of Schaff. Sadly I have read bits and pieces of his History of the Christian Church and should devote more time to reading it all. It details the involvement of rulers and bankers and how they got their cut of Rome's indulgence loot, often receiving cash advances on future sale of indulgences. Wow, kind of like the banksters of today:)
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Whoh LOL. You just can't make stuff up like this. Perhaps the knight should have returned some of the indulgence money to cover the robbery....LOL!!!!
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
There is no difference in this aspect between oral and written. Same guys same source. One verifiable source; one not so much. Even the early church fathers opined that if someone wanted to check to see if they were in error to search the scriptures.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
en.wikipedia. org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies "Are you not aware that all the angels dance when a ___ farts!" What does this mean? I get the impression that towards the end of his life Ol' Marty figured out a bit more than Jewish gastronomic / astronomic anatomy. What time's the Sun-prince rising these days?
Why? The knight already paid full price. No rebates or kickbacks for Roman bagmen. One suspects this account is legendary but has survived due to its sheer wit and the fact that it illustrated the point Luther was making so well.
Rome was less competent in extracting their cash from the provinces. They often made a take of only one-third the retail sales.
It means Luther still followed many of the wrong and detestable thoughts/understandings and practices of those eunuch bishops of Rome. The ones who actually issued decrees to persecute Jews and murder Jews.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
You might recall some prosperity-gospel preachers of the modern era with similar sales lines for books that grant wealth to those who pray a "top-secret prayer". Here's one to get-rich-quick with power praying: The Prayer Of Jabez I do think the prayer of Jabez made one guy pretty rich: the author. For middle-class security and modesty, try The Prayer of Agur. You have to admit, Rome selling forgiveness to cover 80,000 years in Purgatory and even into the millions of years is pretty impressive stuff. It was the bargain basement of works-based salvation.
Luther initially tried to convert the Jews. Then he really turned on them when they remained uninterested in Christianity. Far from the first time or the last time that some Christian reformer thought that no one had ever explained Christianity to the Jews properly and that that is why they were so stubborn about refusing to become Christian. Luther did have a way with a title though. I think his best was Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants. They had an uprising and an outbreak of expropriating the wealth of the churches and nobles. Luther sided with the rich guys. The peasants quickly lost. The peasants were staging the 16th century version of Occupy Wall Street but with looting, murder and rapine.
And God told Paul "My Grace is sufficient for you."
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Did God tell Paul that he could sin as much as he wanted for 14,000 days? That's 38 years of free sinning, more than the life expectancy for an adult in the Roman empire. Who needed any grace any more when they could make pilgrimage to Rome and get a pardon for sin for the rest of their lives. And the pope, as the boss of God via the "binding and loosing" clause of Roman Catholicism, could guarantee it in writing. That's quite a tourist trap they operated in Rome.
I noticed the locals (Romans) and regional locals (Italians) did not fair as well as the 'foreigners' in 'time off' Purgatory. I guess just being Roman or Italian had a special standing in Purgatory sentences.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Great question. My answer is neither. It is God who opens a believer's eyes and ears. Freewill is a matter of perspective.
More deserving of punishment. Of course, as they were in closer proximity to the source of pardons, Rome had to try to keep them from having no need for indulgences due to living in a constant market glut.
While no one doubts the power of God to draw men to Him, it is also true that people are drawn to God for other reasons, like a preacher who persuades or convicts them of their need for Christ. As a more general statement about free will, I would say that man has all the free will he can handle. But that in no way overrides or subordinates God's own free will. BTW, welcome to LF.
That's a nice way to put it. My point is that it is the LORD that creates the situation where the believer's eyes and ears open. As a Born Again Christian I share The Gospel every chance I get. I'm not leading anyone to salvation by doing this, or encouraging someone in an altar call. It is when the individual hears The Gospel and truly believes it that they are saved, this is done by the LORD. If I have been used in some capacity in that process I rejoice in it. Thanks for the welcome.
No, man is not completely depraved and has power to look for God out of his own initiative or even to grope for God in darkness. Why you Calivinists try to make man into an unfree puppet?
Did Jonah exercise his free will when he traveled to Nineveh in the whale's belly? Did Saul exercise his free will on the road to Damascus?
