ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

dale · Jul 17, 2007

Ask Mr. Religion said:
Sorry, Dale, I did miss this one. See here.

Thanks AMR. Let me see if I understand.

The unregenerate person is not free because he is in bondage to sin?

Also, he has no ability to come to Christ to be freed from that bondage because, "Christ so stated this universal inability in the unregenerated: "No one can [not able to] come to Me unless [no other circumstance] it has been granted [to give] to him by the Father.""

Correct so far?

Lon · Jul 17, 2007

Clete said:
AMR,

You give people a hard time about being juvenile and only giving lip service to wanting to have adult conversations and make claims about the rationality of your theological worldview and then intentionally make posts like the one below. I don't get it.

Sometimes someone else's perspective helps bring meaning to a conversation where there is struggle for communication. Perhaps an interjection MAY help (I'll try). The quoted portion wasn't juvenille in tenure, but perhaps in brevity, but remember he was talking to someone who is fairly Calvinist already so the need to elucidate wasn't aimed specifically at OV, but the points are failry clear to anyone leaning to a Calvinist theological stance.
How does it follow that because we aren't totally depraved in the Calvinistic sense of the word, that we therefore only fell "a little"? Define little?
If we can do anything to effect our own salvation, then we weren't totally helpless. i.e. we wouldn't need Christ's sacrifice, just a life ring. The reason we are totally helpless is not our ability to grab a life ring, but our perception of any kind of danger to even have inclination. "I can swim, but thank you. It was a nice gesture."
How does it follow that if we are not unconditionally elected that universalism must be true?
This one I'd agree on, there needs further elaboration. I'm not sure where he was going. It must tie in with this idea:

Now Universalists who foresee no judgment whatever make two basic assumptions. The first is that God is more concerned with exhibiting his benevolence than demonstrating his justice, and the second is that man is essentially good and by nature wants to amend his ways, given the opportunity. He will only have to have his faults pointed out to him in the Judgment to repent immediately and turn from his wickedness and live.http://www.custance.org/old/grace/ch19.html

Click to expand...

How does it follow that if limited atonement isn't true then the atonement was insufficient to accomplish that which God desired for it to accomplish?

...if Christ died for all, then God is either unwilling to apply that sufficiency, or He is unable to do so. (same author and site)

Click to expand...

How does it follow that if we can lose our salvation (which I don't believe we can but that isn't the point) that the atonement was ineffective and that God lied?
Because "He is able to save to the uttermost those who are perishing" (see the same link for a lengthy discussion).
You have some wacky presuppositions going on AMR.
Non sequitur, doesn't address or follow from the statement
None of which are Biblical.
Non sequitur, doesn't address or follow from the statement
That is to say, that virtually everything you've said here is not only irrational on its face but that it would only make sense in the first place IF the Calvinistic worldview is valid and true, which it cannot be because it too is irrational.
Non sequitur, doesn't address or follow from the statement
I submit that not only is your understanding of sovereignty incorrect as demonstrated in my previous post, but that your understanding of man's condition, the atonement, it purpose, its application: are all incorrect and that your conclusions concerning them are therefore incorrect. You've redefined seemingly every word and concept in the [OV understanding of the] vernacular in order to force it to fit within a preconceived notion about what God is like that is based not on the Bible but on pagan philosophy.
Also non sequitur, but not because you aren't trying to address, but that you in fact aren't actually addressing the points by your own admission.
Resting in Him,
Clete

What was previously stated: That we are polar opposites, even and especially in our definitional understandings, bears repeating. This part you perceive, but assess incorrectly. When we look at scriptures, as the article linked states, we use the same scriptures to emphasize the exact opposite of a truth. You've rightly assessed redefinitions between OV and virtually all others (except where you agree with Arminianism). We tend to lament this in each other, but it is absolutely the no-man's land and mines we must traverse to even meet up with one another in discussion. Both sides have a natural tendency to avoid mines, fox-holes, trenches, and barbwire in that zone of discussion.

