Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Philetus View Post
    Yeah .... with 100% complete self-satisfaction but, still not as well as clete or godrulz might. And besides ... it would just be bashing the hard head of the greater beast.

    Nang, we are just talking past each other. Neither is hearing the other. It's pointless. It's an impasse. Thanks anyway.

    By the way. Did you see the news today that the Pope has come out and declared the RCC to be the only church ............ again? God help us all. It really makes one wonder if the reformation really 'reformed' anything at all and if all the beast bashing here really make any difference. It kinda makes me wonder if any member of the body of Christ really cares a hoot what any other member believes or thinks. One thing 2000 years of church history has proven for sure; the only difference between a heretic and a martyr is who has the matches and the most paper to burn.

    Keep preaching Jesus crucified.
    Grace and peace,
    Philetus
    I take your reply as a "can't", or at best a "won't."

    Which tells me OVT'er are not prepared to discuss orthodoxy. They are real interested in talking philosophy, traditions, and history . . .and more than willing to bash and insult questioning opponents . . .but very reluctant to engage in delineating their doctrinal views.

    It would seem to me, that if the OV is "progressive" as its advocates claim, there would be enthusiastic attempt to redefine Justification.

    Nang
    "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

    " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
    Gordon H. Clark

    "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
    Charles Spurgeon

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Philetus View Post
      By the way. Did you see the news today that the Pope has come out and declared the RCC to be the only church ............ again?
      Yes, good stuff! I am a bit dissapointed that the statement was not as direct and clear as it should have been, tho.


      Evo

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Evoken View Post
        Yes, good stuff! I am a bit dissapointed that the statement was not as direct and clear as it should have been, tho.


        Evo

        Yeah, film at eleven.

        "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Nang View Post
          I take your reply as a "can't", or at best a "won't."

          Which tells me OVT'er are not prepared to discuss orthodoxy. They are real interested in talking philosophy, traditions, and history . . .and more than willing to bash and insult questioning opponents . . .but very reluctant to engage in delineating their doctrinal views.

          It would seem to me, that if the OV is "progressive" as its advocates claim, there would be enthusiastic attempt to redefine Justification.

          Nang
          Yeah, Thanks for making my point that it doesn't matter what I say ... you only hear what you want to. I'd have a better chance talking to a rock

          Naw, we don't have to re-divine anything.

          FROM: Encarta Dictionary: English (North America)

          Justification / jus•ti•fi•ca•tion

          1. Something that justifies: something, for example, a reason or circumstance, that justifies an action or attitude
          2. Giving of reasons for something: the act of justifying something
          3. (can I skip the one on alignment of margins?)
          4. Christian doctrine: Christianity the Christian belief that people are absolved from all sin if they believe in Jesus Christ


          Or we can just live with Paul’s statements:

          Ro 4:25 - Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
          (The sacrificed Jesus made us fit for God, set us right with God.)

          Ro 5:16 - And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
          (There's no comparison between that death-dealing sin and this generous, life-giving gift. The verdict on that one sin was the death sentence; the verdict on the many sins that followed was this wonderful life sentence.)

          Ro 5:18 - Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

          The song says it well: Jesus paid it all; all to Him I owe.


          Your turn ... you get the last word ... go ahead .... make one up ... and then redefine it for us.

          "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Philetus View Post

            The song says it well: Jesus paid it all; all to Him I owe.


            Your turn ... you get the last word ... go ahead .... make one up ... and then redefine it for us.
            I did not ask you about your views of Justification in order to trip you up or find fault. This is good. I appreciate your giving answer; especially according to Scripture.




            Ro 4:25 - Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
            (The sacrificed Jesus made us fit for God, set us right with God.)
            I agree. Jesus Christ, by remitting our sins, justified us before God, and made us fit and worthy to receive God's grace and to be imputed with Christ's righteousness.


            Ro 5:16 - And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
            (There's no comparison between that death-dealing sin and this generous, life-giving gift. The verdict on that one sin was the death sentence; the verdict on the many sins that followed was this wonderful life sentence.)
            Agreed.

            Ro 5:18 - Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
            Agreed, although as a Calvinist I believe it is important to include the quantifying verse that immediately follows:

            "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." Romans 5:19

            Otherwise, one might misinterpret verse 18 as being universalistic.

