Pristine Grace
Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 717 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 454

Thread: John Calvin on John 3:16

  1. #121
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,834
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    149
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    So now it's been proven that Calvin believed God loved the reprobate. Wildboar and I say he's wrong. So I guess that makes Charles and me legitimate hyper-calvinists! We have gone beyond Calvin in theology. GASP!

    Bob, I definitely agree with your assessments. I too question why men are fascinated with God's love for the reprobate. My speculation is this -

    1. They love the idea of universalism and hate the idea of a particular atonement.
    2. They think God's love is needed to "evangelize".
    3. They think God's hatred of the wicked destroys his character as a "loving" God and they need Him to love everyone for them to be comfortable in their conscience. Otherwise, they would have difficulty worshiping him.
    This is my signature.

  2. #122
    Moderator Eileen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    756
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    or.............

    they try to understand what God's perfect hatred means by comparing it to how we as mutable creatures 'hate' and 'love' and by doing so have a very pitiable view of our Sovereign God.

    'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated'

    What do we know from this scripture but that those that are elect (by God's act of mercy) are loved, those that are not are hated. We know that He suffers long with those vessels of wrath so that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy. Do we even fully understand God's love (as finite human beings), let alone His perfect hatred.

    My love and my hatred are tainted with sin, HIS love and HIS hatred are not. Can we comprehend that? I don't think I can, I can but submit (by His Grace) to His Sovereignty in all things.

    Eileen~
    "To those who have no works-phobia, I will state that you are not trembling before the gospel" Robert R. Higby

  3. #123
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    So now it's been proven that Calvin believed God loved the reprobate. Wildboar and I say he's wrong. So I guess that makes Charles and me legitimate hyper-calvinists! We have gone beyond Calvin in theology. GASP!

    Bob, I definitely agree with your assessments. I too question why men are fascinated with God's love for the reprobate. My speculation is this -

    1. They love the idea of universalism and hate the idea of a particular atonement.
    2. They think God's love is needed to "evangelize".
    3. They think God's hatred of the wicked destroys his character as a "loving" God and they need Him to love everyone for them to be comfortable in their conscience. Otherwise, they would have difficulty worshiping him.
    It is the lie of the devil. That God loves the reprobate is a heretical lie. That God loves a wicked sinner that He has purposed to save in Christ is the truth.This is where the water is mudded. Yea hath God said? Yes God did say it point blank "Jacob have I loved , but Esau have I hated". If you have a problem with the truth of Scripture, may God convict you to repent or find a religion to suit the vain philosophy of your puny mind.
    I grow tired of the lament and whine of what Calvin said here while piously sidestepping what he says elsewhere. To make Calvin out to be a rank arminian shows a lack of understanding to what the man wrote throughout his life.If you want to make Calvin out to be a hypercrite fine go ahead, that is nothing knew under the sun, but if that leads then to make God out to be the hypercrite, may God convict you to repentance. The alternative is to make Christ and His particular grace to be of none effect and turn it rather into lasciviousness.

    So, lets review. If you maintain that God loves the reprobate, you refute the Godhead, His Word, and believe a heretical lie of the devil. Clear enough?

    greetings and salutations, el rana

  4. #124
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by BillTwisse
    Why are men so determined to defend this 'love' that consists of no love of substance at all? It is like the love of a crocodile and means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
    from my perspective (reading quotes from such calvinists as calvin, dabney, shedd, hodge, carson, etc.) it is to do proper justice to Scripture and to explain/leave room for categories that perhaps can't seem to fit into our particular systematic and presuppositions.

    for example, can there not be degrees or different senses in which God loves? that is what calvin seems to be saying. there is one sense in which he loves all that he creates in general (common, fatherly) and there is another sense in which He loves the elect (special, peculiar). much like carson writes about in his article:

    http://www.antithesis.com/pdf/love.pdf
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  5. #125
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    I too question why men are fascinated with God's love for the reprobate. My speculation is this -

    1. They love the idea of universalism and hate the idea of a particular atonement.
    so would apply this to calvin, dabney, shedd, hodge, etc? do they love the idea of universalism and hate the idea of a particular atonement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    3. They think God's hatred of the wicked destroys his character as a "loving" God and they need Him to love everyone for them to be comfortable in their conscience. Otherwise, they would have difficulty worshiping him.
    is this true of these men as well?
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  6. #126
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by ray kikkert
    So, lets review. If you maintain that God loves the reprobate, you refute the Godhead, His Word, and believe a heretical lie of the devil. Clear enough?
    so would you say this of calvin?
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  7. #127
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,834
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    149
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple
    so would apply this to calvin, dabney, shedd, hodge, etc? do they love the idea of universalism and hate the idea of a particular atonement?

    is this true of these men as well?
    Disciple I don't know. I said it was merely speculation on my part - maybe it could be a number of different things as well. Personally if Calvin truly believed that God loves the reprobate - he was flat out wrong. I personally don't care if he believed it or not.
    This is my signature.