Any discussion is for a 'cease fire' but we are looking at the values one another has in this war as 'alien.' I'm thankful there are ties that bind in Him, but at the moment we are focusing on that which truly separates.

Clete · Jul 17, 2007

Ask Mr. Religion said:
You are not free if you define your freedom to be outside of God's exhaustive providential control. No where do the Scriptures grant you such a warrant of freedom. On the contrary, we have numerous didactic examples from the Scripture that proclaim God as completely sovereign. Yours is a humanistic contrivance, a wish, as it were, based on humanistic notions of egalitarianism.

So says you.
Do you ever plan to establish any of the ridiculous claims you make?

Notice how nearly every argument you make begs the question.

"You are not free if you define your freedom to be outside of God's exhaustive providential control."

This comment, for example, is only true if your understanding of "God's exhaustive providential control" is true and that understanding is only true if Calvinism is true. So all you've really said here is that I am not free is Calvinism is true!

Well no duh! If you're right, I'm not! Wow! What a revelation!

An absolutely perfect God is absolutely sovereign.

Prove it!

Define what it means to be perfect, show that the definition is logically necessary, and show how it follows that absolute total control of every event that happens, including the rape and murder of children, is a necessary condition of that definition.

You are trying to compare humanistic ideas and examples with the divine nature of God.

On the contrary. I don't even know what a humanistic idea of God would look like. I simply cite the Scripture and show that God not only changes but has a wide variety of emotions and gives us the ability to make choices and justly holds us responsible for the choices we make. If that version of God is too much like human beings for you taste then I say, too bad! I didn't make God in my image, He made me in His. Get over it.

Your original premise is false and therefore the conclusions you are drawing from it are also false.

Prove it!

Which premise would that be exactly, anyway?

This is the first thing you've said in quite some time that even begins to sound like a real argument but there's nothing behind it. Do you actually believe that because you accuse me of humanism that it is true by virtue of the fact that you've made the accusation? It really is beginning to seem like that must be what you think. Perhaps you just don't understand what I'm asking for you to do.

I understand that IF my premise is based on non-biblical "humanism" or whatever, then my conclusion is likely false. I get that much, okay? What I am challenging you to do is to stop giving me individual fish and starting teaching how to catch them myself. Show me your line of thinking. How do you come to the conclusion that I am a humanist? What definition of humanism are you using to make such a claim? Like I said, I don't even know what a humanists conception of God would look like! It sounds to me almost like a contradiction in terms in the first place. Why would a humanist give a rip about God and even if there is such a thing as a humanistic God concept, does the fact that a humanist came up with it prove it false? You've made the same argument against me with respect to the Greek origins of your own theology even though I never made the argument that your theology was false on that basis as you are making against mine. The fact is though that what makes a concept of God false is the fact that it is unbiblical (i.e. anti-biblical), a point you've not even tried to establish. Based you your reactions toward me in the past I'm sure you find this whole paragraph quite hostile and insulting but I'm not trying to insult you and I'm not being hostile at all. All I want is for you to meet the very expectations that you set for all of us. What I want you to do is to make an attempt to establish that Open Theism is unbiblical; to stop making bald assertions and make the actual argument! Or are you telling me that these last several posts would pass muster amongst your colleges on your own email list?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ask Mr. Religion · Jul 17, 2007

dale said:
Thanks AMR. Let me see if I understand.

The unregenerate person is not free because he is in bondage to sin?

Also, he has no ability to come to Christ to be freed from that bondage because, "Christ so stated this universal inability in the unregenerated: "No one can [not able to] come to Me unless [no other circumstance] it has been granted [to give] to him by the Father.""

Correct so far?

Correct. The unregenerate can never seek righteousness on their own without God's direct efficacious saving grace. The unregenerate do not "help" God obtain their salvation.

Clete · Jul 17, 2007

AMR,

Is there, in your opinion, a single premise which if falsified would disprove Calvinism?

