 |
| 
nofuture
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 12/23/2003 5:27 AM (GMT -6) |   | Here is a Scripture in Genesis 16:
11And the angel also said, "You are now pregnant and will give birth to a son. You are to name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard about your misery. 12This son of yours will be a wild one--free and untamed as a wild donkey! He will be against everyone, and everyone will be against him. Yes, he will live at odds with the rest of his brothers."
First I'd like to say I know God can't see the future, and I know He also doesn't hyper-manipulate everything according to "His" will. With that understanding behind us, I'm curious to see what you deep thinkers on this board make of this verse. I'm new to this forum, and hope you've not already beaten this passage do death. If so, I apologize. Nevertheless, I was wondering what you believe about how much God can know about our future personalities/destinies at the time of our conception. How much of us is ingrained and how much of our future behavior can be accurately predicted from conception? Also, are there other Scriptures that build on this idea? Thanks... | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 12/24/2003 1:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Gen 16:12And he will be a wild man; his hand [will be] against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
And he will be a wild man; The word rendered ‘wild’ also denotes the ‘wild ass;’ the description of which animal in Job 39:5-8, affords the very best representation of the wandering, lawless, free booting life of the Bedouin and other Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael.
Gen 21:20And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.
Job 11:12For vain man would be wise, though man be born [like] a wild ass's colt.
Job 39:5Who hath sent out the wild ass free? or who hath loosed the bands of the wild ass?
His hand [will be] against every man, and every man's hand against him;
Gen 27:40And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.
And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
Gen 25:18And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that [is] before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: [and] he died in the presence of all his brethren.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/24/2003 5:39 AM (GMT -6) | | | tim, I think there is scriptural evidence cited on both sides for God knowing the future as certain and as possibilities. You simply citing verses (primed with bold to bring your point across) isn't likely to convince anyone. I would suggest adding your own actual ideas to the mix. I think that is what this board is actually for. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 12/24/2003 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by nofuture
And the angel also said, "You are now pregnant and will give birth to a son. You are to name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard about your misery. This son of yours will be a wild one--free and untamed as a wild donkey! He will be against everyone, and everyone will be against him. Yes, he will live at odds with the rest of his brothers."
I was wondering what you believe about how much God can know about our future personalities/destinies at the time of our conception. How much of us is ingrained and how much of our future behavior can be accurately predicted from conception?
Good question. I have a few thoughts on this. First, libertarian freedom does not imply that people come into the world as blank slates as far as their personality and dispositions go. It is entirely consistent with libertarian freedom, and with open theism--and, moreover, seems to be borne out by the empirical evidence--that people come into the world already and perhaps even essentially disposed, to some extent, to a certain personality type.
Second, what libertarian freedom and open theism do imply is that nature and nurture do not exhautively determine the choices we make. Rather, there is a third component, the will, which though influenced by nature and nurture can still make an independent contribution to our choices. So free choices can be predictable, even with a very high degree of probability, but not with absolute certainty.
Third, with respect to the prophecy concerning Ishmael, note that it is very general, and that there are parts of it which could result, in whole or in part, from God's direct or indirect intervention. Thus God can send or permit events in Ishmael's life that will influence or strengthen his personality dispositions in one direction or another, or that will influence other people to be against him.
Fourth, while Ishmael's specific choices could not be foreknown with infallible certainty if he has libertarian free will, the general pattern of his life could be predicted with near infallible certainty just by instilling him with certain dispositions and reinforcing those dispositions appropriately.
Here's an example: Suppose we have a loaded die that is disposed to land '6', say, 30% of the time. On any particular toss, it will not be surprising if the die lands something else, but in the long run it is mathematically certain that the sequence of tosses will be characterized by sixes far more frequently than anything else, especially a '1'. So we can make a very confident prediction of the general character of the series, even though we cannot be very confident regarding any particular toss of the die. Similarly with Ishmael, given a stable personality disposition, the course of his life will have a general character that is highly predictable, even though his specific choices on any given occasion may not be highly predictable.
Hope that helps. Merry Christmas.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 12/25/2003 3:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Honerman,
Thanks for your suggestion; your observation is always appreciated.
I believe Scripture primed with bold or not, speaks for itself, and the heart of man is indeed, adding its own ideas to the mix.