  8. #128
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    383
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    According to Calvin,the Blood was shed for the reprobate? as well as Elect, there are numerous quotes i will just give one for now.-(Also we ought to have good care of those that have been redeemed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,If we see souls which have been so precious to God go to perdition, and we make nothing of it, that is to despise the blood of our lord Jesus Christ. Sermons on Ephesians, p.521)..Ivor Thomas...
    For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain , Phillippians 1 v21.

  9. #129
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wingham,ontario
    Posts
    1,046
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple
    so would you say this of calvin?
    No. Calvins gospel basis was predestination. Maybe have a look at what Calvin would comment on Romans 9:13 and let me know.

    greetings and salutations, el rana

  10. #130
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    381
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Maybe these men took a long look at their own sin, realized that their intellect might deceive them, and in light of seemingly conflicting passages choose to submit to scripture even if it did not always fit neatly to their system.

    I’m not saying they were right in their conclusions just that they were not so quick to discount difficult passages. I think that is a good thing.



    Just a thought

  11. #131
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    I think you have it right there Tomas1. I have no doubt that the motives of many are questionable as Brandan suggests but at the same time I think we should be charitable to men such as Calvin, Shedd, Hodge and Dabney and not hastily attribute such motives to them but rather assume that they were simply trying to exegete the texts as they thought was correct. Some things to bear in mind here are:
    - nobody has got all their exegesis right. That is the very reason why I want to consider what several people say about a debateable passage and not come to hasty conclusions myself
    - to some degree we are all going to read our own particular presuppositions into dificult texts
    - from what I have seen so far all these guys were very clearly and strongly upholding sovereign election and God's special, electing love
    - as has already been intimated, some of the difference comes down to differentiating between God's revealed and secret will;
    - another difference could be to do with how much we consider such expressions to be anthopopathisms (i.e. we cannot truly understand God, scriptures which represent God as having emotions, particuarly where they run counter to His decreed will, are therefore 'accommodated' to us mere humans)
    - another difference may be to do with how much we let our 'system' drive our exegesis rather than the other way around. EVERYBODY applies the analogy of scripture to some extent, the differences may lie in how far its taken.

    I am sure there are more factors - they were all clever guys and I am not. Therefore I am going to give them some respect and not simply ignore them because they don't fit with my system. In any event, the more one understands the position of those who take a contrary position, the more confident one should be enabled to be in their own position. Surely being prepared to be challenged is a good thing? Better therefore to carefully consider than come to hasty and often superficial conclusions?

    Martin

  12. #132
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,674
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    75
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    122
    Thanked in
    67 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    It does not bother me that Calvin was inconsistent in his exposition of scripture, as the greatest of expositors have always been demonstrated to be inconsistent in many things!

    'Calvinism' as an official doctrinal label refers to the 5-points of Dort as opposed to the 5-points of Arminius. Let us not confuse this helpful distinction with the inconsistencies of Calvin himself. If the majority insist on making an issue out of this thing about Calvin's quirks, I will abandon the 'Calvinist' label entirely. Most critics who use the term Calvinism have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER of what they are talking about anyway.

    On Carson's article, I find many points to be valid. I have been refreshed by his writings so often in the last 25 years. But he still misses the crucial point. There is no doctrine of God's 'lesser love' that can be justified unless it also applies to his disposition toward the wicked in the hereafter for eternity. If it is a disposition that God has for the mere moment of a few earthly years, it has ABSOLULTELY NO MEANING WHATSOEVER!

    As Carson states, God is GOOD in an aspect of his unchanging disposition toward the non-elect. This is not LOVE in any biblical sense (agape or friendship). God is also HATING in his unchanging disposition toward them.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  13. #133
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    A caviat of sorts has been duly injected into this discussion that is worthy of our consideration. Perhaps a sub-heading in this discussion:

    The Immutability of God.

    First we have to make a clear distinction between the "reprobate" and the "unsaved". Then, if we agree with those who say that God does have "some" or "all" sort of love for the reprobate (the unsavable unelect) we have to examine the issue of whether God remains loving them when they go to hell. If we conclude that He does, then there must be a show of biblical evidenciary material for such.

