Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal ^ | April 1999 | Garrett J. Eriks

[Rhadaghast]

Keep working HarleyD, But I think those you preach too only will ever believe that their club is right.

They would rather be 'right' than fellowship with God. It is very hard to depend on the holy spirit for your complete guidance. It is much easier to say, these guys are the ones God chose we follow them and what they say.

The discussion for me has never been sola Scripture (bad spelling mine). It has been truthfully SolaPnemata - The Spirit of God alone guides his people. John 10:27.

Good luck on convincing these on this thread. But God is the only one that can change them through his spirit, if they will allow it.

Great points by the way.

[Forest Keeper]

FK, where do you get the idea that because man was created with Free Will, a divine attribute, that that meant he wasn't created perfect?

Perhaps I stated it clumsily. In my mind I was drawing an analogy to building a car. If you built a car that never got old, that never wore out, and never broke down, then you have built a perfect car. If, however, it was inevitable that the car would break down, then the car was not created in perfection. I am saying that since Adam was fully human, and had the ability to sin, that it was inevitable that at some point he would. The human nature is that we will do all things which we can, whether good (through God) or evil (on our own account).

Asking whether therefore if Christ could exercise His Free Will and sin is meaningless.

Yes, it is very meaningless. Therefore, Christ's free will is not comparable to that of man's. Christ's free will never leads to sin. Man's free will always leads to sin (before theosis anyway). But, you said above that free will is a divine attribute. How is this reconciled?

BTW, and as an aside, you totally outed yourself as a lawyer in your # 2217. :) (I'm nonpracticing.) I had always suspected because of your writing, but after 2217 I knew. Then, I clicked on your profile page and there it was. I don't know why, but I always get a jolly out of recognizing another lawyer in an "out of context" situation like this. :)

[HarleyD]

HD-I can read the scriptures

annalex-”Convince me.”

“And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.” Matt 1:24-25

“Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” Matt 12:47

HarleyD’s Divine Commentary on Matthew - "Joseph kept Mary a virgin until she gave birth to our Lord Jesus and now and then His family would visit with Him."

Somehow I doubt if my example will convince you.

[annalex]

Joseph kept Mary a virgin until she gave birth to our Lord Jesus and now and then His family would visit with Him

Exactly. That is what the Bible says. Bravo.

Note that it does NOT say that the family included children born of Mary or that Joseph did not keep Mary a virgin after Christ's birth.

[jo kus]

A person is saved by God's grace-period!!! Anything else (cooperation or man's faith) is the same Pelagius/Semi-Pelagius/Arminian argument simply expressed in different ways. On one side there is Calvinism; on the other side there is everything else. There is no middle ground.

Again, I remind you of something called "secondary causes". We all partake in them. We cooperate to bring life into the world with women, don't we? WE are secondary causes of life's greatest gift. This is God's Will. He doesn't strictly need men and women to create new people. HE CREATED US TO BE SECONDARY CAUSES, Harley! As it has been explained before, God is Love. He is the supreme giver of self. Thus, He shares the fact that He is the primary cause by ALLOWING us to be secondary causes. We are secondary causes in life. This does not take away anything from God - it merely shows His Love. If you'd read the Church Fathers more, you'd see this more clearly. St. Augustine certainy teaches about secondary causes.

I wrote : I would say that you will have a difficult time finding these innovations in the Fathers of the Church - and you CERTAINLY will not find them all in ANY Father.

You replied There is not ONE thing that you have that hasn't been given you by God including your faith. – Augustine (paraphrased)

And that is your proof that Protestant ideas and theology was found in the Church Fathers? Avoiding the obvious will not solve the problem. Protestantism is an innovation, not found in the Church Fathers. Can you show me otherwise?

Why should I read THEIR interpretation of scriptures when I can read the scriptures?

Because these men were undeniably more holy than all of us. The Spirit of God speaks more clearly to those who are not attached to the things of this world. I believe many Protestants teach the same thing - God's voice is clearer when we remove the distractions in our lives. Those men certainly removed distractions! Right, Kolo? You might learn something from them.