Thanks, but I'm not a Calvinist. I am best described as a Dispensational Born Again Christian. I may not agree with everything Calvin expressed, but I do see where he was right.
Did Saul exercise his free will on the road to Damascus? We can go on all day with examples of God determining an outcome. I started out quoting the golden chain because I believe it states this better than I could. FWIW, I don't see why having faith in an all knowing God who knew us before we were born is a bad thing. The fact that He is willing to sacrifice His Son so that we, who deserve nothing, can be saved is a greater mercy than I could ever imagine. The god of free will is constrained by his created beings. He is not the master of all things. He is subject to the will of man to determine if someone is to be saved or not.
So long as you understand that God's foreknowledge is not a cause of our deeds but a result.
A nicely parsed and exquisitely neutral answer. Only a handful of the hardest hyper-Calvinist types would dissent.
Thank you :)
Cool!
#41. To: TooConservative, APole, redleghunter (#37)
You may recall that piece of holy toast that sold on eBay for $29,000 about a decade back. And she had taken a bite out of it first!...
#42. To: TooConservative, A Pole, redleghunter (#39)
(Edited)
#43. To: Liberator (#41)
You DO understand were this FR, that the Viking Kitties would make quick work of your insolence and inconvenient historical mention.
#44. To: TooConservative (#43)
I was more no-holds-barred at TOS.
#45. To: Liberator, redleghunter, A Pole (#42)
Fair point, but in Edwards' defense, he seemed to be appealing to an option and realization that for some he ndeeded to push the START button. For others, it caused pause enough to hit the, 'MAINTAIN WARP-FACTOR 9, MR. SULU!'
#46. To: Liberator (#44)
Mr. Bombastic?
Now my feelings are hurt.
#47. To: TooConservative (#31)
And since the Orthos regard Augustine with considerable suspicion and reservations, you guys are happy enough to let Prots and Romans slug it out. A pox on both of their houses!
#48. To: TooConservative, liberator (#32)
Is the message of the Gospels a message of love or of fear?
#49. To: A Pole, TooConservative, liberator (#33)
No Church council is infallible.
#50. To: redleghunter (#47)
(Edited)
Had to chuckle on that one:)
#51. To: TooConservative, liberator (#37)
Always check first that it isn't Holy Toast!
#52. To: redleghunter (#51)
I thought it was a grilled cheese sandwich. So there's toast too?
#53. To: TooConservative, liberator (#43)
I survived there a long time and, though they tried, they didn't get me banned for such comments.
#54. To: TooConservative, liberator (#45)
My point is that this one sermon does not really represent the entirety of the message of the New Testament canon. Jonathan Edwards might, were he still around, explain that his message was directed toward a particular congregation and their laxity and complacency. And he might defend it on the same grounds as those we would justify Paul's various epistles (other than Romans perhaps) to address problems and errors and rising heresies in local churches which Paul established or among whom he had a considerable reputation as an apostolic authority despite the fact that he was not a personal disciple of Jesus.
#55. To: Liberator, A Pole, redleghunter (#37)
The description of Tetzel’s sale of indulgences and Luther’s protest are a part of the history of the Reformation. It remains, however, yet to be said, as belonging to the mediaeval period, that the grace of indulgences was popularly believed to extend to sins, not yet committed. Such a belief seems to have been encouraged by the pardon-preachers, although there is no documentary proof that any papal authorities made such a promise. In writing to the archbishop of Mainz, Oct. 31, 1517, Luther had declared that it was announced by the indulgence-hawkers that no sin was too great to be covered by the indulgence, nay, not even the sin of violating the Virgin, if such a thing had been possible. And late in life, 1541, the Reformer stated that the pardoner "also sold sins to be committed."1335 The story ran that a Saxon knight went to Tetzel and offered him 10 thaler for a sin he had in mind to commit. Tetzel replied that he had full power from the pope to grant such an indulgence, but that it was worth 80 thaler. The knight paid the amount, but some time later waylaid Tetzel and took all his indulgence-moneys from him. To Tetzel’s complaints the robber replied, that thereafter he must not be so quick in giving indulgence from sins, not yet committed. Both of the churches in Wittenberg were granted indulgences and a special indulgence was issued for the reliquary-museum which the elector Frederick had collected. An indulgence of 100 days was attached to each of the 5,005 specimens and another 100 to each of the 8 passages between the cases that held them. With the 8,133 relics at Halle and the 42 entire bodies, millions and billions of days of indulgence were associated, a sort of anticipation of the geologic periods moderns demand. To be more accurate, these relics were good for pardons covering 39,245,120 years and 220 days and the still further period of 6,540,000 quarantines, each of 40 days.
