 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject) | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  Steven Morrow Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2002 Total Posts : 18 | Posted 5/1/2002 9:11 AM (GMT -6) |   | Greetings friends, I have always been taught in Eternal Security. that once your saved you are always saved. Is anyones view diffrent and let me know why? In Christ, Steven
Steven Morrow | | Back to Top | | |
 |  chambes Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 41 | Posted 5/1/2002 10:00 AM (GMT -6) |   | Based on Hebrews 6:4-8 and Hebrews 10:26-31 I think it is possible to "be saved" then to turn your back on God and reject His salvation. I think that's a consequence of free will. When we become Christians, I don't think we give away our free will.
We have security in the fact that God has payed the price for our sins, and as long as we accept His gift of grace, we are saved.
Those are my thoughts.
chambes
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to get what he cannot lose." ~Jim Elliot | | Back to Top | | |
 |  geej Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 93 | Posted 5/1/2002 12:15 PM (GMT -6) |   | Chames Is it possible that the person who rejects God, never was saved in the first place? (I'm not entirely certain how I stand on this issue) We could go further. If a supposed Christian openly disobey's the Law (ie: doesn't get baptized, doesn't love, cheats on their spouse) are they rejecting their salvation, therefore forfeiting their eternal security. How far do we go? Did Israel, who was constantly breaking her covenental vows with God, lose her salvation? Anyway, just asking. Geej
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  chambes Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 41 | Posted 5/1/2002 12:49 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Is it possible that the person who rejects God, never was saved in the first place?
That seems to be the most common theology, but reading Heb 6:4-6,
"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."
It sounds like they were really saved. The apostles realized that salvation was for the Gentiles too when they saw that they were given the Spirit, and Hebrews 6:4 implies one who has shared in the Holy Spirit can fall away.
So, I think that if you have the Holy Spirit within you, you are saved, but you can then reject the Spirit within you and fall away, thereby rejecting your salvation.
quote:
We could go further. If a supposed Christian openly disobey's the Law (ie: doesn't get baptized, doesn't love, cheats on their spouse) are they rejecting their salvation, therefore forfeiting their eternal security.
Hebrews 10:26ff makes it sound like that, so does 1 John. But, then again we are saved by grace not by the law, and I am definitely not a legalist. I don't think I'll venture an opinion on this issue. I have no idea.
chambes
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to get what he cannot lose." ~Jim Elliot | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Ronald Ricketts Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2002 Total Posts : 50 | Posted 5/1/2002 4:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | I strongly suggest that you get the book Apostasy by Dale Moody (a Southern Baptist), 1991, Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc. He really took a beating over this book. He examines the book of Hebrews on this issue.
Ronald | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 5/2/2002 5:28 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  chambes Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 41 | Posted 5/2/2002 6:52 PM (GMT -6) |   | payaso,
The stuff you said was really interesting. I agree about the rewards stuff 1 Cor 3 style, but I never thought about applying that to Hebrews 6. Good point.
chambes
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to get what he cannot lose." ~Jim Elliot | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 5/3/2002 3:21 PM (GMT -6) |   | If you can tolorate a quote from anOrthodox site, then this from the site linked here:
quote: Before getting into the passage from Hebrews, there are a few things that need to be stated. First, Orthodoxy, unlike some Protestant bodies, does not hold to the notion that we are "already saved." For Orthodox Christians, salvation is a process, not a once-and-done event. It is because of the understanding of some Protestant bodies which hold that one is saved at a precise moment -- when one makes a commitment to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, or at some other moment in time -- that much confusion arises. Orthodox Christianity understands that we are "being saved," not "already saved."
Salvation, for Orthodox Christians, is seen as deliverance from the curse of sin and death, which makes it possible for us to enter into union with God through Christ the Savior. Salvation includes a process of growth of the whole person whereby the sinner is transformed into the image and likeness of God. One is saved by faith through grace, although saving faith involves more than belief. Faith must be active and living, manifested by works of righteousness, whereby we cooperate with God to do His will. Hence, if one is "being saved," one is on the way to one's ultimate goal: eternal union with God and participation in the divine nature, as Saint Paul writes.