Protestants are no different except that our benchmark is the Bible

I am going to have to disagree. Your benchmark is your OWN INTERPRETATION of the Words found in the Scripture. I get tired of hearing that, quite frankly. God doesn't speak to you individually and infallibly to point out what verse "A" means. The fact is that you have a belief, then you proof- text it. You have been doing this for months now on your "man has no free will" kick, even though people toss you verses back that say that men DO have free will. This is enough for me to determine that you read your own theology into the Scriptures and refuse to hear anything else that contradicts that idea. Thus, YOU are the benchmark.

A simple Google search will show anyone that John Cassian is a highly regarded saint of the Orthodox belief.

I know that St. John Cassian is highly regarded as a saint in the Orthodox. I will let our Kolokotronis respond on him. But this proves your thesis? That Protestantism has existed before Luther and that the entire Church has wrongly taught Semi-Pelagianism? Go back to read Orange 2 and stop repeating that incessant mantra that the Catholic Church followed Cassian's teachings...

Funny I thought the Catholic Church writes a bunch of people into the book including Mary

They are in heaven. We are not. You are speculating on your future. We are not speculating on Mary's CURRENT status. I don't see your connection.

Someone says a prayer to a dead guy and is cured of cancer and it’s off to the official sainthood for that person so that people can start praying for their problem?

IF the Church determines that a REAL miracle occured, and if God is the cause of miracles, then it is safe to assume that God is telling us that He has answered the intercessionary prayers with a "yes". This is called knowledge by inference. We use it everyday.

If you pray to St Joseph and bury a statue by the real estate sign, he’ll help you sell your home? How positively medieval.

That's idiotic superstition that is not taught by the Church...

Paul states to examine yourself to see if you are in the faith (2 Cor 13:5) and he knew he had run the “good race". Our Lord Jesus says, “My sheep hear my voice and I know them…”.

Yes, thank you - Paul says HAD, not WILL. Paul is analyzing his past race! As to Jesus, what does He say about people "breaking" into the sheepfold without going through the Gate? How do you know you are of the sheepfold? Jesus is saying HIS SHEEP will hear Him, not those who THINK they are of the sheepfold. You can't force your way in, nor wish your way in.

I base my salvation upon God’s word and His divine promises.

God didn't provide any assurance to HarleyD, but to the Elect. I don't find you mentioned anywhere in the Scriptures. Nor am I. Work out your salvation in fear and trembling, For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure... See the cooperation, all based on God's Graces?

But any work that comes from us must initially come from God. Our Lord Jesus said, “I am the vine you’re the branches. Without me you can do nothing.”

Good. He says HE ABIDES IN US. Thus, when I do something, Christ's abiding in me enables me to do "X", which is salvific. WE, Christ and I, do it together. When you do something with another person, you can say "we" or "I" did something, because you were involved. Thus, we can say we cooperate secondarily - we are the secondary cause of an action - but God is primarily moving our will (see Phil 2:12-13 above)

You are a Christian because God choose you and gave you the faith to believe in Him.

You are forgeting, again, the idea of secondary causes. Yes, God gives us faith. Trent declares that, too. There is nothing we can do to bring about initial faith. However, it is clear from Scripture that we ALSO respond to God's grace. We can refuse God's grace. Thus, we are secondary causes regarding our response to God. We can choose to remain attached to money, we can choose not to read the Bible, we can choose to do good to our neighbors. All of this presumes that God is the primary cause of all - but He enables His creation to "cause" things, as well.

Regarding Mat 25, "They didn’t even realize they had done anything."

Where does it say that? They actually didn't know they gave "x" to Christ, not that they didn't do anything!

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

Me: So, another way to ask my same question would be: "could Jesus have used His free will and sinned"?

The answer is "Yes." Jesus was tempted like any one of us, but He chose not to.

Jesus could have sinned??? Jesus was tempted and could have fallen, but chose not to??? You just gave Christ the potential to author evil. From where did this potential come?

Me: "...but because it is not His nature to sin."

Which one of His natures, FK? His divine or His human nature?

I have always thought that Christ held both natures in full and simultaneously. Since we are told that Christ was without sin, I assume that as to this aspect of His being on earth, that the divine controlled. Along with His salvation work, Christ's incarnation also purposed a teaching aspect. The only way to teach with absolute authority would have been from a sinless state.

If He was subject to passions, and he was, then He was subject to sin.