"God can't see the future, and . . . does not . . . according to 'His' will",
Is not a view I share with nofuture, it's just my particular view added to the mix of actualities to be dealt with, as others see fit. I believe the Luke passage makes it evident without a long speech, at least to me . . . God did according to 'His' will, determining the future of John the Baptist life, at least. Again, Thanks for suggesting that I speak my mind on the subject.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
nofuture
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 12/25/2003 5:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Alan,
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my question. It seems that an awful lot about our character, personality & disposition is somehow formed within us in our mothers' wombs. We are not a 'blank slate' as you put it. Having raised 5 children, it is both awesome & sobering to see how much of my wife and I that has been blended into them, beyond the obvious physical aspects. Accordingly, we can often "know" what our kids are thinking and how they will act/react in certain situations. This has often amazed and irked them. How much more God 'knows' us and can anticipate our moves! Also, when the Lord has something specific for us to do, He knows just what it will take to nudge/move us in a particular direction. It's all too big and wonderful for my puny mind to take in. Thanks again for your input.
Merry Christmas
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/25/2003 12:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Tim: my simple thought was only that acripture is interpreted by each of us and therefore simply quoting it really does not prove your point, unless you simply want those reading to reflect on the scripture quoted. In that case, thats cool.
BTW, Doctor Boyd makes a different case for John The Baptist in his book on oneness Penecostals. I'll look it up for you. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 12/26/2003 4:12 AM (GMT -6) | |
"A different case for John the Baptist . . . I'll look it up for you".
I will enjoy that . . .
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/29/2003 7:38 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't recall making "a different case" for John the Baptist in my book on Oneness Pentecostals. I will enjoy that too.
In any event, I think the John the Baptist passage is much more problematic to open theism than the Ishmael one. Alan's reflections adequately account for the general determinacy of Ishmael's future, but in the Baptist's case the future specified by the angel in Luke 1 as SOTERIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS -- or so it would seem. If it was CERTAIN John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb and do all the angel ascribes to him, then it seems we have AT LEAST ONE example of a truly "elect" person -- a person who is individually saved apart from any libertarian free will on their part.
And, of course, if you can have ONE elect person, there's no reason why you couldn't have ALL elect persons. Hence, the "free will defense" goes down the tubes.
Lets look at it very carefully. The angel says of John,
" he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
Lots of specific predicted stuff here.
On top of all this, THIS MAN is the precursor of the Savior who seems to be prophecied in Scripture (see Mark 1) -- and the savior has already been conceived. So things are set in motion and can't be turned back. This perhaps reenforces the idea that John was FATED to play the role the angel seems to asign to him.
Tally up time. To me, this passage is probably the single most problematic verse to the open view. And I've never faced it head on in writing. To be honest, I have wrestled with it in the past, but then forgotton about it. Thanks for bringing it up Tim.
LETS DEAL WITH IT!!! I've got my own tentative response to it, but I'd like to hold it at bay for a bit to hear from others.
In his love,
Greg
-
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 12/30/2003 1:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg: "If you can have ONE elect person, there's no reason why you couldn't have ALL elect persons. Hence, the "free will defense" goes down the tubes".
Tim: I do not believe Scripture will let me go so far as to say, "free will . . . goes down the tubes", which would prove there is no need for a Savoir to me, and yet I have Jesus available to save me from my wrong choices, punishable by death.
However, if you can have ONE elect person, there's no reason why you couldn't have OTHER elect persons, which I believe Scripture suggest.
And if I read on in the story about John the Baptist life, I believe he still had thoughts of his own, separate from God's determined purpose, that is say, he is a man in need of a Savoir.
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/30/2003 2:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc: ...in the Baptist's case the future specified by the angel in Luke 1 as SOTERIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS -- or so it would seem. If it was CERTAIN John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb and do all the angel ascribes to him, then it seems we have AT LEAST ONE example of a truly "elect" person -- a person who is individually saved apart from any libertarian free will on their part.
Tom: I'd try to argue that this infilling is NOT soteriological. In fact, I'd argue that Luke nowhere discusses the work of the Spirit in soteriological terms, but that's beside the point. In the Old Testament, one (some argue the only) function of the Spirit's work is VOCATIONAL as opposed to SOTERIOLOGICAL. The whole story is very Old Testamentish.
As for John's role, might the WHOLE deal be conditional? Might it be that John was able to bring it about that he would not be the Messiah's forenunner? Isn't it interesting that the angel only appears to Mary AFTER he's sealed the deal with Elizabeth and Zechariah? Hmmm.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
nofuture
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 12/31/2003 3:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg Boyd said:
And, of course, if you can have ONE elect person, there's no reason why you couldn't have ALL elect persons. Hence, the "free will defense" goes down the tubes.
Maybe the answer is simply contained in Matt.22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 12/31/2003 7:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc: If you can have ONE elect person, there's no reason why you couldn't have ALL elect persons. Hence, the "free will defense" goes down the tubes.
