• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

What is unconditional election, and is it biblical?

Re: The seal of the righteousness of the faith...

What did God foreknow?
Paul didn't say "what".

Paul said who. Is a recitation of Romans 8:29-30 in order?
Does God know whether or not we will align to His providence? Yes or no. Of course, the answer is yes. To this extent we are also predestined. Predestined according to what? According to God's foreknowledge! God foreknows that ...
No, that's not what Paul said. God foreknows people, and predestines them.

It is an evisceration of the term "predestine" to say God foreknows that someone "aligns to His providence", and then predestines that person to align to His providence! It makes the word not mean what it definitely does mean. You don't pre-destine someone by observing where he will go, you pre-destine someone by previously determining his destination.
Do you really thing God plays Russian roulette when he elects His apostles or disciples? No.
Nobody thinks this. God doesn't guess. But God is omnipotent. God controls everything. He doesn't simply know what will happen -- God created the world in intense detail in the way that it goes.

And going back to this:
Simple disagreement here..

Faith is the effect of convicting evidence.. and that faith toward God justifies us before God and makes us righteous in Christ. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved.. it's clearly not whosoever shall be saved shall call upon the name of the LORD...
Yes, it's a simple disagreement. Faith isn't the effect of convincing evidence. Hand the same convincing evidence to 20 people, and some will have faith, and others will not. Evidence is not the cause of faith. In point of fact Scripture says where faith comes from. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith ..." Gal 5:22; "he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." Rom 2:29

Faith is not the effect of objects, data, and evidence. Faith is the effect of being born of God. "Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" 1 John 5:1a

Faith is reliance. Babies have inherent natural reliance on their parents. But the reliance of a person in God is through being born by God the Spirit. "That which is born of the spirit is spirit" John 3:6b That's where a spiritual faith comes from. A baby grows in faith through evidence; but a baby has faith in parents, just as a spiritual newborn has faith in the Father, God.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, the Greek word in question is not all over 1 Tim. 2, but ONLY in 1 Tim. 2:4

1 Timothy 2:4 (TR)
ος παντας ανθρωπους θελει σωθηναι και εις επιγνωσιν αληθειας ελθειν
That's not the case, rrowell:

παρακαλω ουν πρωτον παντων ποιεισθαι δεησεις προσευχας εντευξεις ευχαριστιας υπερ παντων ανθρωπων υπερ βασιλεων και παντων των εν υπεροχη οντων ινα ηρεμον και ησυχιον βιον διαγωμεν εν παση ευσεβεια και σεμνοτητι τουτο γαρ καλον και αποδεκτον ενωπιον του σωτηρος ημων θεου ος παντας ανθρωπους θελει σωθηναι και εις επιγνωσιν αληθειας ελθειν εις γαρ θεος εις και μεσιτης θεου και ανθρωπων ανθρωπος χριστος ιησους ο δους εαυτον αντιλυτρον υπερ παντων το μαρτυριον καιροις ιδιοις εις ο ετεθην εγω κηρυξ και αποστολος αληθειαν λεγω εν χριστω ου ψευδομαι διδασκαλος εθνων εν πιστει και αληθεια βουλομαι ουν προσευχεσθαι τους ανδρας εν παντι τοπω επαιροντας οσιους χειρας χωρις οργης και διαλογισμου 1 Tim 2:1-6

Any denial is simply false. "all" is all over this paragraph.

You call it "cherry-picked", I call it proper exegesis...
It's cherry-picked.
You claim to know Greek, if you do you will notice all of the Greek words translated "all" are from the base πᾶς the reason they transliterate it "pas" , Greek happens to be a (fusional) Inflected language and since you said you know Greek you should know the endings applied can change the meaning of the word.
Oh, please. So you're saying "Iesous" changes the meaning when it's written "Iesou"? That Jesus isn't Jesus? You should know that an inflected language does not change the meaning of a stem on its own. Didn't you notice that two inflections are cited directly in every reputable lexicon defining the word? What's worse is that every case of the word is described for any small changes of meaning based on its usage -- and none of them says anything differently from what I've said. They all mean "all". All of 'em.

Greek inflections simply represent grammatical positioning, as say the subject or the object or indirect object or possessive positioning of a term. It is rare to nonexistent that the word "all", an adjective in Greek, means something different based on whether it's modifying the subject or object of a sentence!

Do you claim to know Greek? Because the answer to that's quite clear to me.
 
Re: The seal of the righteousness of the faith...

It is an evisceration of the term "predestine" to say God foreknows that someone "aligns to His providence", and then predestines that person to align to His providence! It makes the word not mean what it definitely does mean. You don't pre-destine someone by observing where he will go, you pre-destine someone by previously determining his destination.