If so, what would that premise be?

dale · Jul 17, 2007

Ask Mr. Religion said:
Correct. The unregenerate can never seek righteousness on their own without God's direct efficacious saving grace. The unregenerate do not "help" God obtain their salvation.

And because God is indeed Almighty, all of this is the way it is because it was (or is) His will?

themuzicman · Jul 17, 2007

Ask Mr. Religion said:
[*]We are either totally depraved and unable to save ourselves by any act or man only fell "a little" in Eden.

False dichotomy.

[*]We are either unconditionally elected through no foreknowledge of our actions or salvation is universal and all must be saved.

False dichotomy.

[*]We are either justified by Christ's specific penal atonement of some or the atonement was necessary, but insufficient.

False dichotomy.

[*]We are either unable to resist God's call to righteousness or we can thwart an omnipotent God's purposes.

False dichotomy.

[*]We are either forever kept safe in our saving belief or Christ's penal atonement was ineffective and God lied to us.

False dichotomy.

Can there really be a middle ground?

There is when you get away from the false dichotomies. Remember that not everyone embraces your assumptions.

Muz

Ask Mr. Religion · Jul 17, 2007

Clete said:
AMR,

Is there, in your opinion, a single premise which if falsified would disprove Calvinism?

If so, what would that premise be?

Any one of the TULIP statements proven false would cause the rest to fall. They are all interlinked and stand or fall together, hence the strong coherence of the doctrines.

For example, it is easy for me to construct the propositon that if we are not totally depraved, election is no longer unconditional, the atonement is not limited, grace is resistable, and a believer can fall from grace. All of which makes such a person practically an Arminian.

Another one, just for fun. If the atonement is not limited to the elect, all should be saved, for God desires all to repent. Yet not all do repent, so God desires something else, maybe that a person choose to repent on their own accord (since God loves freedom of His creatures). So we know that God's desires are something different than God's will. What God wills, God gets. So God must will that only those who choose to believe will be saved. The atonement then is conditional, somehow less than sufficient until a person believes. This also means then that original sin is not imputed to all of humanity, so a person can help save themselves. If a person can save themselves they can also resist the desire to be saved, and therefore damn themselves. Moreover a person who once was saved can become unsaved, since we have established that God respects the freedom of a person to choose to be saved, so why would God disrespect the person's freedom to change their mind.

And so on...

Ask Mr. Religion · Jul 17, 2007

dale said:
And because God is indeed Almighty, all of this is the way it is because it was (or is) His will?

God so decreed as much in eternity. I have discussed the nature of God's decrees elsewhere in this thread in a dialog with evoken. They are worth reviewing.

I do not hold to the supralapsarian position. In other words, I am not what is often called, a hyper-Calvinist. Instead, I and the majority of the members of Reformed churches agree with the infralapsarian ("subsequent to the fall") confessional view of God’s decrees:
1. To create the world for His glory
2. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
3. To elect some to salvation in Christ
4. To pass by and leave the non-elect to their just fate and punishment

Here we see election and condemnation pertain to man as sinner. God glorifies Himself through His creation, thus redemption serves the order of creation. Moreover, the infralapsarian position is one of passive reprobation and posits a much closer relationship between Christ and election.

Ask Mr. Religion · Jul 17, 2007

themuzicman said:
There is when you get away from the false dichotomies. Remember that not everyone embraces your assumptions.

Grammar please. What are you saying?

Clete · Jul 17, 2007

AMR,

I submit that your entire last post (all of it) (post 1068)begs the question. I effectively asked you if there was a premise upon which all of Calvinism is based which I agree you attempted to answer but your reasonings behind the answers you gave are only valid IF Calvinism is actually true and so are self-defeating. In other words, you've unwittingly said that Calvinism must be true in order to falsify it. Could you try again? Go deeper. What is the most fundamental presupposition in the Calvinist worldview. It isn't the TULIP, its what the TULIP is based on.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ask Mr. Religion · Jul 17, 2007

themuzicman said:
False dichotomy

They are only false dichotomies if you hold to some Semi-Pelagian or Arminian perspective, including their stepchild, open theism. Biblically, these alternatives are unworthy of consideration. Hence my original premises stand.

dale · Jul 17, 2007

Ask Mr. Religion said:
God so decreed as much in eternity. I have discussed the nature of God's decrees elsewhere in this thread in a dialog with evoken. They are worth reviewing.

I do not hold to the supralapsarian position. In other words, I am not what is often called, a hyper-Calvinist. Instead, I and the majority of the members of Reformed churches agree with the infralapsarian ("subsequent to the fall") confessional view of God’s decrees:
1. To create the world for His glory
2. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
3. To elect some to salvation in Christ
4. To pass by and leave the non-elect to their just fate and punishment

Here we see election and condemnation pertain to man as sinner. God glorifies Himself through His creation, thus redemption serves the order of creation. Moreover, the infralapsarian position is one of passive reprobation and posits a much closer relationship between Christ and election.

Does "subsequent to the fall" mean that man is now without the ability to make Free choices, but prior to it he did could?

Ask Mr. Religion · Jul 17, 2007

Clete said:
AMR,

I submit that your entire last post (all of it) (post 1068)begs the question. I effectively asked you if there was a premise upon which all of Calvinism is based which I agree you attempted to answer but your reasonings behind the answers you gave are only valid IF Calvinism is actually true and so are self-defeating. In other words, you've unwittingly said that Calvinism must be true in order to falsify it. Could you try again? Go deeper. What is the most fundamental presupposition in the Calvinist worldview. It isn't the TULIP, its what the TULIP is based on.

You are drinking from a shallow theological trough. TULIP is the presupposition. If you must maintain your position, then let's bottom out on God's exhaustive omnicience and foreknowledge as the starting point. Either God knows everything exhaustively and His decrees (and therefore their ultimate end demonstrating His glory)spring from this knowledge, or He is contingently at the mercy of His creatures. Does this work for you?

Ask Mr. Religion · Jul 17, 2007

dale said:
Does "subsequent to the fall" mean that man is now without the ability to make Free choices, but prior to it he did could?

Asked and answered here, as previously noted.

lain:

"An omnipotent God cannot create morally free agents (angels and humans) that are incapable of choosing to sin. Thus, before the Fall in Eden mankind possessed the ability not to sin and the ability to sin. After the Fall the ability of mankind changed, in that mankind possessed only the inability not to sin."

The unregenerate cannot seek salvific goodness. That is not to say the unregenerate cannot do some moral good, by virtue of God's common grace. Hence, the lost are not utterly depraved, but are totally depraved.

themuzicman · Jul 17, 2007

OVT, a postive case

OVT, a postive case

If this should be another thread, please let me know.

For all the talk about Soteriology and Theology Proper, Open View Theism, at it's core, is really about Anthropology and Cosmology, the study of man and creation and God's relationship to them. The rest of the discussion really revolves around the implications of these core issues, which many aren't willing to accept, even if the Scriptural and philosophical foundation for Open View Theism remains sound.

There are two issues that Open View Theism attempts to address, and I think fairly successfully:

1) The relational nature of God has been suppressed, in spite of its obvious existence in Scripture. OVT doesn't elevate this above God's just or any other nature, but brings its effect in proportion to the rest, which requires some adjustments in our view of God.

2) The problem of evil. The logical incompatibility between exhaustive, definite foreknowledge and free will has been around at least as long as Aristotle, and for those religions who claim an omni benevolent god who has EDF, this has long been a point of contention. The problem, of course, being that if God creates knowing that evil will certainly result, then evil must be God's will, yet He judges others for committing this evil, in spite of the fact that they must certainly do it. The claim that such a God has a just nature is logically contradictory, yet God's just nature is perhaps the clearest of His attributes found in Scripture.

