Luther Bondage of the will

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Luther categorized as his most important work he ever wrote was his work against (in response to ) the Roman Catholic Erasmus The Bondage Of The Will.

In this work he states under the heading: THE NECESSITY OF KNOWING GOD AND HIS POWER

"Therefore, it is not irreligious, curious, or superfluous, but essentially wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know, whether or not the will does any thing in those things which pertain unto Salvation. Nay, let me tell you, this is the very hinge upon which our discussion turns. It is the very heart of our subject. For our object is this: to inquire what “Free-will” can do, in what it is passive, and how it stands with reference to the grace of God. If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatever of Christian matters, and shall be far behind all People upon the earth. He that does not feel this, let him confess that he is no Christian. And he that despises and laughs at it, let him know that he is the Christian’s greatest enemy. For, if I know not how much I can do myself, how far my ability extends, and what I can do God-wards; I shall be equally uncertain and ignorant how much God is to do, how far His ability is to extend, and what He is to do toward me: whereas it is “God that worketh all in all.” (1 Cor. xii. 6.) But if I know not the distinction between our working and the power of God, I know not God Himself. And if I know not God, I cannot worship Him, praise Him, give Him thanks, nor serve Him; for I shall not know how much I ought to ascribe unto myself, and how much unto God. It is necessary, therefore, to hold the most certain distinction, between the power of God and our power, the working of God and our working, if we would live in His fear

Thoughts?

IF we misunderstand the role of the "free-will" do we defacto' not know God?

In Him,

Bill

 

[Clare73]

Good Day,

Luther categorized as his most important work he ever wrote was his work against (in response to ) the Roman Catholic Erasmus The Bondage Of The Will.

In this work he states under the heading: THE NECESSITY OF KNOWING GOD AND HIS POWER

"Therefore, it is not irreligious, curious, or superfluous, but essentially wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know, whether or not the will does any thing in those things which pertain unto Salvation. Nay, let me tell you, this is the very hinge upon which our discussion turns. It is the very heart of our subject. For our object is this: to inquire what “Free-will” can do, in what it is passive, and how it stands with reference to the grace of God. If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatever of Christian matters, and shall be far behind all People upon the earth. He that does not feel this, let him confess that he is no Christian. And he that despises and laughs at it, let him know that he is the Christian’s greatest enemy. For, if I know not how much I can do myself, how far my ability extends, and what I can do God-wards; I shall be equally uncertain and ignorant how much God is to do, how far His ability is to extend, and what He is to do toward me: whereas it is “God that worketh all in all.” (1 Cor. xii. 6.) But if I know not the distinction between our working and the power of God, I know not God Himself. And if I know not God, I cannot worship Him, praise Him, give Him thanks, nor serve Him; for I shall not know how much I ought to ascribe unto myself, and how much unto God. It is necessary, therefore, to hold the most certain distinction, between the power of God and our power, the working of God and our working, if we would live in His fear

Thoughts?

IF we misunderstand the role of the "free-will" do we defacto' not know God?

In Him,

Bill

Well, we will have a deficient view of him, which will be untruth, which is never a good thing.

And we will have a deficient view of our insufficiency, which will again be untruth, which again is not a good thing.

The purpose of God's revelation is that we know the truth regarding him.

Apart from that truth, what we know is only fallen finite human perception.

And by definition, fallen finite human perception de facto does not know God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Thoughts?

Martin Luther spent too much time worrying about abstruse theological issues and not enough on living an obedient and good Christian life. Speculation about free-will vs will-in-bondage is interesting and delights some intellects but it doesn't lead to a more godly way of life.

 

[Clare73]

Martin Luther spent too much time worrying about abstruse theological issues and not enough on living an obedient and good Christian life.

And you know this, how? . . .you are in a position to judge his soul?

Speculation about free-will vs will-in-bondage is interesting and delights some intellects but it doesn't lead to a more godly way of life.

Not too sure how a Biblical knowledge of God impedes a more godly way of life. . .