As a side note, the notion that one is already saved -- and that one can know this absolutely and positively without taking into consideration where one's life may lead one in the future -- has always struck Orthodox Christianity as a bit odd. If one is already saved, then what need does one still have for a Savior? Is this not like saying that one who has been completely cured of cancer is still in need of chemo-therapy? Or is this not like saying that one who has been cured of cancer will never find the disease surfacing again, perhaps years hence? In the Gospels Christ says, "I come not to save the righteous, but the sinner," and He goes on to make this very comparison with the individual who is physically ill as the one who needs a physician, rather than the one who is in perfect physical health. The essential question is, "If I have already been saved, then what more can the Savior do for me?" Another question that comes out of these considerations is, "If 'once saved, always saved' is the maxim, would this imply that if I go on to lead an extremely evil life it ultimately does not matter since I have already been saved?" When one acknowledges, as the Orthodox Faith teaches, that we are "being saved," such considerations do not arise.
Now, let us turn to Hebrews 6:4-6. Of course, Saint Paul is writing to the Hebrews, and herein he refers to those who have apostasized -- that is, to those who rejected Christ and His saving power after their Baptism. By virtue of the fact that you state that you have "never denied the Lord and always had a yearning in [your] heart to return to the fold," you are not describing apostasy; rather, you are describing what can be variously termed "inactivity," "lack of living your Faith," etc., but what you describe as having experienced is not a total denial or rejection of Christ and/or His saving power. Hence, while non-Orthodox may term what you have experienced as "apostasy," Orthodoxy would say that this is the situation in which you have placed yourself.
Concerning verse 4, we find reference to the Sacraments of Initiation: Baptism ["once enlightened"], Chrismation ["partakers of the Holy Spirit"], and the Eucharist ["tasted the heavenly gift"]. Verse 5 tells us that in adition to the grace, or presence of God, we receive through the Sacraments, belief and life experience are essential. "Tasted the good word of God" refers to the message of the Gospel and the true doctrine of God's People, the Church. In verse 6 we find Saint Paul stating that those to whom he is writing -- remember, they are Jews -- who revert to Judaism [not uncommon in apostolic times] crucify Christ once again, becoming like those who, in crucifying Christ on the Cross denied His divinity and His saving power. Such baptized individuals put themselves in a position of needing to be baptized again, although this is not possible as "once enlightened" refers to the fact that Baptism is experienced once and only once. [This is reflected in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: "I believe in one Baptism for the remission of sins."
We might digress here for a moment to say that in the Orthodox understanding, Baptism is our participation in the death and resurrection of Christ; as Saint Paul writes, in Baptism we are buried with Him, we rise with Him, and we "put Him on," clothing ourselves in His righteousness and glory. Baptism, which is commanded by Christ and essential for our salvation, is not an end in itself, nor is it the "goal" of Christian life; rather, just as one is physically born from his or her mother's womb, so too one is "born again" of water and the Spirit in the Sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation. These sacraments mark the beginning of one's spiritual life, one's life as a Christian, just as physical birth marks the beginning of our physical life and growth and development. Of course, most Protestant bodies understand Baptism somewhat differently, as does Roman Catholicism.
To conclude, it is impossible to clearly understand the meaning of this passage from Hebrews apart from understanding the precise audience to which Saint Paul was directing his words: those Jews [but surely not all Jews] who had begun their spiritual journies through Baptism, yet who then rejected Christ and His power. If one has not done this -- and this is not what you describe about your own situation -- then these verses would not directly apply. Now, Orthodox Christianity does hold that, after one has been "born again" through Baptism, Christmation and the Eucharist, one can surely fall away or "miss the mark" of his or her calling to live as Christ lived. One can surely "de-activate," so to speak, the grace imparted in these Sacraments; at the same time, God remains present in such persons, even if they do not recognize or acknowledge it. [It's not as if God says, "Okay, that's it!! You keep sinning, and you don't seem to care about it, so I'm leaving and I'll make sure I never return."] God is everywhere, filling all things -- including the lives of those who have failed to live in accordance with His precepts and even in those who are blatantly evil. As Christ Himself says, God allows the sun to shine and the rain to fall on the good and evil alike, and all are God's children, His creation, worthy of being saved, even if they have yet to "work out [their] own salvation."
In the Orthodox Church, we understand that regardless of how sinful we become, even after being born again through water and the Spirit, we always have the possibility to repent, to change our direction and our vision and our hearts. Those "who have eyes, but refuse to see" and those "who have ears, but refuse to listen," we must remember, have not had their eyes plucked out or their ears cut off; they can indeed see and hear, yet they choose not to. They can, however, repent and open their eyes and their ears, should they choose to respond to God's lovingkindness, mercy and forgiveness. In the Gospel of the Prodigal Son, we see the extent of our heavenly Father's forgiveness. The son "came to his senses" and returned to his father. His father accepted him back, no strings attached, rejoicing that his son, who had been lost and dead, was now found and was now alive. His father forgave him unconditionally, in response to his unconditional repentance. In the same way, in this parable Christ teaches us that God forgives us unconditionally, assuming that we too "come to [our] senses," repent, return, ask humbly for forgiveness, and receive His forgiveness with the same humility with which we sought it. In the case of one who has apostasized, however, this is not possible. First of all, the apostate -- the one who denies that Christ has any power in our lives or who denies His divinity or His love for His People -- has yet to "come to his senses." While God continues to reach out, the apostate not only refuses to reach out, but would agree that reaching out to a Christ Who is powerless or useless or even non-existent is nothing more than an exercise in futility. If one denies that Christ has any saving power whatsoever, one would not even entertain the thought of renewing his or her life in Christ. What good would it do? What affect would it have? If one is convinced that Christ is powerless, or worse, that He does not even exist, then one would surely not be inclined to reach out to Him.
Nevertheless, the Church, since ancient times, has acknowledged that those who have apostasized may indeed repent and be brought back into the Church after a period of repentance, as evidenced in several Canons of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, the Canons of the Council of Ancyra in 314 AD, and other early Christian writings. Returning to God's forgiveness, Orthodox Christians believe that in our daily prayer we should continually ask God to forgive us and to have mercy on us, trusting that indeed "God does not desire the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his sin and live," as we read in Psalms. This, of course, presumes that the sinner still acknowledges that Christ indeed has saving power, that He indeed loves us, and that He indeed accepts those who, having come to their senses and having acknowledged that they have "missed the mark," cry out in repentance. Orthodox Christians also believe that, in addition to asking God for forgiveness in our private prayers, we should confess our sins sacramentally, thereby being reunited to Christ and to the faith community which whom we have broken communion through sin. Since most Protestants reject the Sacrament of Confession, they provide no real options or opportunities for reconciliation after they have "backslided" or, as we would say, after they have cut themselves off from the common union which they had shared with Father, Son and Holy Spirit and with the People of God. While some Protestants would say that once a person is saved, he or she is always saved, and other Protestants would say that once a person is saved, he or she can lose his or her salvation, Orthodoxy, by virtue of its understanding of salvation as an ongoing process of spiritual growth, would say that one can indeed jeopardize one's salvation, but that it is not realistic to say that one has "lost" something that one has yet to experience or possess in its fullness. We continually endure spiritual warfare, struggling against temptation and sin and evil and the delightful thought of doing our own will, even if it conflicts with the will of our Creator. That is why it is of great comfort to know that, if Our Lord commands us to "forgive seventy times seven," it is only because He is willing to forgive us at least that many times, provided that we, like the prodigal son, come to our senses, return to our Father, ask Him to accept us back into loving communion with Him, and humbly open ourselves to begin our journey to the salvation which finds its fulfillment in His Kingdom once again. Hence, while we travel the "superhighway" of salvation, we indeed can encounter a multitude of roadblocks and detours. We surely can get lost, either by getting off a wrong exit or by thinking that we can find our way without a map or directions. But if we are to reach our destination -- in this case, the Kingdom of God -- we need to circumvent the roadblocks, endure the detrous, and ultimately ask directions, that we might get back on the right road or path. At the end of our earthly lives, as we complete our journey to salvation, we will indeed "rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is [our] reward in heaven."
