Why not Calvinism?

[Dennyh]

den:



Actually, believing in Him is evidence of having eternal life.

One must first be in possession of eternal life to believe in Him.

No, you have that backwards. The literal translation of John 3:15 says "that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life". Everlasting life is a product of believing in Him.

BTW if the Calvinist doctrine were true there would be no need of evangelism, correct? If God has already determined who will repent and who won't then there is no need for current believers to share their faith with unbelievers. That makes no sense whatsoever.

1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable before God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of truth.

 

[handy]

Dora, I'm not picking you out for any particular reason: I just feel your statement raises a misconception held by many who haven't studied or debated with a Calvinist:


There is no need to get around anything. That's not what a student of the reformed belief would tell you. They may quote two verses to start:

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Calvinist would not say God chooses some to an eternal death. They above verses would dictate that is the destiny for ALL mankind.

The Calvinist would say God choose to save some and leave others to the fate that was set for sinners. Who is a sinner? Each and everyone of us. What is the fate of a sinner? Death.

We all deserve this fate. God didn't chose it for some; all deserve this fate. He did choose to pull some from their fate and into an everlasting life for HIS glory.

1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

IMO, this is where the discussion/debate should begin.

Whatever is or isn't Gospel truth, one this is certain, we should never lay claim to something in which we are incapable of achieving on our own.

Amen!

Aww Vic! You know you're picking on me! :p

Sorry folks, I've bailed on this thread but I did notice Vic's remark so I thought I'd clarify!

You've probably already read some of my further posts on this thread where I fleshed out the whole "double predestination" idea. Keep in mind I was a member of the OPC, about as Calvinistic a church as they come for over 5 years. And I do assure you that the statement that God chooses some for heaven and others for hell fits into the doctrines.

Here is how the Westminister Confession puts it:

The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected . . . are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power. through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Chap. III — Art. VI and VII)
​

That last part, "and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin" is what I was referring to when I stated "the rest are chosen for hell". The Westminister Confession was the book of doctrine for the OPC that I was a member of. I asked the question of the pastor and elders there many times, "Is this really saying that God chooses some for heaven and others for hell?" and the answer was always an unequivocal "Yes". Not to mention that my grandfather and father were both dyed-in-the-wool Calvinists to the day they died and both were very adamant that God does indeed predestine some for salvation and others for damnation.

What is true though is that Calvinism does not teach that God will actively cause some to sin in order to damn them. In this, you're absolutely correct: Calvinism teaches that all are by nature and by right justly damned in their sins. I know that I posted somewhere in this thread that true Calvinistic predestination deals with two aspects of God's predestining of man: The elect with mercy and the reprobate with justice.

It is those two aspects of God's dealing with mankind that tend to get over looked in conversations about predestination. And, it takes getting a handle on the fact that all men are wholly and completely dead in their sins to start with. Once we start with the idea that all men are dead in their sins, that their very nature is wholly sinful, then it becomes more a matter of how God will deal with each and every individual. The way that Calvinists teach that God deals with each individual is that He has predestined them to either justice, resulting in their eternal damnation or to mercy, resulting in eternal salvation.

The reason why some recoil in horror at the thought of God predestining some to eternal damnation is because they haven't bought fully into the idea that man is wholly sinful, that man is wholly incapable of loving God without God's first giving him that ability. Since these folks believe that man can choose for himself whether or not he wants to reach out to God in faith, the idea that God would predetermine that someone will not be able to is a repugnant concept.

And, it would be...if man was fully able to follow after God on his own accord. But, the Calvinist is going to tell you that it's impossible for any man to choose to follow God, man's very nature causing him to rebel against God.

At any rate, the real key to understanding the concept of double predestination, that God chooses some for salvation and others for damnation does require that one looks at God's mercy and God's justice. It sounds better to say that God has predestined some to receive mercy and others to receive justice, but it says essentially the same thing.