This is not Xeno.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In my younger days when I was still operating under a theological system of decisionism and with underlying theological assumptions that my living a holy life, a "victorious" life through holy and righteous merit were to be the tokens by which I could know that I am saved I lived in a state of perpetual misery. It didn't begin miserable, rather I found the more I wanted to please God, the harder I tried to overcome sins, the more I strived to be holy because I wanted to be certain of my salvation--and the lingering fear that perhaps I wasn't saved because I wasn't bearing the right kinds of fruit--the more I despaired, the more miserable I became.

I continued to find myself regularly on my knees, or prostrate, on my floor privately in my room. Pleading with God. But without anything to comfort me.

That comfort only came when it was finally told to me that my salvation is truly the power and work of God accomplished in and through Jesus Christ. A spiritual yoke was loosed from my neck, it was as if heaven itself opened wide.

I had been wanting to please and earn God's love but beheld Him continually through the veil of His awful majesty, trying to climb my way up to God. But the entire time God had climbed down the mountain, clothed in the suffering and humanity of Jesus Christ who bore my sin and death, shed His blood, and who had already attained the work which I could never attain.

And to meet God down here, in Jesus, is to meet grace face to face. It is earth-shattering and life transforming.

The Cross, not my "holiness", defines my position before God.

So the terrible irony is that the deception that we must, in some measure, use the power of our will and our work to offer something to God, transactionally, is that it is a paradox of vanity and despair. It can create pride, such as we see in the Pharisee who stood before God boasting and condemning the tax collector. But very often it just creates despair, faith-injuring despair.

For there is despair that leads to grief, godly sorrow, and repentance. And there is despair that leads to hopelessness and the shipwrecking of faith. One brings us into the comfort of grace in the Gospel, the other is when the Gospel is not preached as Gospel, but rather Law and Gospel are mixed together.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[concretecamper]

.

 

[fhansen]

Thoughts

Yes, Luther didn’t know God or His will very well.

God does what God wants to do. And He wants your will involved to the greatest extent possible, for your highest good, in His work that He initiates in you and desires to carry through to completion in you. Completion means that you’ve attained the purpose He created you for, that you love, as He does, to put it best. That’s what salvation means. That you know and love God, and your neighbor. When that love is perfected, you are perfected, presumably not fully until the next life. Salvation is much more than escape from hell; it’s God producing something, over time and with struggle, via His creation, something much greater than He began with.

Love is our holiness, our justice, our righteousness: that which overcomes and excludes sin by it’s nature. It reflects the nature of God that we’re to be transformed into. And that love, in order to be love, is both a divine gift, and a human choice as we come to accept, embrace, and act upon or express that gift ourselves. It all begins with the acceptance of the first gift of grace, that of faith, when He comes knocking on our door, which establishes fellowship/union with Him. From within that relationship, and only from it, do we begin to find our purpose, the reason we were created, not to mention our wholeness, holiness, satisfaction and the true happiness we were created to desire and have.

From Eden through revelation the Bible shouts out God's will for you, that you come into alignment with His will. He covets a “yes” from us, rather than Adam’s “no”, and an increasingly stronger and more confirmed “yes”, impossible without grace, without Him, and yet something He refuses to do without you because, like the good Parent He is, He wants the very best for you and that includes your making and owning right choices for yourself. Humans are created as morally accountable beings, and not non-rational brute beasts. That’s what we need to know.

Our first “job”, in response to revelation and grace, is to recognize that He, and not ourselves, is God. That’s the object of faith, where He is enthroned in us as our God again, as truth and justice demand. He stands at the door and knocks. Will we answer and allow Him inside, and to remain inside?

 

[Clare73]

Yes, Luther didn’t know God or His will very well.

And you know this, how?

God does what God wants to do. And He wants your will involved to the greatest extent possible.

He wants your heart's disposition, which governs the will, toward him.

for your highest good, in His work that He initiates in you and desires to carry through to completion in you. Completion means that you’ve attained the purpose He created you for, that you love, as He does, to put it best. That’s what salvation means. That you know and love God, and your neighbor. When that love is perfected, you are perfected, presumably not fully until the next life. Salvation is much more than escape from hell; it’s God producing something, over time and with struggle, via His creation, something much greater than He began with.