#56. To: redleghunter (#49)
If a council of majority of peers can have even minor errors then how are we to trust this oral Sacred Tradition not found in written Apostolic works in the NT canon?
#57. To: redleghunter (#0)
#58. To: TooConservative (#55)
CCEL: History of the Christian Churches, Volume VI, Phillip Schaff.
#59. To: TooConservative, liberator (#55)
The story ran that a Saxon knight went to Tetzel and offered him 10 thaler for a sin he had in mind to commit. Tetzel replied that he had full power from the pope to grant such an indulgence, but that it was worth 80 thaler. The knight paid the amount, but some time later waylaid Tetzel and took all his indulgence-moneys from him. To Tetzel’s complaints the robber replied, that thereafter he must not be so quick in giving indulgence from sins, not yet committed.
#60. To: A Pole, TooConservative (#56)
If a council of majority of peers can have even minor errors then how are we to trust this oral Sacred Tradition not found in written Apostolic works in the NT canon?
#61. To: redleghunter (#59)
You just can't make stuff up like this.
#62. To: redleghunter (#59)
Perhaps the knight should have returned some of the indulgence money to cover the robbery....LOL!!!!
#63. To: redleghunter (#58)
Wow, kind of like the banksters of today:)
#64. To: VxH, TooConservative, liberator (#61)
What does this mean?
#65. To: All, redleghunter, Liberator, A Pole (#55)
The Soul’s Garden claimed that one of Julius II.’s indulgences granted 80,000 years to those who would pray a prayer to the Virgin which the book gave. No wonder Siebert, a Roman Catholic writer, is forced to say that "the whole atmosphere of the later Middle Ages was soaked with the indulgence-passion."
#66. To: VxH, redleghunter, Liberator (#61)
en.wikipedia. org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies
#67. To: TooConservative (#65)
You have to admit, Rome selling forgiveness to cover 80,000 years in Purgatory and even into the millions of years is pretty impressive stuff. It was the bargain basement of works-based salvation.
#68. To: redleghunter, Liberator, A Pole (#67)
(Edited)
And God told Paul "My Grace is sufficient for you."
In Rome, the residence of the supreme pontiffs, as we might well have expected, the offer of indulgences was the most copious, almost as copious as the drops on a rainy day. According to the Nürnberger relic-collector, Nicolas Muffel, every time the skulls of the Apostles were shown or the handkerchief of St. Veronica, the Romans who were present received a pardon of 7,000 days, other Italians 10,000 and foreigners 14,000.
#69. To: TooConservative (#68)
the Romans who were present received a pardon of 7,000 days, other Italians 10,000 and foreigners 14,000.
#70. To: TooConservative (#2)
Tell me, what draws people to Christianity: love of God or fear of hell?
Rom. 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He glorified.
#71. To: redleghunter (#69)
I guess just being Roman or Italian had a special standing in Purgatory sentences.
#72. To: wmfights (#70)
(Edited)
My answer is neither. It is God who opens a believer's eyes and ears. Freewill is a matter of perspective.
#73. To: TooConservative (#72)
As a more general statement about free will, I would say that man has all the free will he can handle. But that in no way overrides or subordinates God's own free will.
#74. To: wmfights (#73)
(Edited)
My point is that it is the LORD that creates the situation where the believer's eyes and ears open.
#75. To: A Pole, wmfights (#74)
(Edited)
Why you Calivinists try to make man into an unfree puppet?
#76. To: A Pole (#74)
Why you Calivinists try to make man into an unfree puppet?
#77. To: TooConservative, A Pole (#75)
Did Jonah exercise his free will when he traveled to Nineveh in the whale's belly?
#78. To: wmfights (#77)
I don't see why having faith in an all knowing God who knew us before we were born is a bad thing.
#79. To: A Pole (#78)
(Edited)
So long as you understand that God's foreknowledge is not a cause of our deeds but a result.
#80. To: TooConservative (#79)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]