            But apart from that distinction, we are agreed that sinners were justified by Christ through His vicarious work on their behalf, not only by His perfect life of obedience under the Law, but by His sacrifice on the cross.

            Right?

            And I agree that this justification (forgiveness of sins) is God's provision of the "wonderful life sentence," as you put it. Through Jesus Christ, sinners are transferred from death to life.

            Right?

            Do OVT'ers believe Godly justification was planned?
            "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

            " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
            Gordon H. Clark

            "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
            Charles Spurgeon

            Comment


            • Nang:

              Open Theists and Arminians affirm justification by grace through faith alone, just as Calvinists do. OT is not primarily about soteriology, but the nature of creation and the nature of the future.

              You may disagree about the order of regeneration and faith, but this is not tantamount to a denial of justification by faith by either of us.
              Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

              They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
              I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

              Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

              "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

              The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by godrulz View Post
                Nang:

                Open Theists and Arminians affirm justification by grace through faith alone, just as Calvinists do. OT is not primarily about soteriology, but the nature of creation and the nature of the future.
                Oh.

                Then you do not consider that the justification (salvation) of sinners has anything to do with creation or the future?

                You may disagree about the order of regeneration and faith, but this is not tantamount to a denial of justification by faith by either of us.
                Not what I asked about.
                "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

                " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
                Gordon H. Clark

                "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
                Charles Spurgeon

                Comment


                • [QUOTE=Nang;1468121]Oh.

                  Then you do not consider that the justification (salvation) of sinners has anything to do with creation or the future?


                  QUOTE]

                  Without creation, man would not exist to rebel and be redeemed. The new creation is impossible without the creation of man, obviously.

                  Those who are justified and remain in Him will be glorified. Salvation has a past, present, and future component, but the exact nature of the future (closed or partially open) is not relevant.

                  Your fatalistic, deterministic views are closer to Islam than biblical Christianity.

                  TULIP is a deductive assumption. Any denial of some or all of its ideas is not a denial of biblical truth or salvation in Christ.
                  Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                  They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                  I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                  Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                  "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                  The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                  Comment


                  • [QUOTE=godrulz;1468147]
                    Originally posted by Nang View Post
                    Oh.

                    Then you do not consider that the justification (salvation) of sinners has anything to do with creation or the future?


                    QUOTE]

                    Without creation, man would not exist to rebel and be redeemed.
                    So there is a connection between creation and justification, right?



                    The new creation is impossible without the creation of man, obviously.
                    Obviously.

                    Those who are justified and remain in Him will be glorified.
                    So then, there is also a connection between justification and future glory, too, right?

                    Seems to me that salvation is part of the both the beginning and the end.

                    Salvation has a past, present, and future component, but the exact nature of the future (closed or partially open) is not relevant.
                    Why not? Is not future glorification the ultimate fulfillment of justification? How can past salvation, and present salvation be relevent, but future salvation is not?

                    Do you not believe justification of sinners was purposed for the future, as well as the present?
                    "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

                    " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
                    Gordon H. Clark

                    "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
                    Charles Spurgeon

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Nick M View Post
                      I don't understand how people can read conditional prophecy, and think we don't have a choice or not. Or that everything is already determined. That would make our salvation a bit like wrestling with Vince McMahon wouldn't it?
                      That is easy enough to figure out. They just claim it clearly doesn't mean what it clearly says!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Delmar View Post
                        That is easy enough to figure out. They just claim it clearly doesn't mean what it clearly says!
                        No, we believe God presents conditions not 'to see how we respond' but to mold us and shape us, interject willfully into man's dilemma, for teaching (object lessons).

                        The problem isn't the condition, but how we perceive the reasoning behind the position. No points for stopping at the wall you've erected for yourself in dialoguing our positon. What I mean is, you can choose to stay blissfully ignorant or you can ask a series of questions and learn more correctly what our positiion is. Your logical loopholes don't work very well. They are clever little conundrums, but never get to the main point of the actual arguments and points of difference.

                        So either pidgeon hole and stay where you are at or learn something and appreciate how we interpret. The statement he made was honest, your answer wasn't. I'm not trying to whip you here, I'm trying to get you to think outside of your pidgeonhole. The subject matter doesn't fit.