Love is our holiness, our justice, our righteousness:

Not just love. . .there are many who love well, and there are Orthodox Jews who "love" God, but neither are saved.

All must be based in faith in and trust on the person and atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," justified (forensically righteous).

that which overcomes and excludes sin by it’s nature. It reflects the nature of God that we’re to be transformed into. And that love, in order to be love, is both a divine gift, and a human choice as we come to accept, embrace, and act upon or express that gift ourselves. It all begins with the acceptance of the first gift of grace, that of faith, when He comes knocking on our door,

Faith is not an outward gift, to be accepted or rejected, it is an inward work, the result of the new birth which is by the totally sovereign choice of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-8), which choice is as unaccountable as the wind.

which establishes fellowship/union with Him.

That union being the result of our debt to God's justice being paid and cancelled (forgiven), giving us right standing before him; i.e., forensic righteousness (justification, declared not guilty, sentence of acquittal, in right standing with the Court), no obstruction remaining.

From within that relationship, and only from it, do we begin to find our purpose, the reason we were created, not to mention our wholeness, holiness, satisfaction and the true happiness we were created to desire and have.

From Eden through revelation the Bible shouts out Gods will for you, that you come into alignment with His will. He covets a “yes” from us, rather than Adam’s “no”, and an increasingly stronger and more confirmed “yes”, impossible without grace, without Him, and yet something He refuses to do without you because, like the good Parent He is, He wants the very best for you and that includes your making and owning right choices for yourself.

It is God who works in us both to will and to do (Php 2:13).
It's not about us, it's about the glory of God from first to last.

Humans are created as morally accountable beings, and not non-rational brute beasts. That’s what we need to know.

However, moral accountability does not save, nor does it sanctify.
Faith saves, and obedience in and by the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Ro 6:16-19).

Our first “job”, in response to revelation and grace, is to recognize that He, and not ourselves, is God. That’s the object of faith, where He is enthroned in us as our God again, as truth and justice demand. He stands at the door and knocks. Will we answer and allow Him inside, and to remain inside?

No one "allows him inside" (Ro 8:7-8, 1 Co 2:14, Jn 3:3-5) apart from God's transforming work within (Php 2:13, Jn 3:7-8).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And you know this, how?

From the many doctrinal errors in his writings.

He wants your heart's disposition, which governs the will, toward him.

The Lord says, "to obey is better than sacrifice", so he wants obedience as well as love, faith, and the many other things that go into making a person Christ-like.

 

[childeye 2]

And you know this, how?

He wants your heart's disposition, which governs the will, toward him.

Not just love. . .there are many who love well, and there are Orthodox Jews who "love" God, but neither are saved.

All must be based in faith in and trust on the person and atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," justified (forensically righteous).

Faith is not an outward gift, to be accepted or rejected, it is an inward work, the result of the new birth which is by the totally sovereign choice of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-8), which choice is as unaccountable as the wind.

That union being the result of our debt to God's justice being paid and cancelled (forgiven), giving us right standing before him; i.e., forensic righteousness (justification, declared not guilty, sentence of acquittal, in right standing with the Court), no obstruction remaining.

It is God who works in us both to will and to do (Php 2:13).
It's not about us, it's about the glory of God from first to last.

However, moral accountability does not save, nor does it sanctify.
Faith saves, and obedience in and by the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Ro 6:16-19).

No one "allows him inside" (Ro 8:7-8, 1 Co 2:14, Jn 3:3-5) apart from God's transforming work within (Php 2:13, Jn 3:7-8).

1 Corinthians 12:3

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.​

 

[childeye 2]

The Lord says, "to obey is better than sacrifice", so he wants obedience as well as love, faith, and the many other things that go into making a person Christ-like.

Romans 6:17​

​

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.​

 

[childeye 2]

Good Day,

Luther categorized as his most important work he ever wrote was his work against (in response to ) the Roman Catholic Erasmus The Bondage Of The Will.