    If, however, we conclude that God does not continue to love the unsavable unelect (redundance intended) we are indeed making God mutable. Again, where is the scripture where God states: "I cease from loving you, or I don't love you anymore?"

    It seems that one text that could shed some cintilla of light in this issue is the text of Matthew 22:32 where Jesus declares God as a God of the living and not the dead. This in the context of God declaring, years after the death of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that He is the God of the living, thus making Abraham, Isaac and Jacob living beings in His sight.

    Since God is God of the living and the text implies the word "only", as in God of the "living only", the elect is always alive in God's presence. Those who are not God's, the unelect are then "dead" before God thus not elegible for His love. The text speaks of resurrection, which had not yet occured and Abraham, Issac and Jacob's bodies were still in the tomb. Yet they were alive to God as per Jesu's answer to the Sadducees.

    Taking from the fact that God is the God of the living, the dead unelect are not loved by God since their "dead" for Him as God is not their God. How can we say that God loved the unelect when they were alive here on earth? If the Bible mentions such a thing as a second "death" and traditionally we assume that this is hell (and this is debatable) in Rev. 2:11, how can God be the God of the living and love the "dead"?

    I know I am rambling and having a hard time to make my point. This issue of God's immutability, as I see it, has to be considered before we take the side of those who proclaim God's love for the unelect.

    Again, I may not have made my point very clear because the issue is still boiling in my mind. Help!

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  14. #134
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    381
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Milt
    First we have to make a clear distinction between the "reprobate" and the "unsaved". Then, if we agree with those who say that God does have "some" or "all" sort of love for the reprobate (the unsavable unelect) we have to examine the issue of whether God remains loving them when they go to hell. If we conclude that He does, then there must be a show of biblical evidenciary material for such.

    This question for me has always been bound up with the question of eternal conscious torment, and I whole-heartedly agree with you on this point. However as BT and others are discovering even that issue is not as cut and dried as many have been led to believe.

    Isn’t it great to sometimes swim in the deep water?

  15. #135
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by tomas1
    Milt
    First we have to make a clear distinction between the "reprobate" and the "unsaved". Then, if we agree with those who say that God does have "some" or "all" sort of love for the reprobate (the unsavable unelect) we have to examine the issue of whether God remains loving them when they go to hell. If we conclude that He does, then there must be a show of biblical evidenciary material for such.

    This question for me has always been bound up with the question of eternal conscious torment, and I whole-heartedly agree with you on this point. However as BT and others are discovering even that issue is not as cut and dried as many have been led to believe.

    Isn’t it great to sometimes swim in the deep water?
    Its also bound up with what exactly do we mean by God's 'immutability'. For example, is God being 'mutable' when it transpires that His revealed 'will' was not in accord with his decreed will? (e.g. "Pharaoah, let my people go")

    So, here's a thought: God loves His elect, yet doesn't God manifest his wrath and anger towards elect unbelievers as a means to lead them to know of His love for them? Similarly then, I think it could be argued that though God hates the reprobate, He manifests His love towards them, that the wrath they subsequently experience is made all the more just and deserved. I don't see Calvin arguing this but then I don't fully understand the difference he makes between revealed / conditional will and secret will. If that is a difference he consistently points out elsewhere then perhaps it is simply assumed without being stated in the passages quoted? If this were true, then God's immutablity would not be challenged, i.e. the difference being between actual love towards them in His being vs. manifesting His nature, i.e. the God who IS love, toward them. I think this is what Charles was saying earlier but as is later acknowledged the quotes don't seem to bear this out. It just that I have read several other places in Calvin where he does speak of the difference between the secret and revealed will.

    Well, I dunno really, I'm just trying to help old Calvin out coz' he ain't around to stick up for himself.

    Let me know if you think I'm on to something or if I'm barking up the wrong tree in a blind alley without a paddle.

