Comment: At least you admit your view is illogical

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I do know what Calvin teaches (see in situ)

At least you admit your view is illogical

I disagree about the meaning of the parable of the sower. and if we are to consider all of scripture, I don't see how this is genuine salvation lost:

1John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us"

Your view basically says that Jesus tries and fails to save people, and that people can be plucked from Jesus hand by the will of man:

Joh 17:1-2 "These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him."

John 10:28 "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

In my view, double predestination does 'jive with scripture', but I believe that logical consistency is important. Interesting that you don't think logical consistency is important and yet you don't think double predestination 'jives with scripture'? very telling.

It's not a matter of placing one verse above another, but letting the text speak for itself coherently.. if Jesus says he is the door, Calvinists don't think he has hinges, if he says he is the light, Calvinists don't believe he is an incandescent bulb. A consistent Lutheran might have to think of Jesus as those kinds of objects rather than picking and choosing where to fall into the error of letterism. With Calvinists, it is not a matter of redefining 'is', but looking at context, using hermeneutics in a logically consistent way where established truths matter (law of identity), and where apparent contradictions are attempted to be resolved through the principle of charity rather than clinging to illogical first impression misinterpretations: http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

But with Luthers view of communion, a consistent Lutheran might have to admit he kind of redefines 'is' as they would say that Zwingli did, since Luther didn't think of it in the roman catholic way of transubstantiation, but rather he thought Jesus was "in and through" the bread, but not the bread itself. What is "in and through" supposed to mean in contrast to the roman catholic view of the body existing as the accidental of bread?

I like Luther, he's funny, though crude at times, too bad he still had a bit of roman Catholicism coloring his interpretation of things. And whats with the ink on the wall? Is it common for Lutherans to throw ink at the devil on the wall at night? ;)