In this work he states under the heading: THE NECESSITY OF KNOWING GOD AND HIS POWER

"Therefore, it is not irreligious, curious, or superfluous, but essentially wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know, whether or not the will does any thing in those things which pertain unto Salvation. Nay, let me tell you, this is the very hinge upon which our discussion turns. It is the very heart of our subject. For our object is this: to inquire what “Free-will” can do, in what it is passive, and how it stands with reference to the grace of God. If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatever of Christian matters, and shall be far behind all People upon the earth. He that does not feel this, let him confess that he is no Christian. And he that despises and laughs at it, let him know that he is the Christian’s greatest enemy. For, if I know not how much I can do myself, how far my ability extends, and what I can do God-wards; I shall be equally uncertain and ignorant how much God is to do, how far His ability is to extend, and what He is to do toward me: whereas it is “God that worketh all in all.” (1 Cor. xii. 6.) But if I know not the distinction between our working and the power of God, I know not God Himself. And if I know not God, I cannot worship Him, praise Him, give Him thanks, nor serve Him; for I shall not know how much I ought to ascribe unto myself, and how much unto God. It is necessary, therefore, to hold the most certain distinction, between the power of God and our power, the working of God and our working, if we would live in His fear

Thoughts?

IF we misunderstand the role of the "free-will" do we defacto' not know God?

In Him,

Bill

In our vain imaginations we do presume that we can choose to believe God is trustworthy or not, which involves creating a corrupt image of god, that is not GOD. Wherefore scripture states that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the Truth of God in unrighteousness.

Subsequently there is a free will, alluded to in scripture, that is qualified as having been set free by the Truth about God revealed through the Gospel. John 8:32. And there is also in scripture what in human terms some might call a "free will", which is the circumstance of choosing between servitude to the flesh and servitude to the Spirit. Romans 6:19.

 

[Clare73]

From the many doctrinal errors in his writings.

Such as. . .please Biblically demonstrate their errors.

The Lord says, "to obey is better than sacrifice", so he wants obedience as well as love, faith, and the many other things that go into making a person Christ-like.

And you know Luther was disobedient to Christ, how?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

please Biblically demonstrate their errors.

No.
That's your theology; sola scriptura is one of the errors.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No.
That's your theology; sola scriptura is one of the errors.

But, surely, if Luther had serious doctrinal errors they could be shown biblically. One doesn't need to subscribe to Sola Scriptura in order to maintain that Scripture is true and that doctrine should not be contrary to Scripture.

I know this can be done, I've seen Catholics post their biblical reasons why they disagree with Luther. I don't agree with their assessments obviously, but still.

On the other hand if Luther is found in agreement with Scripture, but not necessarily with certain parts of Tradition, then that could be a red flag of another kind.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

But, surely, if Luther had serious doctrinal errors they could be shown biblically. One doesn't need to subscribe to Sola Scriptura in order to maintain that Scripture is true and that doctrine should not be contrary to Scripture.

This is an invalid argument. From the fact that doctrine should not be contrary to Scripture it does not follow that all errors can be adjudicated Biblically. Anyone who is familiar with the doctrinal and conciliar disputes in the history of the Church knows that many of these disputes were not Biblically adjudicable, even though they were quite serious. Arius, for example, was not convicted on primarily Scriptural grounds.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is an invalid argument. From the fact that doctrine should not be contrary to Scripture it does not follow that all errors can be adjudicated Biblically.

That's not what I said. But at least some errors should be able to be adjudicated biblically. Surely.

Anyone who is familiar with the doctrinal and conciliar disputes in the history of the Church knows that many of these disputes were not Biblically adjudicable, even though they were quite serious. Arius, for example, was not convicted on primarily Scriptural grounds.

Do you believe that Arius was wrong, biblically? That is, was what Arius was saying and teaching biblically accurate? Or was what he said and taught contrary to the entire witness of the Church, which at the very least has to include Scripture.

-CryptoLUtheran

 

[zippy2006]

That's not what I said. But at least some errors should be able to be adjudicated biblically. Surely.

Oh, but it is what you said. When you said, "if Luther had serious doctrinal errors they could be shown biblically," you committed yourself to the position that all serious doctrinal errors can be shown biblically. Yet the attempted justification in your second sentence was logically invalid, as I noted. Besides, if that's not what you said then the conclusion of your argument would have no force. Consider:

• 1a. Xeno: I do not need to provide Scriptural proof that Luther was in error; I do not hold to Sola Scriptura.
• 1b. VC: But all serious doctrinal errors can be shown biblically, therefore you do need to provide Scriptural proof.
• -
• 2a. Xeno: I do not need to provide Scriptural proof that Luther was in error; I do not hold to Sola Scriptura.
• 2b. VC: "But at least some errors should be able to be adjudicated biblically. Surely."

Your revised response in (2b) does not even get you to the conclusion you wish to arrive at, namely the conclusion that Xeno must provide Scriptural proof. This is because you have offered no reason to believe that the error in question is the sort of error that is able to be adjudicated Biblically. In fact (1b) was just a veiled assertion of Sola Scriptura, a petitio principii, but I focused on the invalid justification for (1b) rather than that fallacy. There are a lot of rational errors being committed here.

Do you believe that Arius was wrong, biblically? That is, was what Arius was saying and teaching biblically accurate?

As I inferred, the error of Arius' position was not Biblically adjudicable. Indeed, this is why we still have Biblical scholars today who are Arians. Arius' position was much more subtle than the popular imagination supposes, and the Scriptures do not speak to that level of subtlety. Arius was immersed in the Scriptures. He was not committing any clear Scriptural contradictions.

Or was what he said and taught contrary to the entire witness of the Church, which at the very least has to include Scripture.

You commit another petitio principii here when you imply that for something to be contrary to the witness of the Church is also for it to be Biblically adjudicable, and this is tied up with your Sola Scriptura (which is itself erroneous).

 

[ViaCrucis]

Oh, but it is what you said. When you said, "if Luther had serious doctrinal errors they could be shown biblically," you committed yourself to the position that all serious doctrinal errors can be shown biblically. Yet the attempted justification in your second sentence was logically invalid, as I noted. Besides, if that's not what you said then the conclusion of your argument would have no force. Consider:

• 1a. Xeno: I do not need to provide Scriptural proof that Luther was in error; I do not hold to Sola Scriptura.
• 1b. VC: But all serious doctrinal errors can be shown biblically, therefore you do need to provide Scriptural proof.
• -

Correction, I said could. What I failed to clarify was that while not all errors may be addressed biblically, that doesn't mean none of them can. Ergo, surely at least some of Luther's errors ought to be able to be addressed biblically. If all of Luther's errors have nothing to do with the contents of Scripture, and thus Scripture cannot address those errors.

Had the claim been made that Luther erred in this or that way, rather than toss the whole man under the buss, I doubt I would have responded at all. That would simply, in my mind, simply be indicative of the continued differences that exist between Rome and Lutherans.

So my response was simply to state that, surely, there are errors that could be addressed biblically. I've seen Catholics do it before. So I know it's possible.

• 2a. Xeno: I do not need to provide Scriptural proof that Luther was in error; I do not hold to Sola Scriptura.
• 2b. VC: "But at least some errors should be able to be adjudicated biblically. Surely."

Your revised response in (2b) does not even get you to the conclusion you wish to arrive at, namely the conclusion that Xeno must provide Scriptural proof. This is because you have offered no reason to believe that the error in question is the sort of error that is able to be adjudicated Biblically. In fact (1b) was just a veiled assertion of Sola Scriptura, a petitio principii, but I focused on the invalid justification for (1b) rather than that fallacy. There are a lot of rational errors being committed here.

The claim was, of Luther, "the many doctrinal errors in his writings." This was a blanket assertion. And I still maintain that, surely, even if not all Luther's errors may be addressed biblically, some ought to be.

To conclude that a person or their entire body of work could be biblically true, but still doctrinally errant, sounds like blatant nonsense to me. What if we were to invert this, that a person or entire body of work could be contrary to Scripture, but still doctrinally true, would this be a sound position to take?

So, yes, I simply do not see how we can cut Scripture out entirely as though it were entirely irrelevant as to the issue of doctrinal soundness.