                        In Him

                        Lon
                        My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                        Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                        Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                        Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                        No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                        Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                        ? Yep

                        Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                        ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                        Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nang View Post

                          So there is a connection between creation and justification, right?





                          Obviously.



                          So then, there is also a connection between justification and future glory, too, right?

                          Seems to me that salvation is part of the both the beginning and the end.



                          Why not? Is not future glorification the ultimate fulfillment of justification? How can past salvation, and present salvation be relevent, but future salvation is not?

                          Do you not believe justification of sinners was purposed for the future, as well as the present?

                          Their view of omnicompetence doesn't negate future determinations, just future knowledge. They believe God is potent enough (not omnipotent but powerful enough) to accomplish what He purposes. The real point of debate is omniscience vs. free will as they and we define it.
                          My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                          Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                          Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                          Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                          No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                          Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                          ? Yep

                          Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                          ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                          Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                            But you have zero basis for the claim of mere thousands of open theists. Drop this AMR point AMR. It is irrelevant and you know it. If one man is right and the rest of the whole world is wrong, then so be it. I'm not interested in winning popularity contests.
                            Trust me, if it were millions open theists would be making a very big deal about it. I gave you the source for my millions, please find a source for your implied statement that any claim that there are only thousands of open theists is incorrect.
                            The bottom line is that the response to a truth is not a valid test of that truth. It just isn't. You know what is a test of a truth claim, especially Biblical truth claims? Scripture and sound reason. NOTHING ELSE!
                            I never said truth was a popularity contest. I clearly stated that the numbers and years should give the reasoned person pause before they leap headlong into a radical redefinition of what so many other Christians believed for so long.
                            Do you believe that what we call Calvinism today was a NEW revelation or do you believe it to have been a return to the true Biblical faith that had existed all along? Did Paul believe the TULIP doctrines? Would Paul have endorsed the Westminster Confession?
                            Paul believed and clearly taught the doctrines that are embodied in the acrostic, TULIP.
                            You assume too much. You do not know me AMR. Why do I have to keep reminding you of that? You don't have any idea how I came to believe in open theism. You don't know what I studied, you don't know how long it took, you don't know what I believed before, nor why I believed it.
                            ...
                            I have never suggested otherwise. This entire argument of your is stupid AMR. Where have I or any other Open Theist anywhere in the world ever suggested that these matters be taken lightly and that careful consideration should be cast to the wind? Where? Quote me one instance where anyone has ever suggested anything remotely like that. Just one quote AMR!
                            I know what I know from our discourse. You regularly dismiss commentary with a wave of the hand and some sarcasm. You hold in disdain the formally educated (as below once more). You claimed within TOL and at the reformed.org discussion group to have once been a Calvinist. The whys of these things do not matter. You are what you communicate, whether you intend it or not, which is why you should be more circumspect and less vociferous. But you appear incapable of doing either. You are like the beast of the field that is driven completely by instinctual urges. Clete simply cannot control himself. Everywhere you insert yourself into a conversation you bring vitriol and arrogant pridefulness. As I stated here, I have read all your words, and no thread exists where you have participated for any length of time that does not have you berating someone with the "I am right you are wrong" aphorisms. Even at reformed.org you did not take very long before you started the same behaviors (see here) as you exhibit here. Those are the pure facts, whether you admit them or not.
                            I reject Calvinism on the basis that it is not Biblical, it is irrational, it is pagan, and it is blasphemous, all of which I can establish.
                            Then please start a thread and lay out your arguments. I know many would be interested. In fact, world awaits Clete's refutation of Calvinism as logically incoherent and unbiblical. Honestly, do you ever step back, take a breath, and actually read what you write before reaching for the "Submit Reply" button?
                            Popularity is not a test for truth. In fact suggesting otherwise the ad populum fallacy.
                            I have already stated as much. No need to reach for the rationalist favorite bible commentary, the book of logical fallacies.