    Martin

  16. #136
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeuos Eleos
    It just that I have read several other places in Calvin where he does speak of the difference between the secret and revealed will.
    but IS that what he is doing in those quotes? to me it sounds like he's contrasting two different aspects of God's love (i.e., there is a general aspect and a particular aspect). and this has nothing to do with the secret/revealed will.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeuos Eleos
    Well, I dunno really, I'm just trying to help old Calvin out coz' he ain't around to stick up for himself.
    maybe he doesn't need any help. maybe we just need to work harder at understanding what exactly he's saying. it may be that high calvinists just don't have a category for this type of language and so according to their fixed system, calvin must either be a heretic, inconsistent, or, as many try to unsuccessfully demonstrate, doesn't really mean what he seems to mean (and then they proceed to bring in evidence from other contexts rather than discussing the texts in question...e.g., ray kikkert).
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  17. #137
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    383
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    The more i have read of Calvin, the more convinced i am his writings on this subject support Amyraldianism, According to Amyraut there exists a two fold will of God in predestination, a universal and conditional will, and a particular and unconditional will,. Infact Amyraut i was surprised to learn, believed Calvin had taught this. Any one not familiar with Amyraut will find his material on web, of course i am not recommending these men on this subject, but to bring to the light their error, not having a go at them, just wanting truth to shine through.Here is another quote from Calvin- It is true that Saint John saith generally, that [God] loved the world and why? for Jesus Christ offereth himself generally to all men without exception to be their redeemer...[sermons p.167 on Deuteronomy]... Ivor Thomas.
    For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain , Phillippians 1 v21.

  18. #138
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    If we conclude that He does, then there must be a show of biblical evidenciary material for such.

    If, however, we conclude that God does not continue to love the unsavable unelect (redundance intended) we are indeed making God mutable. Again, where is the scripture where God states: "I cease from loving you, or I don't love you anymore?"
    Please keep in mind the following:

    Deut 7:7 The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

    when you read these texts:

    Hos 1:6 Gomer conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. Then the LORD said to Hosea, “Call her Lo-Ruhamah (which means “not loved”), for I will no longer show love to the house of Israel, that I should at all forgive them.


    Hos 9:15 “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds,I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious.


    2 Sam 7:15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you.


    Jer 12:7 “I will forsake my house, abandon my inheritance; I will give the one I love into the hands of her enemies. 8 My inheritance has become to me like a lion in the forest. She roars at me; therefore I hate her.


    Ps 78:59 When God heard, He was filled with wrath and greatly abhorred Israel;

    i guess the question we need to ask here when we insert a caveat such as this that is not really based on a specific text but a human understanding of a logical construct is, "what does it mean that God is immutable?" and do we properly understand what this doctrine refers/applies to when our construct does not allow room for such statements as those above?
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  19. #139
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    383
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Far be it from me to say but i cant let the translation pass on, Hos;1:6 Lo-Ruhamah means pitied and it's mercy [not love] in the verse; and 2.Sam;7:15 is Mercy [not love]; Jer.12:7 at the end should read Hate it [not her] Ps.78:59 [filled] should not be there. It all makes a difference so we can know God is not mutable in his love for the elect, and hate for the reprobate. Ivor Thomas..
    For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain , Phillippians 1 v21.

  20. #140
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivor Thomas
    Far be it from me to say but i cant let the translation pass on, Hos;1:6 Lo-Ruhamah means pitied and it's mercy [not love] in the verse; and
    racham - to love, love deeply, have mercy, be compassionate, have tender affection, have compassion http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=07355 used in ex 33.19, 2 ki 13.23, ps 18.1, 103.13, lam 3.32

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivor Thomas
    2.Sam;7:15 is Mercy [not love];
    checed - covenant love; used in ex 34.6-7, num 14.18, deut 7.9, 12

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivor Thomas
    Jer.12:7 at the end should read Hate it [not her]
    please provide evidence for this assertion. something other than the KJV. enlighten us on what the hebrew grammar is here. thanks.

    and please tell us what is IT? what is the subject in the context? what does he say in v. 7 (I have forsaken My house, I have abandoned My inheritance; I have given the beloved of My soul Into the hand of her enemies) and how does that fit with your reading of v. 8?

    i don't know the hebrew, but i can tell you that the LXX (greek) has the feminine here and not the neuter as you assert.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivor Thomas
    Ps.78:59 [filled] should not be there. It all makes a difference so we can know God is not mutable in his love for the elect, and hate for the reprobate. Ivor Thomas..
    so how should it read then? please provide grammatical evidence for why this is a bad translation of the hebrew. again, something other than the KJV. thanks.

    so now God has wrath (or "is wroth" as the KJV has) and hatred for Israel that He said He loved at one time and promised His covenant love to. does this mean God changed?
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 717 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. When To Give Up
    By MCoving in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-05-06, 01:23 PM
  2. Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit
    By Geoffrey in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-03-06, 09:38 PM
  3. chat
    By lionovjudah in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-27-05, 11:27 AM
  4. PREACHING STYLES
    By lionovjudah in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-04-05, 10:33 AM
  5. Call to the Faithful
    By Susie3 in forum Old Miscellaneous Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-20-02, 12:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •