Replies

"If what you say is true then God would be double minded."

How does that follow from an assertion that God DOESN'T change his mind? To assert that God changes his mind because we pray is to assert that we surprised an omniscient being by praying. He knew we would pray, and planned to fulfill our prayers.

"Even worse , if that is true, the statement would make God the author of evil."

Again, that doesn't follow. There's a difference between permitting and directly causing. But God turns all things to good, and destroys evil. See your forcing a dichotomy because you're viewing God as subject to time. Since God is the author of time, he can give us free will, and yet plan the universe around our salvation. God allowed evil because he knew he would send his only Son to restore good, hence, "O Necessary fault of Adam, which hath gained for us a redeemer."

"Praying for the dead may make you(generic use) feel better, but praying for the dead seems to be a useless activity otherwise. After all, they have finished their journey and have received their reward, Heaven or Hell."

Again, you can pray that they have gone to Heaven. Besides, your point only holds up if you use Martin Luther's censored version of the bible. Elsewise, you'd know from Maccabees that the Spirit of God returned to the temple when the Jewish warriors offered expiation for the souls of their departed. And yes, God's spirit did dwell in the temple at the time of Jesus; that's why when Jesus died, the altar was cleaved and the curtains torn: that was the Spirit of God leaving the temple.

(Mr. Luther, It's really no fair to argue to sola scriptura if you decide you're going to throw out the stuff that doesn't agree with you.)

"How does that follow from an assertion that God DOESN'T change his mind? To assert that God changes his mind because we pray is to assert that we surprised an omniscient being by praying. He knew we would pray, and planned to fulfill our prayers."

First, you have based your argument, and your immortal soul, on circular reasoning.
Second, I asserted no such thing. God Himself said that He would change His mind, Nineveh ring a bell?

"Again, that doesn't follow. There's a difference between permitting and directly causing."

There is a difference between an act predestined, such as the birth, sinless life, Crucifixion and the raising from the dead of Jesus and a act permitted, such as the stoning of Stephen.

" But God turns all things to good, and destroys evil."

God works all things together for the good of those that love Him. That doesn't mean there isn't evil. Evil is not destroyed now, only at the end.

"See your forcing a dichotomy because you're viewing God as subject to time. Since God is the author of time, he can give us free will, and yet plan the universe around our salvation."

That statement is asinine(look it up)
It has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation and it never will.

" God allowed evil because he knew he would send his only Son to restore good, hence, "O Necessary fault of Adam, which hath gained for us a redeemer."

God allowed evil because He gave us and the Angles free will to choose. He did not allow evil in order to sacrifice his Son for our redemption. Another fine example of circular reasoning on your part.
Doesn't it make more sense to not allow evil in the first place and save all of this trouble?

"Again, you can pray that they have gone to Heaven."

A totally useless waste of time. Pray for the living, let the dead bury the dead.

"Besides, your point only holds up if you use Martin Luther's censored version of the bible. Elsewise, you'd know from Maccabees that the Spirit of God returned to the temple when the Jewish warriors offered expiation for the souls of their departed."

The Maccabees have even less Gospel than does the book of James. The Maccabees are pure history, just like Josephus.

"And yes, God's spirit did dwell in the temple at the time of Jesus; that's why when Jesus died, the altar was cleaved and the curtains torn: that was the Spirit of God leaving the temple."

1 out of 100 ain't good. But tell me, what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

"(Mr. Luther, It's really no fair to argue to sola scriptura if you decide you're going to throw out the stuff that doesn't agree with you.)"

Tell you what Padre, here a couple things that do agree with me.
The scripture which says "let each man work out his own salvation with fear and trembling" and "Choose this day whom you will serve.."

Now you tell me how those two things can be reconciled with your premise.

BTW, Calling me Mr.Luther isn't an insult as you intended.
You would do well reading Luther's works, if for no other reason than "know your enemy".