 

[handy]

Dennyh said:

BTW if the Calvinist doctrine were true there would be no need of evangelism, correct? If God has already determined who will repent and who won't then there is no need for current believers to share their faith with unbelievers. That makes no sense whatsoever.

This was a question I also brought up frequently to the pastor and elders of the OPC and their answer is found in Romans 10:14-17 "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!" However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.



God has determined that the means by which the elect will be extended mercy will be through the preaching of the gospel. So, when we preach the gospel we become participants in God's extension of His loving mercy to all the elect. Also, as we preach the gospel, for those who reject it, we also solidify the justice of God, showing that man, in his very nature, will reject God's mercy when hearing of it.

 

[savedbygrace57]

denn:

No, you have that backwards.

No I have it right, you are in error, and grave error at that.

 

[dadof10]

Seems fair enough to me.

I have never been able to get past the fact that in Calvinism, God actively CREATES evil beings destined for Hell. It's not like the doctrine of Original Sin, where God creates something GOOD, which is corrupted by sin.

I know you believe God is sovereign and can do what He wants, and so do I. Sovereignty is not the issue, JUSTICE is the issue. What is just about a Good God purposely creating beings who, through no fault of their own, are predestined by their Creator to endure eternal punishment?

Sovereignty and justice can be held by God at the same time, but justice and the Calvinist doctrine of DP can't.

 

[handy]

I have never been able to get past the fact that in Calvinism, God actively CREATES evil beings destined for Hell. It's not like the doctrine of Original Sin, where God creates something GOOD, which is corrupted by sin.

I know you believe God is sovereign and can do what He wants, and so do I. Sovereignty is not the issue, JUSTICE is the issue. What is just about a Good God purposely creating beings who, through no fault of their own, are predestined by their Creator to endure eternal punishment?

Sovereignty and justice can be held by God at the same time, but justice and the Calvinist doctrine of DP can't.

According to the Westminster Confession when God created all, it was all was good.

I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.
II. After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

However, you raise a good point and it was the one that caused me to eventually walk away from Calvinism.

I was always impressed by Calvinistic scholars' ability to articulate their views on the Bible. However, even the best do mental gymnastics when it comes to this question: How can God predestine some for mercy and others for reprobation?

The answer is always a matter of that God foreknew that all would sin and calls the elect out of the sin that God knew they would fall in. All others, Calvinists say, simply remain in their sins, justly condemned by God. In this, they say, God is just, because He doesn't force anyone to sin.

However, your question points out what I've always believed to be the fatal flaw of the argument: That because God knew beforehand that all would sin, by creating man, knowing that man would fall, and predetermining that He would extend His mercies only to some and never to others, He most certainly created beings that have never, since before creation, ever had the hope of salvation.

Now, one can argue, and believe me, I've heard the arguments, that in this, Calvinism isn't any different from Arminiansm, because even Arminians will admit that God knew, before He created the world that man would fall and most of mankind would be doomed to hell.

But, the difference is that in Arminiansm, man could choose God. Man can answer God's call to salvation. His fate wasn't sealed prior to the foundations of the world.

However, I believe that Arminiansm fails because it places our salvation in our own hands, each individual being required to either accept or reject God's offer of salvation. If this were true, then the bible clearly teaches us that we all are so depraved by our sin, all would surely reject God.

I tend to agree with Luther on this subject: That God does indeed divinely elect those who come to know Him. We are just too entrenched in sin to choose salvation. But, I also agree with Luther that we should not then jump to what seems to be logical conclusions that God therefore fore-ordained all others to eternal damnation by not offering salvation to them as well. Luther held to unlimited atonement, that Christ's death was for the atonement for all mankind, but that only those to whom God elected would the atonement be efficacious. As for how God's sovereign will worked towards the reprobate...again, one of the things I like best about Luther was the man's ability to be able to say, "we are not allowed to investigate, and even though you were to investigate much, yet you would never find out."* In other words, we can't know and it's futile trying to figure it out. Which, considering that, after 500 years of wrangling back and forth on the issue, it still hasn't been resovled, I conclude that Luther was right. The dichotomy between the very biblical based doctrine of election and the equally, yet seemingly paradoxical, doctrine of God's unlimited atonement and offer of mercy is a mystery and will remain so, at least on this side of eternity.

* Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Predestination - by Don Matzat

 

[savedbygrace57]

The Bible Doctrine of Election, a Gospel Truth

So the Church, Christ Body,as chosen in Him, were in a eternal vital union with their Glorious Head before Adam was ever fashioned out of the dust, for the Churches life was his with Christ in God.

Col 1:


17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning

In the beginning, before all things created, even Adam, He was the Head of the Body, the Church !

Also col 3:

3For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

This comes from being chosen in and adopted[as Sons or children] in Christ before the world began !

Lets compare scripture on this Truth 1 jn 5:

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

It should not be doubted by those taught of God, to believe that God the Father hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings [in time] in heavenly places in Christ [eph 2:6] according [ in agreement with] as He hath chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world eph 1:3-4. Being appointed, predestined, and ordained, that all those thusly chosen, should in fulness of the dispensation of times, be personally developed as Children of the Flesh [ Adam] by a natural generation; and then afterwords by a spiritual generation or birth to be manifested as the children of God or seed of Christ !

 

[watchman F]

denn:



No I have it right, you are in error, and grave error at that.

You sbg, are in error grave error. You doctrine will lead you and many others to Hell.

 

[watchman F]

According to the Westminster Confession when God created all, it was all was good.
However, you raise a good point and it was the one that caused me to eventually walk away from Calvinism.

I was always impressed by Calvinistic scholars' ability to articulate their views on the Bible. However, even the best do mental gymnastics when it comes to this question: How can God predestine some for mercy and others for reprobation?

The answer is always a matter of that God foreknew that all would sin and calls the elect out of the sin that God knew they would fall in. All others, Calvinists say, simply remain in their sins, justly condemned by God. In this, they say, God is just, because He doesn't force anyone to sin.

However, your question points out what I've always believed to be the fatal flaw of the argument: That because God knew beforehand that all would sin, by creating man, knowing that man would fall, and predetermining that He would extend His mercies only to some and never to others, He most certainly created beings that have never, since before creation, ever had the hope of salvation.

Now, one can argue, and believe me, I've heard the arguments, that in this, Calvinism isn't any different from Arminiansm, because even Arminians will admit that God knew, before He created the world that man would fall and most of mankind would be doomed to hell.

But, the difference is that in Arminiansm, man could choose God. Man can answer God's call to salvation. His fate wasn't sealed prior to the foundations of the world.

However, I believe that Arminiansm fails because it places our salvation in our own hands, each individual being required to either accept or reject God's offer of salvation. If this were true, then the bible clearly teaches us that we all are so depraved by our sin, all would surely reject God.

I tend to agree with Luther on this subject: That God does indeed divinely elect those who come to know Him. We are just too entrenched in sin to choose salvation. But, I also agree with Luther that we should not then jump to what seems to be logical conclusions that God therefore fore-ordained all others to eternal damnation by not offering salvation to them as well. Luther held to unlimited atonement, that Christ's death was for the atonement for all mankind, but that only those to whom God elected would the atonement be efficacious. As for how God's sovereign will worked towards the reprobate...again, one of the things I like best about Luther was the man's ability to be able to say, "we are not allowed to investigate, and even though you were to investigate much, yet you would never find out."* In other words, we can't know and it's futile trying to figure it out. Which, considering that, after 500 years of wrangling back and forth on the issue, it still hasn't been resovled, I conclude that Luther was right. The dichotomy between the very biblical based doctrine of election and the equally, yet seemingly paradoxical, doctrine of God's unlimited atonement and offer of mercy is a mystery and will remain so, at least on this side of eternity.

* Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Predestination - by Don Matzat

Good post, and i agree with much of it. However this is whereI stand. It actually takes grace to receive grace, as you said we are all to depraved to choose God. Where I differ with you is that God doesn;t just offer all men salvation, and then give grace to receive it to those that He has predestined, but God give grace to al men to receive salvation, and some, even many simply do not want to be saved.

John 1:16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.

We have all indeed receive grace to rceive grace. And I believe this would be the flaw in your arguement (although it was a good one)

 

[savedbygrace57]

watchman:

You sbg, are in error grave error.

No you are if you believe that !

 

[Nick]

'Cause calling each other in error repeatedly is really productive in a theology section. :gah

 

[Danus]

You sbg, are in error grave error. You doctrine will lead you and many others to Hell.

WOW! Unnecessarily harsh and unbelievably obtuse.

 

[dadof10]

According to the Westminster Confession when God created all, it was all was good.

Right, I was referring to all the people God created after the Fall. According to Calvin ALL people created, except Adam and Eve, were created for eternal damnation, unless God predestined them to be saved. As I posted to Mondar, the default setting, so to speak, is damnation, which means God purposely creates evil beings.

If I remember right, doesn't Calvinism teach Adam and Eve had free will, which God removed from the rest of mankind after the Fall? That because they "abused" their free will (which is a whole other topic), God simply started "electing" some for Heaven and others for Hell? I could be wrong on that. I may be remembering some offshoot of mainstream Calvinism. In that case, never mind...

However, you raise a good point and it was the one that caused me to eventually walk away from Calvinism.

I was always impressed by Calvinistic scholars' ability to articulate their views on the Bible. However, even the best do mental gymnastics when it comes to this question: How can God predestine some for mercy and others for reprobation?

The answer is always a matter of that God foreknew that all would sin and calls the elect out of the sin that God knew they would fall in. All others, Calvinists say, simply remain in their sins, justly condemned by God. In this, they say, God is just, because He doesn't force anyone to sin.

No, but He CREATES evil beings destined for Hell, and they cannot change their destinies. God's foreknowledge is not the issue. Almost every Christian denomination believes in the Omni's. Calvinism teaches sovereignty OVER justice and lack of free-will, which is not only unkind and unmerciful, but un-Biblical.

However, your question points out what I've always believed to be the fatal flaw of the argument: That because God knew beforehand that all would sin, by creating man, knowing that man would fall, and predetermining that He would extend His mercies only to some and never to others, He most certainly created beings that have never, since before creation, ever had the hope of salvation.

No HOPE for salvation for some and not others is unjust and unmerciful. Simply claiming "Sovereignty. God can do what He wants to", does not make it just or merciful. God ALLOWING us free will, creating us with free will, in no way damages God's sovereignty.

Now, one can argue, and believe me, I've heard the arguments, that in this, Calvinism isn't any different from Arminiansm, because even Arminians will admit that God knew, before He created the world that man would fall and most of mankind would be doomed to hell.

But, the difference is that in Arminiansm, man could choose God. Man can answer God's call to salvation. His fate wasn't sealed prior to the foundations of the world.

Which makes it the opposite of Calvinism. That God foreknew that X-many people would wind up in Hell, doesn't make Him unjust since they didn't have to wind up there. It is by their own choices they are in Hell, which is the very definition of justice. Catholicism teaches that people CHOOSE Hell by the choices they make, which is as just as it gets.

However, I believe that Arminiansm fails because it places our salvation in our own hands, each individual being required to either accept or reject God's offer of salvation.

Here is where we disagree. I can't think of an example of justice without free will, can you? If God is just toward us, we must be free to make choices that affect our salvation. I agree that it's only by the Grace of God that we are saved, but we must be free to reject that Grace (it's not irresistible), or there is no justice. I personally think that the entire doctrine of free will breaks down to one simple concept. It's our God given privilege to push God's Grace away.

If this were true, then the bible clearly teaches us that we all are so depraved by our sin, all would surely reject God.

Yes, without the Grace of God.

I tend to agree with Luther on this subject: That God does indeed divinely elect those who come to know Him. We are just too entrenched in sin to choose salvation. But, I also agree with Luther that we should not then jump to what seems to be logical conclusions that God therefore fore-ordained all others to eternal damnation by not offering salvation to them as well. Luther held to unlimited atonement, that Christ's death was for the atonement for all mankind, but that only those to whom God elected would the atonement be efficacious.

Although not doctrinally perfect, Luther's Catholic roots are showing here.

As for how God's sovereign will worked towards the reprobate...again, one of the things I like best about Luther was the man's ability to be able to say, "we are not allowed to investigate, and even though you were to investigate much, yet you would never find out."* In other words, we can't know and it's futile trying to figure it out. Which, considering that, after 500 years of wrangling back and forth on the issue, it still hasn't been resovled, I conclude that Luther was right. The dichotomy between the very biblical based doctrine of election and the equally, yet seemingly paradoxical, doctrine of God's unlimited atonement and offer of mercy is a mystery and will remain so, at least on this side of eternity.

* Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Predestination - by Don Matzat

I agree. Scripture clearly teaches that Man has free-will, yet some are the "elect", and that God has foreknowledge, sovereignty, justice and mercy. I think the exact point of marriage between all these "seemingly paradoxical" concepts is not for us to know. The only thing we can do is realize God is greater than us and keep trying because TRYING PLEASES GOD AND AFFECTS OUR SALVATION. That's the bottom line, and where we disagree with Calvin.

So, Handy. Oregon jumped Boise St. in the polls? BS blew out NM St. and Oregon struggled with Stanford early...Hummm....Oregon has only played one ranked team so far, and BS two. BS is always treated like second class citizens by the NCAA, which is why they have so many people outside of Idaho rooting for them (like me).

I hate the polls. College football needs a playoff system. Of course, no one would care about the pollsters if there were a playoff system, which is the problem. Too many politics...Don't get me started...

 

[watchman F]

Originally Posted by watchman F
You sbg, are in error grave error. You doctrine will lead you and many others to Hell.

WOW! Unnecessarily harsh and unbelievably obtuse.

That is probably the same reaction the pharrasees had when Jesus called them a brewed of vipers, or children of the devil ect..., but the ruth is still true, and need to be spoken regardless of who doesn't like it.

 

[handy]

Here is where we disagree. I can't think of an example of justice without free will, can you? If God is just toward us, we must be free to make choices that affect our salvation. I agree that it's only by the Grace of God that we are saved, but we must be free to reject that Grace (it's not irresistible), or there is no justice. I personally think that the entire doctrine of free will breaks down to one simple concept. It's our God given privilege to push God's Grace away.

I do think that the Scriptures are very clear that, unless God first regenerates us, we are too enslaved in sin to accept His grace. I do also agree that God's grace is not irresistible. So, I do think that an understanding that the elect have free will, able to push God's grace away (ie, no OSAS) is correct.

However, I fully understand that this still leaves us with the problem of the reprobate and the fact that he is so enslaved in sin that he has no free will. Which would bring us back to what we do agree with, as you said, "I think the exact point of marriage between all these "seemingly paradoxical" concepts is not for us to know. The only thing we can do is realize God is greater than us and keep trying because TRYING PLEASES GOD AND AFFECTS OUR SALVATION. That's the bottom line, and where we disagree with Calvin."

Although not doctrinally perfect, Luther's Catholic roots are showing here.

When I was a member of the OPC, there was a there was a lot of anti-Catholic prejudice. Too much! Now I'm a member of the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) and our pastor is truly good at reminding us that Luther never wanted to leave the church, just to correct what he believed to be errors that had crept into the church. Our pastor has done a lot of study on the anti-Catholic sentiment in our country and so much of it comes from social prejudice (America was founded by Calvinists and WASP's), rather than because of the doctrinal differences. He has been working with some Lutheran historians and has tried to bring our divine service into line with it's historical roots, because so much was stripped out of it for no other reason than being "too Catholic". As a result, when I watch the Midnight Service on Christmas at the Vatican, I find that there are just a few minor differences from our service. We can't pretend that there aren't legitimate differences in doctrine and that they are important to acknowledge, but I'm sure our Lord would be most pleased if we would drop the bigotry and approach our legitimate differences in Christian love and humility.


Boise State pounds the Ducks every time we play them.
Wow, wait!!! Hold the presses, I just heard that Alabama just dropped to #19!!!!! Wow!

But, that's a topic for my BCS Busting thread in Sports!

totopic

 

[Danus]

That is probably the same reaction the pharrasees had when Jesus called them a brewed of vipers, or children of the devil ect..., but the ruth is still true, and need to be spoken regardless of who doesn't like it.

Yes I agree, your remark to SBG was very much like the Pharisees reaction to the truth of Christ.....probably. I'm glad you see that. Take care :waving

 

[jasoncran]

The Westminster doesn't really put it that way, just that the mankind lost free will as a result of the fall.



I do think that the Scriptures are very clear that, unless God first regenerates us, we are too enslaved in sin to accept His grace. I do also agree that God's grace is not irresistible. So, I do think that an understanding that the elect have free will, able to push God's grace away (ie, no OSAS) is correct.

However, I fully understand that this still leaves us with the problem of the reprobate and the fact that he is so enslaved in sin that he has no free will. Which would bring us back to what we do agree with, as you said, "I think the exact point of marriage between all these "seemingly paradoxical" concepts is not for us to know. The only thing we can do is realize God is greater than us and keep trying because TRYING PLEASES GOD AND AFFECTS OUR SALVATION. That's the bottom line, and where we disagree with Calvin."



When I was a member of the OPC, there was a there was a lot of anti-Catholic prejudice. Too much! Now I'm a member of the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) and our pastor is truly good at reminding us that Luther never wanted to leave the church, just to correct what he believed to be errors that had crept into the church. Our pastor has done a lot of study on the anti-Catholic sentiment in our country and so much of it comes from social prejudice (America was founded by Calvinists and WASP's), rather than because of the doctrinal differences. He has been working with some Lutheran historians and has tried to bring our divine service into line with it's historical roots, because so much was stripped out of it for no other reason than being "too Catholic". As a result, when I watch the Midnight Service on Christmas at the Vatican, I find that there are just a few minor differences from our service. We can't pretend that there aren't legitimate differences in doctrine and that they are important to acknowledge, but I'm sure our Lord would be most pleased if we would drop the bigotry and approach our legitimate differences in Christian love and humility.


Boise State pounds the Ducks every time we play them.
Wow, wait!!! Hold the presses, I just heard that Alabama just dropped to #19!!!!! Wow!

But, that's a topic for my BCS Busting thread in Sports!

totopic

off topic you like the rituals of the rcc?

 

[jasoncran]

last time. lets not attack the op er for their beliefs after all its not a salvanic issue. i dont agree with calvinism but consider them saved and on their way to heaven. none of these calvinists here preach calvin but preach the cross is needed for heaven.

each theology has errs even my view.

 

[watchman F]

Yes I agree, your remark to SBG was very much like the Pharisees reaction to the truth of Christ.....probably. I'm glad you see that. Take care :waving

No your outrage at the straight forward unashamed tuth is much like a pharisee

 

[stovebolts]

I would ask that everyone become familiar with our TOS before posting any additional responses.

Warnings will be issued upon infractions. Three warnings and your account could be suspended.

http://www.christianforums.net/f15/terms-service-updated-oct-12-2009-a-1332/

Grace and Peace.