                            Why do you use the plural “revelations”? Do you hold to Sola Scriptura or not?
                            Most career theologians have not made a career out of studying the Bible but rather the study of their chosen theology and you are no exception. Professional theologians spend their entire lives entrenching themselves into a particular theological paradigm, not studying the Bible itself.
                            Someone inform Clete of God's general and special revelation to mankind. 1+1 = 2, thus "revelations". I guess it does prove beneficial to be formally educated at times, no? The disdain I claim you hold for the educated is established out of your own mouth. Stop declaring the contrary for your words betray you.
                            The word rationalism means something very specific and I very simply do not fall under that definition. As I’ve said before, the only difference between you and I concerning the issue of using sound reason is that I give it more than just lip service. I am actually willing to reject a truth claim based solely on the fact that it is irrational and you are not. That is not rationalism AMR! That’s being rational but it is NOT rationalISM. Rationalism is when you believe that all truth can be attained solely by way of the use of sound reason. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IS SO!

                            Now, surprise everyone here and actually respond to that defense against your accusation rather than sticking your head in the sand and pretending like I didn’t just blow the whole idea out of the water. I am not a rationalist but hold tightly to both Scripture and sound reason just as Luther himself did and as you yourself claimed to do in your inaugural post on this website.
                            I need not point to the many TOL posts. I will instead point to this or that God died or this or this, finally, this (more of bad boy Clete's behavior getting called). You are convicted, Clete! A rationalist exposed!
                            If you want to poke fun at Wikipedia as a source I wouldn’t blame you in general but if you’ll look up the sources used in the articles you’ll find the information quite credible. If that isn’t good enough for you then how much money do you want to wager that I can find a dozen more sources that say almost exactly the same thing?
                            Oh, my. Do I really need to point you to something? Or a web site containing bias? Pick up Grudem, Erickson, Berkof, etc., just about any systematic theology textbook, even the older tomes by Hodge or Strong. All will define omniscience and immutability as I have. It is only the openness and process theology movement advocates that have sought to redefine the attributes of God to fit their theology. How many systematic theology textbooks do you actually own? Note: Enyart's The Plot is not a theology textbook.

                            Indeed! Progress is always a good thing. However, I would submit, and have done so already many times, that while you say that you give no special emphasis to any one of God’s attributes, the fact is that you do because you have no choice. There are passages which force you to make a decision about which of God’s attributes is going to take precedence of another and the Calvinist invariable puts that emphasis on God’s quantitative attributes (i.e. His power, His knowledge, His size, etc) rather than His qualitative attributes (i.e. relationship, personality, righteousness, justice, etc).
                            No, you have it wrong, Clete. None of God's attributes are held above His other attributes. Pick up that systematic theology book by Strong, for example, and read it carefully. You can download it at Google Books (in three parts). You just don't know what you are talking about because you have not objectively studied masters of the topic. You read with a red pencil in your hand, crossing out or writing "No!" as you read all driven by your closed minded inclinations.

                            The only thing that I would change is in point two, “cannot” should be “does not”. God is capable of exercising total control but chooses not to in order to make it possible for us to love Him.
                            I may concede this point if only to press onward. I know it is motivated by the open theist's view that God can somehow change His mind, even after He has decided to act in a certain manner. It is inexplicable, but I will yield to the modification.
                            I did not equivocate, AMR. I stated plainly that I believe most Calvinists are saved. There are some who believe in the wrong Jesus and have no understanding of what sin is or why they need a savior and are confused on those issues solely because of Calvinist doctrine and are therefore not saved. Those are, however, it would seem to me, to be in the minority. If you believe that God became a man and died in payment for the sin debt that you owe and that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved – period. I don’t care what else you get wrong. If you get that much right, you will be saved, although perhaps by the skin of your teeth. A man can unwittingly blaspheme God every day of his life and still be saved.
                            I will take that as a "yes" in my case, despite the weasel wording.
                            I have further read the same arguments from prominent Open Theism authors as well.
                            Again, from the biased comes the analysis.
                            But even if none of that were true. Would the fact that two and only two people in the whole history of the world had ever pointed out the connections between Calvinism and Plato, would that make their arguments invalid or false?
                            Again, I do not deny the connections between Calvinism, Arminianism, or open theism to the Greeks. In the end the result must be biblical. You assert my dogma is not. As above, I and the world awaits your proof.
                            This is a lie. An outright lie! This is just inexcusable!

