Mohler and Sproul: Questions & Answers 

nanis i actually cried when R.C died. He was my social media mentor.

Yet another falsehood of the Roman Catholic Church. This letter was never sent to the Pope and it taken completely absent of any context. Luther was vehemently anti-Pope and all of the pomp and circumstance that accompanies the whole silly costumes and goofy hats of that false "head of the church."

Daryl Foster Luther only rejected the Pope's authority when he learned that he (Luther) was not getting his way with his "new found" doctrines. Please read Luther's these 71. The letter is not forgery, Luther totally consented to it, but he changed his mind and refused to honor his word.

No, he never sent the letter. "This alleged letter from Luther to Pope Leo January 6, 1519 was never sent. The letter written that day was the result of Luther’s meeting with the Papal nuncio Miltitz. Miltitz was somewhat attempting to reconcile Luther with the Pope. He spoke of how favorably the pope felt toward Luther, and how angry he was with Tetzel. He attempted to make this deal with Luther: Luther would cease with his part of this controversy- and he promised those who opposed Luther would also be silent. He also requested Luther write a letter to the pope. Heinrich Boehmer notes Miltitz specifically requested that Luther’s letter contain a confession-" (beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/06/luthers-imaginary-letter-to-pope-leo-x.html) See, I can copy and paste, too, but I give the source of the information.

Daryl Foster People do "copy & paste" when they are quoting verbatim. On the other hand, some people just parrot what they heard from others within their own circles. The source of the link you provided will tell you anything to keep you protestant; I encourage you to listen to the "others". Did you read Luther's these 71?

I read the Bible, study the Bible, and preach and teach the Bible, period.

Bob Free it’s not an easy pill to swallow but it’s what the Bible teaches. I might not personally like it but so be it, I’ll go with scripture.

"HE knew making them that they would disobey because mankind are not made Gods, nor could they be so sin is inherent within man, that is to say all Will sin.SO again why would GOD make man at all knowing all of this" Well that's not just a "Calvinism" thing. If you believe God has foreknowledge and is all powerful you have that same issue to deal with. Now you could believe God either a: Doesn't know what will happen, or b: is powerless to stop it. In either case, you're not longer a Christian at that point so again, leaving "Calvinism" doesn't solve the problem you're having. My answer would be, everything is done for God's glory. Some will glorify God by being vessels of mercy, others will glorify God by being vessels of wrath/judgement. God is perfect in His mercy, and His justice. You've elevated man to a position that he is entitled to something he is not entitled to. It's easy to find man made religions that elevate man, and say "Well God can try as hard as he can... but GOD NEEDS YOU to do something!" The Bible says "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast". In the Arminian/Pelagian view, then man can boast. They made the great decision to follow Christ. They're either smarter, or more humble, or more analytical, etc. The difference between the believe and the one perishing is the actions of the PERSON in the Arminian view. The difference between the saved and the perishing is GOD according to the Bible.