Your statement seems to contradict itself...

Romans 8:29-30 says that God predestines us based on foreknowledge.

"Those He foreknew He predestined..."

You have made that verse say that He Foreknew which persons He predestined as though predestination came before foreknowledge. This is the exact opposite of what the scripture says. Then you say "you pre-destine someone by previously determining his destination." Exactly... you "previously knew", which is foreknowledge.

"Previously determining his destination" is foreknowing what their destiny is - a son of God! Foreknowledge comes first. Predestination is the result of foreknowledge, not the cause. If God predestined them, and then knew whom He predestined, what is the point of saying "He foreknew". As I said, you have made the scripture say the opposite of what it actually says in order to get scripture to teach according to your Calvinist theory. I don't operate like that... you can do that if you wish.
 
Re: The seal of the righteousness of the faith...

Your statement seems to contradict itself...

Romans 8:29-30 says that God predestines us based on foreknowledge.

"Those He foreknew He predestined..."

You have made that verse say that He Foreknew which persons He predestined as though predestination came before foreknowledge.
No, God knows us from eternity, and as a result God designates us from eternity.
This is the exact opposite of what the scripture says.
Where?
Then you say "you pre-destine someone by previously determining his destination." Exactly... you "previously knew", which is foreknowledge.
No, "those foreknown" indicating God knew someone beforehand (not what he does, but the person). Predestination is destining someone beforehand.
"Previously determining his destination" is foreknowing what their destiny is - a son of God!
No, it's not; not even in your view of "foreknow". No one can say I "destined" I-66 to end in California -- that would be silly. I had no control over the outcome. But I certainly know that it ends in California. No one can say I destined I-66 to end in California. So just based on knowing something about I-66, one cannot say I destined it.

Similarly, foreknowing that people would head in a direction can't mean God predestined them -- in point of fact if God had to look at that to find out, then God didn't predestine them, he just predicted what they were already gonna do. That meaning is not covered by the word "predestine", proorizo.

The point is that destiny is controlled by one who destines another. But knowledge doesn't control, one simply knows.

What Romans 8:29-30 says is, God knows you. He always knew you. And because He knew you, your destiny was set to eternal life by Him. He called you, justified you, glorified you. He did so for everyone called according to His purpose.

That's what it says. The only question is whether to recognize that's what Paul said, because Paul did say it.

Now we can experiment with the idea that "foreknew [people]" meant something akin to "foreknew something about [people]", that has been asserted by Greek prof's with ideas more along the lines you're stating. But you see where I've found that ends: it removes the meaning of "pre-destine", it makes the word not mean what it means in Greek.

Granted, proorizo doesn't denote exactly what "pre-destine" denotes in English. pro-orizo means something along the lines of "pre-designate" or "pre-assign". Even there though, the issue is whether Scripture concludes in what predestination means. In great part it does. (As you can see, I also can't say I "designated" I-66 to end in California.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HeyMikey:

I posted this on another thread and would like your opinion since you hold the doctrine of Unconditional Election:

[For those who hold UE] Then faith means nothing, it's simply a by-product of election. If the "U" in TULIP were taught by Paul, why did he put such a emphasis on HAVING faith or BELIEVING? Heck, forget Paul, why did Jesus? Where is it taught that we should simply relax and IF we are elected, it will be shown soon enough?

In fact, why was the Gospel proclaimed at all? If God knows who will and won't be saved and there is nothing we can do about it, why did the apostles and other martyrs die to PROCLAIM the Gospel?

All of Calvinism is refuted within Scripture in certain verses or even whole chapters. Unconditional Election is refuted by the simple fact that the letters and books EXIST. Why write or preach or even attempt to convert if God has already chosen who "will be saved from the foundation of the world"? If the Early Church believed this, it seems redundant to do anything but sit back and wait for converts to find THEM. In fact, to go out and actively attempt to convert those who may be damned, is akin to blasphemy. After all, God has chosen, who are we to attempt to change the hearts of the damned? If Calvin were right, Scripture would be simply one or two lines. Something like "We are at 123 Main St, Jerusalem, Israel. We will be awaiting you. Bring wine."
 
[For those who hold UE] Then faith means nothing, it's simply a by-product of election. If the "U" in TULIP were taught by Paul, why did he put such a emphasis on HAVING faith or BELIEVING? Heck, forget Paul, why did Jesus? Where is it taught that we should simply relax and IF we are elected, it will be shown soon enough?
Well, Calvinist TULIP advocates reject the thought "that we should simply relax". That's not the case.