The first is perhaps the easier case to make.

Gen 2:15. Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.
16. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
17. but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

First we notice that God engages with Adam as an owner and a gardener, commanding him to care for the garden, and tell him NOT to eat from one particular tree.

18. Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

We also see God caring for the needs of Adam. This is one of the ways that Adam is created in God's image, namely that he is relational. God is not alone (He is eternally triune), and God sees that man needs a helper suitable for him.

And after the creation of woman, we bounce back to chapter 1:

Gen 1:28. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
29. Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

The man and the woman are charged with being caretakers of the earth, and being fruitful and multiplying. Again, we see the owner/caretaker relationship between God and man.

Now, you may be saying that this relational aspect seems a bit stilted, with God commanding, and Adam and Eve obeying.

But we get another glimpse just after the fall:

Gen 3:8. They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9. Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"

In some way, God's presence was real enough to be perceived as walking in the garden, and we see the expectation by Adam and Eve that God is looking for them, because they hide. And even God's question (although He certainly knew the answer) gives us a glimpse of God who doesn't just create and let things go, but of a God who walks with Adam and Eve in the garden, because even now He seeks them.

But they have rejected His commands and eaten of the tree. Certainly their expectation is that God's judgment will come against them, and they will be put to death immediately.

But they are not.

God's just nature must be assuaged, and it is, but God's merciful nature, His desire to redeem His creation, to have a people for Himself, saves Adam and Eve from immediate death. The serpent, the earth, the man, and the woman are cursed for their participation in evil, but the relationship between man and God remains possible.

But Adam and Eve's death's are assured that day.

22. Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--
23. therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.

Their access to the tree of life was cut off. Thus, God's word regarding their death was fulfilled, and yet the possibility of redemption remained.

And it remains because of the promise in Genesis 3:15, as cryptic as it is.

And God continues to interact and relate, even to a fallen human race. God speaks with Cain regarding his sin, again asking what he has done.

What we see from the early pattern in Genesis is that God desires confession and repentance from us, to engage us and forgive us. These are relational things. God desires to engage relationship.

Now, why is this a problem? Why does OVT say that the future must be unknowable?

Because relationship requires choice. God commands Adam and Eve. But for Adam and Eve to be more than mere robots under His control, they must be able, after being commanded, to choose to obey or reject God. If their rejection is already a certainty before they are commanded, then they didn't really have a choice to obey (since obeying would have violated God's omniscience), and there really isn't a relationship.

For this reason, OVTs embrace Libertarian Free Will and deny EDF (although they don't deny foreknowledge as a concept, just the idea of exhaustive and definite foreknowledge) as a matter of Scriptural priority with respect to God's relational nature.

Now, clearly this isn't the only evidence of God's relational nature.

Perhaps the clearest case comes from John's description of God when he says "God is Love" (1 John 4:8), and Paul's description of love in 1 Corinthians 13.

1 Cor 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
5. does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
6. does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
7. bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Clearly there are relational elements here, and clearly God personifies them all.

The one I wish to focus on, is "Love.. hopes all things."

Does God "hope", if He has EDF?

The very idea is silly on its face. God already knows what will happen. What is there to hope for?

Now, this is one point that many a theologian has taken to mean that God hopes His plans will come true. Please note that I am speaking in a relational sense. Certainly God knows how He will bring about His ends. No one is able to prevent Him from doing so.

But if God desires for all men to come to a saving knowledge of Him (1 Tim 2:4), then is saying that God hopes for the salvation of every man such a stretch?

Certainly not.

Is it unrealistic to say that God hoped (and even expected) that Adam and Eve would refrain from eating of the TKGE?

Without the curse of EDF, clearly that is the case.

Did God know it was possible? Of course.
Did God know what would be necessary if they did eat from the TKGE? Absolutely.