As I inferred, the error of Arius' position was not Biblically adjudicable. Indeed, this is why we still have Biblical scholars today who are Arians. Arius' position was much more subtle than the popular imagination supposes, and the Scriptures do not speak to that level of subtlety. Arius was immersed in the Scriptures. He was not committing any clear Scriptural contradictions.

Do you consider such scholars to be credible as it pertains to their understanding of Scripture.

I am rather aware of Arius' position, yes it is more subtle and nuanced than is popularly conceived. And I would still insist--strongly--that Arius' position is contrary to Scripture.

The Prophet Isaiah wrote that YHWH alone is God (Isaiah 45:5), and in the Pentateuch we read that YHWH is one (Deuteronomy 6:4). So when Arius put forward the position that the Logos was a second divine power, a creature and yet a god, Arius was asserting two Gods. That Arius understood the Logos to be a lesser divine power, a kind of "junior God", who acted as the Platonic Demiurge, he was violating a central confession: There is only one God. So, yes, Arius was in clear violation to the word of Scripture. That is a clear biblical apologetic against what Arius was selling. That it was goosied up in sophistry doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, Arius was saying there are two God, one Eternal, Uncreated, and All-Powerful, and another perfect representation of that, but a lesser, junior, secondary God.

You commit another petitio principii here when you imply that for something to be contrary to the witness of the Church is also for it to be Biblically adjudicable, and this is tied up with your Sola Scriptura (which is itself erroneous).

You missed the crux of what I was saying there entirely: If Scripture and Tradition are of the same authority and source; then the two are always going to agree. Sacred Tradition will never be contrary to Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, by the grace of God which grants her infallibility, then there will always be a unified voice.

For the two are to be understood as one. Scripture is technically part of Sacred Tradition, and all Sacred Tradition is inspired and infallible because of the dispensation and grace of God through the Church and the Church's Magisterium.

So it can't be that something could be true (not just apparently true, not just claimed true, but actually true) biblically, but still wrong doctrinally because other facets of Sacred Tradition say so. Something cannot be simultaneously true and false.

This has far more to do with your statement regarding Arius than previous comments in this thread regarding Luther.

Specifically: Arius' views cannot be biblically true (concerning actual, objective truth contained in Scripture) and also be false. If Arius is wrong according to the received Apostolic Tradition, then he can't be right according to the apostolic writings themselves because otherwise the Apostles contradict themselves (and/or worse, that the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself) and that's a mighty big problem.

I want to be clear, here I'm not even talking about a need to make an appeal to Scripture to argue that a position is doctrinally false. But rather I am talking about the premise that someone (e.g. Arius) could, in fact, be speaking biblical truth, objective, divinely given truth; and simultaneously be wrong and contrary to that same divinely given truth.

That position, innately, would posit that Scripture and Tradition can be in conflict. And more, that when such conflict arises Scripture should be discarded in favor of what the Church has said. And at this point the word of God (whether Scripture, Tradition, both) is no longer a gift deposited with the Church to hold faithfully to for all generations; but rather what the Church says becomes the word of God. It is no longer a deposit of faith, but rather a cart blanche ability to simply declare divine truth by fiat: New Truth manufactured as suits needs.

As far as I am aware, in Catholicism the Church is herself the recipient of the deposit of faith--and so through Scripture and the rest of Sacred Tradition, through the Magisterium, she speaks with a unified and infallible voice pertaining to the truth which has been received from the beginning. She is not able to simply manufacture truth, and therefore modify the word and truth of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But, surely, if Luther had serious doctrinal errors they could be shown biblically. One doesn't need to subscribe to Sola Scriptura in order to maintain that Scripture is true and that doctrine should not be contrary to Scripture.

I know this can be done, I've seen Catholics post their biblical reasons why they disagree with Luther. I don't agree with their assessments obviously, but still.

On the other hand if Luther is found in agreement with Scripture, but not necessarily with certain parts of Tradition, then that could be a red flag of another kind.

-CryptoLutheran

I like your posts because you give them some consideration. I ask you to consider the post to which I replied. Think on what it was asking. Then maybe you'll have a more charitable view of my reply.