Jesus put an emphasis on faith because the emphasis was misplaced on works. And faith is indeed necessary in the chain. Faith is also something that we are involved in. The idea of TULIP is not a disconnection, but actually a recognition that God is intensely involved in our very souls, changing them to become reliant on Him.

So faith is immensely important, every bit as important as regeneration, sanctification, justification, and yes, election, calling, predestination, and foreknowledge.

Jesus and Paul and Peter and James all pointed out, if we don't believe in Christ, then we have every reason to doubt we will be saved by God. That's what "faith" means: a belief in a person. When I tell a person, "I believe in you," I don't at all mean "I believe you exist." What I mean is, "I rely on you for doing what you have committed to, yourself."
In fact, why was the Gospel proclaimed at all? If God knows who will and won't be saved and there is nothing we can do about it, why did the apostles and other martyrs die to PROCLAIM the Gospel?
To see why, this would need a very different model, a Scriptural model of what's going on in evangelism. There're a couple of facets to this model, so here goes:

1. We're following after the One Who brought us to New Birth. John 3:8 states that the people born of the Spirit go where He leads, following Him when and where He pleases. So the Spirit leads us to where His priorities are, which are on saving His people, awakening them. We follow up with the Spirit's understanding handed to us through Christ Himself.

2. We're finding lost members of our spiritual family. If you knew members of your family were lost, would you go out to help them, or would you wait, expecting they'd eventually get back home? Home is where your family members need to be. So you go out to bring the lost back into fellowship with their forever family. 1 Cor 9:23, but also much of 1 Cor 9, describe this fellowship in the gospel. Check on a stricter translation of the verse, though, it's not well-translated in say the ESV.

Further afield, we're a vital part of this ministry. Romans 10 puts us for practical purposes as necessary to spreading this message. It allows people who do rely on God to understand how much God is doing, and to embrace that Good News in factual form.

3. We're doing what we're tasked to do. God tells us to go. Matthew 28:18-20 simply says to do it. "A man had two sons ... which did what his father wanted?". Indeed, if God compels us to "Go!", and God has such power over us as to change hearts, why would anyone object when we do exactly what the God of the Universe hands to us to do? There's no objection. It's so consistent as to be tautological.
All of Calvinism is refuted within Scripture in certain verses or even whole chapters. Unconditional Election is refuted by the simple fact that the letters and books EXIST. Why write or preach or even attempt to convert if God has already chosen who "will be saved from the foundation of the world"?
To bring this news to those deceived into believing it were different.

God is the God of Truth, right? So there's a compelling factor in that God wants people to know the truth. And God is going to have the truth declared, even to people who shall not repent. Remember Pharaoh. Remember Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos. God has sent prophet after prophet to people we both know would not repent, and God knew they didn't repent.

So there's your real answer: God has more than an agenda to try to persuade people. God also intends to tell all the truth, so no one will have an excuse.
If the Early Church believed this, it seems redundant to do anything but sit back and wait for converts to find THEM. In fact, to go out and actively attempt to convert those who may be damned, is akin to blasphemy.
You see what the problem is. If we're following the Spirit, then nothing can stand against what the Spirit is doing, certainly not those who may be damned. But if we're following the Spirit, we are already following enthusiastically the God of the Universe.

And you're telling me I should stop doing that?

Indeed, this following the God of the Universe is precisely what the early missionaries said they were doing! The Spirit was leading them: it wasn't their option where to go, it was the Spirit moving them.
After all, God has chosen, who are we to attempt to change the hearts of the damned? If Calvin were right, Scripture would be simply one or two lines. Something like "We are at 123 Main St, Jerusalem, Israel. We will be awaiting you. Bring wine."
We're to spread the Gospel, and receive anyone who wants to hear more on the assumption that the Spirit is working in them. If they change, the Spirit changes people. If not, it means nothing to the truth of Christ. If they were changed for a time but not in spirit, then what good has this done for their salvation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: The seal of the righteousness of the faith...

No, "those foreknown" indicating God knew someone beforehand (not what he does, but the person). Predestination is destining someone beforehand.

This is still twisting the words around to say the opposite of what they actually say. It doesn't matter how many examples you give of route 666 to California; you have still twisted the words around to fit your premise.
 
Re: The seal of the righteousness of the faith...

This is still twisting the words around to say the opposite of what they actually say. It doesn't matter how many examples you give of route 666 to California; you have still twisted the words around to fit your premise.
Hm. If you can't answer, but maintain your viewpoint, that's fine, but not answering is still not answering.

There are quite a few people who've pointed out the logical inconsistency. You can't designate something you don't have the power to designate. God wouldn't claim to designate something He didn't designate. It's not me twisting the words. That's what they say. A theology that contradicts what the words say, that's the theology doing the twisting, isn't it.
 
Re: The seal of the righteousness of the faith...

Hm. If you can't answer, but maintain your viewpoint, that's fine, but not answering is still not answering.

There are quite a few people who've pointed out the logical inconsistency. You can't designate something you don't have the power to designate. God wouldn't claim to designate something He didn't designate. It's not me twisting the words. That's what they say. A theology that contradicts what the words say, that's the theology doing the twisting, isn't it.

I said earlier:

"You have made that verse say that He Foreknew which persons He predestined as though predestination came before foreknowledge. This is the exact opposite of what the scripture says. Then you say "you pre-destine someone by previously determining his destination." Exactly... you "previously knew", which is foreknowledge."

You did not respond to this; you simply gave some remote analogy of highways...


The order in Romans 8:29-30 is this:
  1. Foreknowledge
  2. Predestination
  3. Justified
  4. Glorified
Is this the right order of events, Yes or No?
 
That's not the case, rrowell:

παρακαλω ουν πρωτον παντων ποιεισθαι δεησεις προσευχας εντευξεις ευχαριστιας υπερ παντων ανθρωπων υπερ βασιλεων και παντων των εν υπεροχη οντων ινα ηρεμον και ησυχιον βιον διαγωμεν εν παση ευσεβεια και σεμνοτητι τουτο γαρ καλον και αποδεκτον ενωπιον του σωτηρος ημων θεου ος παντας ανθρωπους θελει σωθηναι και εις επιγνωσιν αληθειας ελθειν εις γαρ θεος εις και μεσιτης θεου και ανθρωπων ανθρωπος χριστος ιησους ο δους εαυτον αντιλυτρον υπερ παντων το μαρτυριον καιροις ιδιοις εις ο ετεθην εγω κηρυξ και αποστολος αληθειαν λεγω εν χριστω ου ψευδομαι διδασκαλος εθνων εν πιστει και αληθεια βουλομαι ουν προσευχεσθαι τους ανδρας εν παντι τοπω επαιροντας οσιους χειρας χωρις οργης και διαλογισμου 1 Tim 2:1-6

Any denial is simply false. "all" is all over this paragraph.

Yes, the rendition "all" is all over the place in 1 Tim 2, but "παντας" is not, it is only in 1 Tim. 2:4, did you know "όλες" is Greek for the Adjective "all"? and now "όλως" its an Adverb "all" and what changed? endings, so not all that are translated "all" are the same... but you know Greek so you knew that right?


It's cherry-picked.
I am not cherry picking, I am pointing out you not only try to twist the English to make your false doctrine fit, and cannot... so you try to bamboozle everyone with what you think is Greek, its not Greek when you get done with it...

Oh, please. So you're saying "Iesous" changes the meaning when it's written "Iesou"? That Jesus isn't Jesus?
That's exactly what I am saying, not only is it not "Jesus", its not even a name or a word, it ends up "Jesu", like changing "John" to "Joh", and only shows you don't know a stem from an ending let alone inflection...

You should know that an inflected language does not change the meaning of a stem on its own. Didn't you notice that two inflections are cited directly in every reputable lexicon defining the word? What's worse is that every case of the word is described for any small changes of meaning based on its usage -- and none of them says anything differently from what I've said. They all mean "all". All of 'em.
the inflections given for "all" don't change the "all" but define its context, gender, sinular or plurality, it tells us what "all" is... "all" meaning "everything" or "all" meaning all of something...

Do you claim to know Greek? Because the answer to that's quite clear to me.
I don't claim to know Greek, you do, I just know enough to see you twist it like you do English trying to use it to fool all the people reading, making them think the English says what YOU say it says...

Enough about the Greek, the translators did a much better job than any of us could do so back to my point,

1 Timothy 2:4 (KJV)
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

says it is Gods will to have "all unsaved men to be saved", this blows a hole in the Calvinistic false doctrine of predestination and once saved always saved...

No getting around it!
 
Unconditional Election is biblical, for it is Salvation by Grace through Faith Eph 2:8-9 and Rom 11:5-6

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

So without uncondional election of grace, there is no preaching salvation by grace, period !
 
Unconditional Election is biblical, for it is Salvation by Grace through Faith Eph 2:8-9 and Rom 11:5-6

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

So without uncondional election of grace, there is no preaching salvation by grace, period !

"unconditional grace" is no question.
it is unconditional salvation for a supposed preselected that requires no preaching.
 
"unconditional grace" is no question.
it is unconditional salvation for a supposed preselected that requires no preaching.