Alan: I don't see why open theists can't just bite the bullet here and concede that John's life was largely constrained by God (i.e., that he had little or no libertarian free will in significant matters). Now it may be that open theists don't have to concede that. If so, all the better. But, frankly, how would that concession compromise the basic commitments of open theism or of the free will defense? Suppose John was "elect" before birth. If so, it was because God had good reasons having to do with setting things up for his salvific plan for greatly restricting John's libertarian freedom. But that gives us no reason to think that other persons, much less most or all persons, are similarly elect. The principle here is that free will is not restricted or overridden unless there is some greater, overriding reason to do so, which means that John is the exception, not the rule. The free will defense thus remains intact because in many, if not most cases, presumably, the intrinsic and instrumental good of having a free will are not overridden by other goods or by the evils that freedom makes possible. Could all persons be "elect"? I don't see why not, in principle, but if that were the rule and not the exception then God would have to forego the intrinsic and instrumental goods that free will makes possible, such as being in a free and loving relationship with his creatures.
Happy New Year!
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 12/31/2003 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Now this is TOTALLY speculation on my part, so don't think I've gone all loony or anything, but what if God does actually predestine certain people to do certain things, like Pharoah, and then essentially gives them a free pass to heaven anyway, because they only did what He made them do? I know that sounds totally radical, and again, I'm simply throwing an idea out there, but maybe that's what God does in those cases. Just like the Bible doesn't say for sure what happens to unsaved children after they die, somehow Christians like to believe that God still lets them into heaven because they died before their "age of accountibility." Yet, we have no way of knowing this for sure. We just like to believe that it's true because it seems more just in our thinking. Well, to my thinking, it's not just to predestine certain people to do certain things that would lead them to hell. Therefore, if they were predestined to sin for the greater good of an overall plan, like Israel's escape from Egypt and the lessons taught them and the pagan nations through how God dealt with Pharoah's stubbornness, they would still go to heaven because they had simply been obeying God in the first place.
Of course that contradicts what scripture says about how God never tempts anyone to sin. How do predeterminists or whatever they're called, deal with that?
Arghhh! I think my brain is smoking.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/1/2004 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | |
Alan: The free will defense thus remains intact because in many, if not most cases, presumably, the intrinsic and instrumental good of having a free will are not overridden by other goods or by the evils that freedom makes possible. Could all persons be "elect"? I don't see why not, in principle, but if that were the rule and not the exception then God would have to forego the intrinsic and instrumental goods that free will makes possible, such as being in a free and loving relationship with his creatures.
Doc: I'm totally with you on the ability of God to restrain freedom. We all a limited amount.... so pre-scripting various deeds is in principle no more a negation of freedom that pre-scripting certain characteristics. But in the case of John, there are personal attributes, like being devoted to God, preaching, etc. that are prescribed for him. Even if his own salvation is not prescribed (as TGB holds), his devotion to God seems to be.
Now, if you say that John is an exception to the general rule that salvation must be chosen, then one must wonder a) why God risks loosing anyone by giving them choice and/or b) if John's salvation lacked the "intrinsic good "of being a "free and loving relationship" with God.
Doc
e case of John the Baptist he was saved without the good of having a "free and loving relationship" with God? And what kind of salvation was that?
Happy New Year!
Alan
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/1/2004 10:39 PM (GMT -6) | | If “love requires freedom” is, as Doc has argued, a metaphysical reality for contingent beings like ourselves, then it applies to John, since he is a contingent being like us. This doesn’t mean God could not have elected him for ministry AND heaven, it only means that we have to say about John’s salvation what we’ve been arguing all along against determinism, and that is that in this case the relationship between God and John the Baptist could have been neither “loving” nor “personal.” Nor could God’s salvation of John be considered a “loving” act. For inasmuch as one person is unconditionally determined by another person the relationship between them can be neither mutually loving nor interpersonal. And since “mutually interpersonal loving relationship” is what the NT (in my mind) unambiguously defines as “salvation” (as opposed to just “getting into heaven” instead of “going to hell”), as well as being what makes heaven heaven, I can’t but argue against the belief that prenatal infillings are soteriologically oriented and constitute election to eternal life. One might wonder whether the uniquely-elected-for-salvation John would think he was in heaven or hell (when he got to heaven) having to spend all eternity existing in a relationship to God that is both impersonal and void of all love. When would these aspects of relating (enjoyed by us only through libertarian choice as a metaphysical law) ever become John’s to enjoy? John would spend eternity looking like the freeze-dried Hans Solo in The Empire Strikes Back—not dead and not in hell, but not in the same heaven the rest of us will be in and not celebrating the same salvation the rest of us will celebrate.
That God unconditionally determines a person’s vocation (particular amoral aspects of peoples’ lives like what their parents name them and their life’s vocation; viz., Cyrus) is fine by me. But God’s unconditionally determining a person’s relationship to himself is entirely different. Sure, God has the muscle to determine everything about a person, including the muscle to “get them from earth into heaven” if that’s what salvation is about. But if salvation and heaven are about dancing with God, enjoying throughout eternity the intimacy of a personal and loving relationship with God, then John might as well be in hell by being sent to heaven without these, which we must admit would have to be the case if John is unconditionally predetermined for salvation. God has the muscle to unconditionally pack heaven full if he wants to, but he does not have the muscle to unilaterally establish a ‘personal’ and ‘loving’ relationship with people.
If Doc’s thesis (“love must be chosen”) is correct, then either:
a) John’s infilling in the womb and calling to ministry are conditional, or if they are not conditional, they are not soteriologically oriented. John is not elect to salvation, or…
b) John IS elect to salvation and heaven, but to a salvation and heavenly existence which are neither loving nor personal and thus nowhere revealed or expounded in Scripture, and which are thus inexplicable if indeed it is a fundamental metaphysical law that love requires freedom.
I just KNOW this has GOT to bring Mephi back. Where is he anyhow?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/2/2004 8:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom
If Doc’s thesis (“love must be chosen”) is correct, then either:
a) John’s infilling in the womb and calling to ministry are conditional, or if they are not conditional, they are not soteriologically oriented. John is not elect to salvation, or…
b) John IS elect to salvation and heaven, but to a salvation and heavenly existence which are neither loving nor personal and thus nowhere revealed or expounded in Scripture, and which are thus inexplicable if indeed it is a fundamental metaphysical law that love requires freedom.
Iconoclast
There is a third alternative.
John had ALREADY chosen love BEFORE he was born AGAIN into the flesh.
Matthew 11:13-15
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Now, I realize that not all are willing to accept this. 
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/2/2004 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: There is a third alternative.
John had ALREADY chosen love BEFORE he was born AGAIN into the flesh.
Matthew 11:13-15
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Now, I realize that not all are willing to accept this.
Tom: Spoken like a true Iconoclast. Oh my gosh! My goodness! My Chateau Certan! My Margaux! Break out the Boursin cheese bro! I'm coming to town in a couple weeks (seriously!) to talk about this one! Whew.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Cliffy
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 26
| Posted 1/3/2004 11:59 AM (GMT -6) | | This is just getting too funny.
Great discussion guys, I've found it edifying.
Cliffy
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/3/2004 1:44 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
nofuture
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 11
| Posted 1/4/2004 12:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast said:
What principle, rule, doctrine, metaphysical reality and so on would rule out God's ability to actually send Elijah back to earth as John the Baptist in order to carry out His purposes? He obviously had the ability to send Himself to earth to carry out His purposes. Isn't that prima facie evidence that a human need not necessarily be a brand new spirit?
So, what's the problem?
The Bible states that shortly after the beheading of John the Baptist:
Matthew 17:
1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
4Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"
6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid." 8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.
9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."
10The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"
11Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.
Some interesting Scriptures to chew on here... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/4/2004 1:31 AM (GMT -6) | | In response to John’s preaching, priests from Jerusalem asked him about his identity (Jo. 1.21). "Are you Elijah?" they asked. John answered, “I am not.”
I can hear the response now: John was Elijah reincarnate. John just didn’t know he was Elijah.
Iconoclast, let's start her up, a thread on reincarnation. Should be fun.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/4/2004 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom
In response to John’s preaching, priests from Jerusalem asked him about his identity (Jo. 1.21). "Are you Elijah?" they asked. John answered, “I am not.”
I can hear the response now: John was Elijah reincarnate. John just didn’t know he was Elijah.
Iconoclast
Perhaps, or perhaps it was something else that caused him to say this.
Mat 16:15-20
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
Maybe John wouldn't tell them for the same reason that Jesus forbade His disciples to tell anyone that He was the Christ. Just imagine someone asking Peter if Jesus was the Christ - I assume that right after this command Peter would say no.
And surely John could say that he wasn't Elijah in all honesty in that even if he was Elijah reincarnate he was much more than simply the man Elijah who lived long ago - he had grown in Christ and was one with God in - he also presumably had different DNA than Elijah did and so was also more and different than Elijah the specific man.
So why would John and Jesus seek to conceal some things about them?
Mat 13:13
This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: 'You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.'
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
| 35 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:46 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|