                            I can quote your own precious Westminster Confession as well as several self-proclaimed Calvinist that would sooner die than admit that God is anything other than absolutely immutable because in their minds and according to the WCF any change would indicate a lack of perfection because the perfect can only change for the worse and God is utterly perfect in every respect. A line of reasoning which originated with Aristotle and introduced to the church by Augustine who when attempting to deal with the problem of evil said explicitly that he would automatically reject any explanation that required him to believe that God was mutable.
                            You tried to make this stick here and at reformed.org, but failed miserably in both locations. Please stop the Sophistry.
                            If this is all the Calvinist mean by immutable then why in the world isn’t there agreement on this point between the open theist and the Calvinist?
                            Two reasons. The first is that open theism trades too much away from God's perfections. You make the leap from an immutable God in attributes and characteristics to a contingent being. The second is that you and open theists won't seriously consider that perhaps, maybe, you are mistaken.
                            The answer is in the fact that you tacked on “and attributes” at the end of your definition. God’s attributes define God’s whole existence. If none of God attributes can change then God cannot change at all! What is it that you think can change about God that wouldn’t qualify as an attribute? It’s meaningless double talk. God can either change or He cannot. If He can change in any way whatsoever the it would not be accurate to refer to Him as being immutable. You might could refer to those parts of Him (Calvinist deny that God has parts by the way) that cannot change as immutable but to say that God Himself is immutable is to say that God cannot change in any respect.
                            No, because you rely upon your bible commentary, the dictionary, to define your terms. Yet the lexicon of theology is not a dictionary, it is the scriptures. The terms love, hate, justice, freedom, etc., mean something different in a theological context when dealing with a transcendent God. This is the one fundamental flaw in all your reasoning. It is the bane of rationalism.
                            If it’s so fallacious then prove it. Instead of just saying that we’ve misunderstood Augustine and Calvin, prove it. Prove that Calvin believed that God was in some meaningful way changeable without at the same time affirming that God was absolutely immutable and then discounting the contradiction as an antinomy.
                            See Letters of Augustine, pp. 949, 950.

                            See Calvin, Institutes 1.17.12-14. See also J. Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis. (1554, reprinted, tr. John King; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 248-9; and J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses arranged in the Form of a Harmony,(1563, reprinted, tr. C.W. Bingham; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979) 3. 334.9Calvin, Institutes 1.16.3. Berkhof's Systematic Theology reminds us that the Reformed concept of divine immutability does not deny the reality of God’s intricate involvement in time and space. “The divine immutability should not be understood as implying immobility, as if there were no movement in God. It is even customary in theology to speak of God as actus purus, a God who is always in action.” L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1939, 1941, reprinted; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 59

                            Again, from the above I assert that you are uninformed. You don't take the time to formally study the masters. Calvin has taught the biblical philosopher-theologian to think God's thoughts after him. Calvin refused to elevate reason above Scripture. You should do the same.
                            Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                            Do you confess?
                            Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                            AMR's Randomata Blog
                            Learn Reformed Doctrine
                            I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                            Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                            Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                            The best TOL Social Group: here.
                            If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                            Why?


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Lonster View Post
                              Their view of omnicompetence doesn't negate future determinations, just future knowledge. They believe God is potent enough (not omnipotent but powerful enough) to accomplish what He purposes. The real point of debate is omniscience vs. free will as they and we define it.
                              Did you already answer my thought experiment. Ummm, you did. I remember now. you said it was interesting or some such.

                              Nevermind.
                              Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                              Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                              Comment


                              • [QUOTE=Nang;1468196]
                                Originally posted by godrulz View Post


                                Why not? Is not future glorification the ultimate fulfillment of justification? How can past salvation, and present salvation be relevent, but future salvation is not?

                                Do you not believe justification of sinners was purposed for the future, as well as the present?

                                You missed my point. We agree that justification, sanctification, and future glorification are all aspects of the redemptive process that makes us whole in body, soul, and spirit, in Christ.

                                I was talking about the OT issue of the future being partially open and partially settled. The implications for omniscience is a different issue than soteriological issues of justification/glorification (unless you insist on deterministic, fatalistic salvation trillions of years before the individual and their choices existed).
                                Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                                They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                                I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                                Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                                "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                                The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X