God Preaches to His Elect, even if it is not by human preachers. He preached to Abraham the Gospel centuries ago Gal 3:8

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

It is God the Holy Spirit that actually does the preaching to the Mind, even though He may use men as the Apostles and others, He is not bound by that method. So all the Election of Grace have the Gospel preached to them, that is how they hear about their Salvationby Grace.

But nevertheless, Uncondtional Election is nothing but Salvation by Grace, you do not preach that, you do not preach the Gospel of God;s Grace, but anotehr gospel !

And Uncondional Election does mean a pre selected people to be saved by Grace fro mall others !
 
That's exactly what I am saying, not only is it not "Jesus", its not even a name or a word, it ends up "Jesu", like changing "John" to "Joh", and only shows you don't know a stem from an ending let alone inflection...
Matthew 1:1:

βιβλος γενεσεως ιησου χριστου υιου δαβιδ υιου αβρααμ

So this isn't the book about Jesus? Because to you Iesous does not appear in this verse! Instead "iesou" does.

Seriously, get a basic grammar of NT Greek. John Dobson's a good self-study.
 
Re: The seal of the righteousness of the faith...

I said earlier:

"You have made that verse say that He Foreknew which persons He predestined as though predestination came before foreknowledge. This is the exact opposite of what the scripture says. Then you say "you pre-destine someone by previously determining his destination." Exactly... you "previously knew", which is foreknowledge."

You did not respond to this; you simply gave some remote analogy of highways...


The order in Romans 8:29-30 is this:
  1. Foreknowledge
  2. Predestination
  3. Justified
  4. Glorified
Is this the right order of events, Yes or No?
Yes, it's a proper order of events.

But foreknowledge is not knowing beforehand that someone would come to Christ. Because were that so, predestination (destining someone beforehand) is forced to be first -- or forced out. That happens whenever "foreknowledge" simply means looking into the future and knowing something about the Christian's future.

That's because predestination is destining the person beforehand. That's what it means. But if he's already destined to accept Christ, then the event wouldn't have happened in the order you're describing, by definition.
 
Matthew 1:1:

βιβλος γενεσεως ιησου χριστου υιου δαβιδ υιου αβρααμ

So this isn't the book about Jesus? Because to you Iesous does not appear in this verse! Instead "iesou" does.

Seriously, get a basic grammar of NT Greek. John Dobson's a good self-study.

I use Greek Grammar Herbert Weir Smyth, it works just fine...

You need to quit dodging questions, trying to justify twisting English by twisting Greek...

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (KJV)
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Says it is Gods Will to have "all unsaved men saved", all the "all"'s in the chapter does not change that, and plainly states men are NOT predestined from the beginning to be lost.

Its the silver bullet to Calvinism...
 
But nevertheless, Uncondtional Election is nothing but Salvation by Grace, you do not preach that, you do not preach the Gospel of God;s Grace, but anotehr gospel !

And Uncondional Election does mean a pre selected people to be saved by Grace fro mall others !

If only preselected (Predestined) individuals are saved, nothing they can do about it... and
If only preselected (Predestined) individuals are lost, nothing they can do about it.

Then why did Jesus say this:

Mark 16:15 (KJV)
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Who are they going to preach to? and for what? a person holding the office of "preacher" in any organization that believes this form of predestination certainly does not have a need for a preacher.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Then why did Jesus say this:
Mark
16:15
(KJV)

And he said unto them, Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Because that is where all the elect are located, in all the world. They are comprised of men and women of all nations !
 
Then why did Jesus say this:


Because that is where all the elect are located, in all the world. They are comprised of men and women of all nations !

He said this:

Mark 16:15 (KJV)
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Because of this:

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (KJV)
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

It is Gods will for all men to become the "elect" the Church IS the "elect"
 
I use Greek Grammar Herbert Weir Smyth, it works just fine...

You need to quit dodging questions, trying to justify twisting English by twisting Greek...

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (KJV)
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Says it is Gods Will to have "all unsaved men saved", all the "all"'s in the chapter does not change that, and plainly states men are NOT predestined from the beginning to be lost.

Its the silver bullet to Calvinism...

Nah. The inevitable conclusion that you should arrive at with your supposed 'silver bullet' is that God is not able to save everyone.

So, you are left with an impotent God. One who simply is not able.

And you will excuse this impotent God on the ground of faulting the person.

Been there, done that. Moved on.

There is a silver bullet to Calvinism but it is also a silver bullet to your own understanding.

It is found in Romans 11:25-32 for any who can see it. Though most won't and can't because they are in fact predestined not to see it.

s
 
Back
Top