But is it unreasonable for God to expect that those He created, those He cared for, and those He put in charge of His creation to obey His commands? Of course not. Any one in that position hopes for that reality.

So, If God is love, and love hopes all things, then we have a God who, in His desires for all men, hopes for their return.

Of course, with relationship comes disappointment. Can we say that God was disappointed, even let down when Adam and Eve sinned? Genesis 6 clearly states that God wishes He hadn't created man, when He saw how depraved His creation had become. Again, relational language between God and His creation.

Perhaps the largest example of God's relational nature is His covenant with Israel through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Israel is made to be like God's wife, whom is divorced and then brought back to Him. The relationship between God and Israel is clear from the word of God spoken through the prophets and writers of the OT.

See Jeremiah 3:6-7

6. Then the LORD said to me in the days of Josiah the king, "Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there.
7. "I thought, `After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

Again, we see God desiring for Judah to return to Him, after seeing Israel, but God is disappointed that she does not return.

First, we see evidence of God thinking something will happen that does not. Something that is not possible with EDF.

But we also see God's disappointment with an expectation that is not fulfilled. More relational language.

I think it's fairly clear from what I've presented to this point, and the remainder of Scripture, that God is just as relational as He is just and merciful, and that creating a creature with whom He is to have relationship requires an unknowable definite course of the future, because of the need for real choice by both parties in a relational matter.

----------------------

(I've run out of time, here, so I'll post the 2nd half, the problem of evil, this evening, Lord willing.)

Muz

Lighthouse · Jul 17, 2007

SOTK said:
No. It has already been answered, Lighthouse. The fact that you keep asking leads me to the belief that your mind is already made up on the issue. Anymore effort put into this question would be a waste of my time. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

SOTK

It was not answered. Not fully anyway. Nang failed, miserably. And AMR did a fine job, even it he gave more information than necessary. However, I asked him to elaborate, and he has not.

Also, I wasn't looking for just one answer. Or does every Calvinist think alike, and therefore I only need to ask one?

Nathon Detroit · Jul 17, 2007

Ask Mr. Religion said:
Oh, please, this is silliness. God's experience in eternity is vastly different that what any of us can comprehend.

Yet you seem sure that He cannot write a new song. :idunno:

If we cannot comprehend God (as you assert) why are you so sure God cannot do something so fundamentally simple as create a new song???

After all, He is transcendent. You are applying humanistic rationale to draw your simple conclusions. Let's say for argument's sake that I grant you that God is "locked" in the eternal now. Is being in the "forever present" something that implies no freedom?

Yes. Err should I say.... :duh:

God is the only true free being in existence. The fact that all of God's actualizations of His freedom have been known to Him for eternity makes Him no less free, but much moreso.

If God is not free enough to write a new song, then clearly I am more free than God is.... according to you that is.

Your God cannot:
- design
- create
- imagine
- move
- feel
- nor be touched

Your God is not free, instead he is locked in eternity.... as immobile as any other false idol.

Nathon Detroit · Jul 17, 2007

Ask Mr. Religion said:
Why? Because He knows all that He knows perfectly and equally vividly? How does that render Him dead? Think harder.

Uh... uh... uh... are you trying to comprehend God again??? Shame on you!

Don't you remember what you just told me only a post ago....

God's experience in eternity is vastly different that what any of us can comprehend.

You cannot know or comprehend if God "knows perfectly and equally vividly". (at least according to your own words)

AMR, at least have the courtesy to be consistent with your own assertions.

Nathon Detroit · Jul 17, 2007

themuzicman said:
False dichotomy.
False dichotomy.
False dichotomy.
False dichotomy.
False dichotomy.

I couldn't agree more.

AMR lives for this kind of stuff.

ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

New member

Well-known member

Truth Smacker

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

Truth Smacker

New member

Well-known member

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

Truth Smacker

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

New member

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

Well-known member

The Dark Knight

LIFETIME MEMBER

LIFETIME MEMBER

LIFETIME MEMBER

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9