WHY??? Jesus was passionate in the love He had for us and for the work tasked Him by His Father. There is no sin here. Jesus was not passionate for another man's wife, like David. Passion is a good thing when pointed at God. This is the only passion Jesus knew.

If he did not reject sin on His own free will, what accomplishment would His sinlessness be?

Jesus didn't reject sin, He didn't have it to commit. About Jesus, I really don't think this is a free will issue. Do you think of Jesus as "standing firm" against sin? Do you see Jesus ending His life without having sinned as a meritorious accomplishment? Thank you Jesus for holding on?

[Kolokotronis]

"Man's free will always leads to sin (before theosis anyway). But, you said above that free will is a divine attribute. How is this reconciled?"

As I said in an earlier post, theosis is an end state which some attain and very, very few of those in this life so by our definition of theosis, free will has little meaning because once one attains a state of theosis, one's union with the uncreated energies of God necessarily means that one's own will has been substituted by that of God. During the process of theosis, our personal free will can lead us to grace or sin. Prior to being sealed at baptism and chrismation, our free will cannot be exercised in a manner which will be efficatious for theosis. Thus, we are born distorted by the Sin of Adam in such a way that we cannot become like Christ by an exercise of our free will or otherwise on our own account. At baptism and chrismation, we are transformed by grace in such a manner that we can, but won't necessarily, exercise our free will in a way which does foster the process of theosis.Thus during the process of theosis we are quite capable of sinning.

Remember what the English word "sin" is a translation of, the Greek word "amartia" which means "to miss the mark", the mark being Christ, which is a rather different concept from that in the West. Prior to baptism and "sealing", we are incapable of hitting the mark no matter how hard we try. Once we have been baptized and sealed we are restored to the Pre Fall state of Adam of potential theosis.The process of theosis is that process by which we die to the self and become wholly like Christ, even to His death. In that process when we hit the mark we advance in theosis, by the exercise of our free will and conversely, when we miss the mark we fall backwards.

Thus during the process of theosis the divine attribute of free will can be used for profit or loss but upon theosis that divine attribute can only be used for goode since our will becomes totally identified with that of God Himself.

"BTW, and as an aside, you totally outed yourself as a lawyer in your # 2217. :) (I'm nonpracticing.) I had always suspected because of your writing, but after 2217 I knew."

:)

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Then God does not get what He wants."

Why? Because Bill doesn't go heave and Jo does?

While I appreciate the imagery of God wanting me to puke as opposed to Joe, this isn't exactly what I had in mind. :) (I'm sorry, I couldn't pass on this one :) I was talking about man's free will thwarting God's plan.

Love is respect.

I can see respect being in love, but I don't equate the two at all. Unlike love, I believe respect must be earned. What has man done to earn God's respect?

How can Omnipotent God be humble? How could He possibly respect our decisions? Well, then, this tells me that western Christianity does not know what love is.

From the sound of your framing, perhaps not by your standards. Do you believe that when Jesus went through His torture and death that it had anything to do with His respect for us? Kosta, love and respect are completely different concepts, why do you equate them?

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "... where does the ability to do it come from?"

Baptism.

FK: What is it that we can do ourselves

Turn to God.

So noting that you reversed the order of my question (which I don't mind), a person must be baptized before he can turn to God? Do you not sanction a "believer's" baptism? What about people who want to convert to your faith without having been previously baptized? It sounds like you are saying that only the unsaved can be baptized meaningfully. Is this correct?

[Kolokotronis]

"How can Omnipotent God be humble? How could He possibly respect our decisions? Well, then, this tells me that western Christianity does not know what love is.

From the sound of your framing, perhaps not by your standards. Do you believe that when Jesus went through His torture and death that it had anything to do with His respect for us? Kosta, love and respect are completely different concepts, why do you equate them?"

I think Kosta may have been being a bit ironic in his comment. Orthodoxy stresses the humility of Christ. Witness the following icon "Extreme Humility". The process of theosis necessarily requires a development of a profound degree of humility in order to be "like Christ".

Interestingly, this image of humility isn't applied only to The Logos, Christ, but also to the Holy Spirit. I may have posted this before on this thread, but this comment from the holy Athonite Archimandrite Sophrony demonstrates this forcfully:

"The Holy Spirit comes when we are receptive. He does not compel. He approaches so meekly that we may not even notice. If we would know the Holy Spirit we need to examine ourselves in the light of the Gospel teaching, to detect any other presence which may prevent the Holy Spirit from entering into our souls. We must not wait for God to force Himself on us without our consent. God respects and does not constrain man. It is amazing how God humbles Himself before us. He loves us with a tender love, not haughtily, not with condescension. And when we open our hearts to Him we are overwhelmed by the conviction that He is indeed our Father. The soul then worships in love."

Imagine, FK, the Pantokrator, the Ruler of All Creation approaches us, miserable, self centered us, with meekness, with love, with respect and with humility!

[kosta50]

Jesus could have sinned???

Let's look at what His dual nature means. Jesus is a Man, not God "dressed" to look like a Man, but flesh and blood as we are. Jesus suffered and died on the Cross. The Word did not die or suffer. Jesus felt pain, hunger, thirst, fear. Are you denying that? Did He not ask His Father if the ordeal He was about to go through could not somehow "pass" Him (cf Mat 26:39)?

In order to stress His dual nature, the Orthodox always say Jesus Christ (Jesus the Savior) and refer to Jesus alone only when it is His humanity that is the subject.

Was He not tempted in the desert? Do you think Satan could not see that He was also a Man and believed, wrongly, that no Man can resist his deceit?

Yes, Jesus was subject to passions -- and that does not mean, as you say, that he lusted after someone's wife! Passions are simple desires that come from the flesh -- whether it be thirst or lust, pleasure or pain, or fear. Passions are our corruption and giving in to passions is sin -- as Kolo says -- missing the mark.

Interestingly, I heard one lady who is a self-described "nondominational" Christian say that she didn't believe in sin. When I asked her what is sin to her she said "You know, cheat, steal and lie." Need I say more?

[kosta50]

While I appreciate the imagery of God wanting me to puke as opposed to Joe, this isn't exactly what I had in mind. :) (I'm sorry, I couldn't pass on this one :)

FK I was using generic names. It was not personal, trust me. :-)

I was talking about man's free will thwarting God's plan

Just how can man's free will, or for that matter anything man does thwart God's plan? Isn't it God's will for man to be, and to be free, rational, moral being, in His image and likeness?

How are those who abuse their will thwart God's plan, FK? Is the train to heaven going to be late? Is no one going to be saved? The only thing we accompolish when we oppose and reject God is foolishly choose evil and thwart our humanity.

If my goal is to give every homeless person $1,000,000 and some of them spend it foolishly and end up being as broke as they were before, whose fault is that?

[kosta50]

I can see respect being in love, but I don't equate the two at all/i>

The two go hand in hand. You cannot love someone you don't respect.

[kosta50]

Do you believe that when Jesus went through His torture and death that it had anything to do with His respect for us?

Of course! He asked the Father to forgive them. He respected them as human beings. He only practiced what He preached: love your enemies. Why should we love our enemies? Because even in the deepest spiritual abyss of some people, God's laws are still inscribed in their hearts and, yes, even such individulas can be saved.

[kosta50]

From the sound of your framing, perhaps not by your standards (re: How could God be humble?)

Well, Kolo picked up on my jest, but then he knows me, so it's not really fair. Everything about Christ is humility. The King of Kings was born like a pauper, in a smelly, dark, cold place full of animals, and of a teenage unwed Mother, with no father to claim as His biological parent. He was not a doctor, or a judge, but a carpenter, nothing prestigeous. He was as docile as a lamb, save for the moneychangers and that was understandable.

You see, the Jews looked at Him with that simplistic point of view and thought: if He is the Son of God, He neither looks the part nor does He act as one. Why? Because it is human nature to imagine God to be like those who rule over us -- powerful tyrants, or government officials who pretend to be public "servants" but often abuse their power. Christ demonstrated that God is nothing like that, that our idea of a Tyrant God is not what God is, but instead God is like Christ, forgiving and loving and humble.

This is why we call Him our Savior. Without Him we could never follow in God's steps, because our concept of God is nothing even remote as what Christ presented. And without Christ as an Example to follow, we would never find the way, the truth and the light.

Pagans worshiped powerful gods. Even the Jews cold not accept a humble God. To quote the High Priest "If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross." (Mat 27:40) and "If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him." (Mat 27:42).

Why? Because we all have this erroneous idea that God is just like us. He is not. Jesus was nothing like any of us. There was not an ounce of pride in Him, no matter what they did to Him. Imagine, the King of Kings being humiliated and spat on as He was beaten and tortured. If any of us tried to do that people would say "Fool, do something!"

[kosta50]

It sounds like you are saying that only the unsaved can be baptized meaningfully

Only the unbaptized can be baptized meaningfully, FK.

a person must be baptized before he can turn to God?

The knowledge of God is not something we will and is therefore not a derivative of free will, but of the knowledge that was inscribed in every man's heart by God

"I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people" (Heb 8:10)

Thus, all noetic creatures know that God exists, even if they deny it actively. That is true for angels, demons and humans. What baptism does is open our spiritual eyes so that we can choose God over sin. As Christians we are commanded to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, but this does not mean that God cannot baptize others in ways only known to Him.

[jo kus]

Very good post, sir. Why is it so difficult to see the humility of God? Isn't Jesus the par excellent sacrament - He Who tells us that intense desire that God has for mankind - to even die on a cross for us? If Jesus is God, then it is difficult to miss God's humility...

Very good post, brother.

Joe

[jo kus]

While I appreciate the imagery of God wanting me to puke as opposed to Joe, this isn't exactly what I had in mind. :) (I'm sorry, I couldn't pass on this one :) I was talking about man's free will thwarting God's plan.

What did I do now??? ;)

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

My brother, the Bible is not the exact, verbatim words of God...One only needs to look at the Resurrection of our Lord and the accounts of it in the Gospels. They differ! Now, if GOD HIMSELF was "dictating" the words, how did HE become so confused?

Since I am the big Bible defender, I cannot believe that God was confused. :) Do you equate "differ" with "contradict"? If so, can you give me an example in the resurrection accounts you cite above?

Also, IF the Bible was the LITERAL Word of God, and you read it like a Muslim, then would you suggest to another that they should cut off their arm or cast out their eye because it "causes them to sin"? The LITERAL Word of God leaves no such room for interpreting these words as hyperbole!

I already answered this in the post you are responding to. Much of God's literal word requires interpretation. Jesus says so openly and with examples. These ideas do not conflict. I explained that I was using the word "literal" in a correct, but different sense than you are using it. I don't know what else to say.

The analogy falls short, because I am not God. If God says we do something - we do it.

I disagree with the first sentence, and the second doesn't speak to the point we are discussing. God has decided to teach in a certain way, so He does. God knows us inside and out and knows that we respond to familiar stories well. Therefore, He uses them to instruct. It is fully by design and highly efficient. It has also proven to be highly effective. When they tried to trap Jesus about working on the Sabbath, He taught a common sense approach using an allegory, of course you rescue the animal. This is part of how God teaches us.

The Bible is not primarily a historical book, it is a religious book meant to supplement the already-held Apostolic Traditions taught orally in person by the Apostles!

I suppose that I will never be able to refer to God's word as a "supplement" to the words of men.

Ouch, that's not fair...I consider the Scripture as the Word of God.

I know that. :) When I said "lower regard" I did not mean "no regard", so I apologize if I gave offense. You just illustrated the point I was trying to make above, when you referred to the Bible as a supplement. To Protestants, the Bible is the primary visible authority. So, I was trying to say that comparatively, it is "more" important to us.

Because Scripture seems to contradict itself sometimes. For example, Romans 3:28 and James 2:24. We KNOW that God cannot contradict Himself. So WE must figure out what God is trying to say - how are we saved? This takes human interpretation - and it should be obvious by now that we don't agree on our interpretations.

Well, I have to give you that you came up with a good example, but I wonder how much we really disagree. I'd like to take a look at these verses:

Rom. 3:28 : "28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."

Jas. 2:24 : "24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

As a fair test of interpretation, I won't look to whatever website to find out what I'm supposed to say. I'll just wing it. The Romans verse says to me that we are justified by faith, and not justified by following the law alone. Faith does beget salvation, but only following the law does not. This seems in perfect harmony with the whole message of Jesus and the new Covenant, as taught elsewhere in scripture.

The James verse clearly acknowledges that faith is required for salvation. James adds that works are also a part of the salvation picture. This seems in perfect harmony with your references to the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says "This is what a saved person does". In scripture, He teaches righteous living.

So, putting the two together, they both require faith. The point of the first is to say that faith must be there, and if one only follows the law, he is lost. The second says that the fruit of true faith, works, must also be present. James does not say that works save, he says that faith saves, but not without further works.

All of this is consistent with my position that a true faith will necessarily generate the fruit of good works. You and I might disagree on some of the nitty gritty, but do you agree with the basic analysis and that the two verses are not in conflict at all?

IF the Bible was so clear on self-interpretation, would there be a multitude of Protestant denominations? How can man read God's "clear" Word so differently, on such important matters as salvation and Baptism??

Yes, there would be because human error is involved in receiving the clear signal. I still think Protestants get a raw deal in being accused of being all over the place on major issues. I suppose this goes back to how one defines a Protestant. I do not stand to defend all "Protestant" doctrine. I can reasonably speak about the SB faith, but don't claim authority on others. If I was on the road and wanted to attend a service, and no SB church was available, I wouldn't have any worry about walking through the doors of most other Protestant churches. It has happened before and I have never been offended by the message.

I ask you to carefully think out what you are saying here. Christians can disagree on GOD'S WORDS???? If they are God's LITERAL WORDS, HOW can Christians disagree over God's meaning? It seems very obvious to me that there is some confusion going on here.

I said good Christians can disagree, I did not say they could disagree and both be right! :) I believe that sanctification is very real. At every stage of my Christian walk I have learned new and better things, including on this thread. I wasn't a bad Christian before, I just didn't know yet. I learn, just as God intended. Hopefully, then I teach others, also as God intended.

Two good Christians disagree because both are still in the middle of their respective sanctification processes. I'm sure there are many times when both are wrong. That doesn't make them false Christians, that makes them children who are growing.

FK: All the glory for God's holy word goes to God, not men.

I have said time and time again that the Church's infallibility is based on the Spirit, not man's own abilities...

I know you have. This is just another point on the "cooperation" issue.

God IS truth. He isn't so non-chalant as you seem to be about "disagreement". The NT is quite against dissent and disagreement among various communities. But you say it's OK? Perhaps I am wrong, but it appears YOU are picking and choosing what the 'literal' word of God means.

I don't mean to be nonchalant about it, I just understand it as part of the sanctification process. When I became "saved" I knew only the basics and nothing else. Since then I have learned much, and changed views on some subjects. I believe God thinks that is good and encourages me to learn even more. Why is this so terrible? :)

Of course there is only one truth, but I don't expect everyone to get all of it from the beginning. If they did, then who would need sanctification? I don't believe I am picking and choosing on my own authority, I believe I am being led by the Spirit. Sometimes, I get it wrong, but that's my fault. The Spirit will continue to work on me for the rest of my life to help me get it right more and more.

The Scripture clearly says "no dissent", but you say "it's OK". I am confused on your real stand regarding Scriptures.

I say it's OK in the sense that we are humans and make mistakes. God knows this and we shouldn't beat ourselves up about it. God knows how we learn, He is not surprised or disappointed in that there is disagreement on some things. We're humans, He gets it. Of course the goal is unity, and the seeking of the one real truth on any given matter. The elect will always be seeking for these truths, and be open to superior teaching when supported by scripture.

My stand on the Bible is that it is the perfect incarnation of God's literal words. He used fallible men to put pen to page to bring it to us. He used other fallible men to assemble it for all time. The word is without error and perfectly consistent within itself. In many cases the word does need to be interpreted because, in part, God chose to use the technique of allegory to teach. The word also needs to be interpreted in many cases because in the specific contexts different points of the same general teaching are being highlighted. There can be confusion as to the whole teaching. The Bible as a whole helps us understand when this happens with other verses, in other contexts.

The Bible is totally self-contained and all Christians going through sanctification (with access to it) will continue to appropriate more and more of its single truth teachings throughout their lives. I see this as part of God's plan. He gave us an innate thirst for knowledge that the believer uses to know his Lord better and better.

[kosta50]

Much of God's literal word requires interpretation...I explained that I was using the word "literal" in a correct, but different sense...

If it needs interpretation, then it's not literal FK. That's what literal means.

We are not going to get into that "depends what is the meaning of 'is'" legal obfuscation thing, are we?