While I am not sure if this answers your specific questions, since as you yourself acknowledge this is difficult given the fact that I do not know you personally, I hope it at least provides a new way to look at the "same old things," and perhaps even a new way to look at some things that may indeed seem new.
Now Arminian and not Calvinist. Thought some might consider it interesting. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 5/3/2002 6:09 PM (GMT -6) |   | Very interesting, Payaso.
You mention the more 'lumped-together' treatment. Of course that is from a Western and later perpective. (They would refer to us Westerners downwind of Scholasticism as fragmented, or something.)
I found it enlightening a few years back reading an article on Mordern Reformation Mag about "Raised for Our Justification". Two good articles, I think, or three. Reformed, Lutheran and Anglican. Now I think of Justification not as a work but as a state. Like the justification of margins on my old typewriter. (Not juridical in the least.)
I found your comments very interesting Payaso.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Seymour Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2002 Total Posts : 105 | Posted 5/3/2002 9:38 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote: True, we do not forfeit our free will, but just as our physical birth cannot be reversed, neither can the new birth. Free will is not absolute, and in any case, I'm confident that we all recognize how certain free-will decisions which we make have irreversible consequences.
I do believe that people can lose their salvation, since i think we're all saved as kids, and now some of us, myself included, are obviouslly not (i should have died in childhood! Curse those Flintstone vitamins that made me strong enough to endure it!)
But inspite of my believe i think that the birth/second-birth arguement is the strongest one suggesting the preservation of the saints. I do believe that there are some doings that just can't be undone, the question is whether or not salvation is one of this set or not.
But in order to streagthen your arguement, the one that i don't hold, i'll add this:
I've been researching covenant forms in the acenient Near East treaties, circumsicion, and marraige in particualer, and then i've been using what i've learned about these forms and applied it to the form that the attonement took. It is a vary formal study, i'm comming at the attonement as if it were some kind of funky contemporary art-like preformance peice and asking myself what it might mean.
anyway marrage covenants facinate me, and in the Jewish wedding tradition the do that whole stopping on the glass bottol thing. I'd still like to learn more about the origins of this practice and all of it's meanings so if anyone has some info on it please point me towards it. But whatever else it might mean, it formally signifies a doing that can't be undone. The glass which is broken cannot be unbroken, which formally echos the marraige bond. this is a doing that can't be undone, even in divorce this marriage act cannot be erassed. I also think that the stomping on the glass bottol formally echos the breaking of the hymen. And i believe that the breaking of the hymen IS the cutting of the marraige covenant, and once again we have a doing that can't be undone, once you lose your virginity, you can't get it back. (i've had that fear hot-wired so deep into my personality that i don't think i'll ever get married, or if i do that i'll feel guilty about having sex since virginity and purity are so fused at the core of my being, and sicne the core of my being is entirely evaluated in terms of purity to actually have sex, even married sex, would utterly do away with whatever shred of value my life has left. this is the same fear that keeps me from doing any drugs, even though drugs are probably the only thing that will ever make me feel high. damn my hot-wiring, i want drugs and i want sex, but it will cost me my worth as a human being to get them!)
anywho, what if, in salvation, in the cutting of this new covenant with the elect one, we have something like a spiritaul hymen? in that case no matter what you cannot undo the salvation that has been done.
still you totally can lose your salvation. i've done it. i'm proof. so there.
Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin. --Greg Brown | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Marty Cauley Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 11 | Posted 5/4/2002 5:51 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hey Guys, I was interested in this discussion because eternal security has always been a favorite area of mine. But I struggled with it for years.
As to Heb 6, I like what Payaso said about not being able to repent while you are in that state. Like Payso, I believe in eternal security and do not believe that Heb 6 is talking about hell.
But I prefer the view by Kendal that such believers can't repent and will forfeit salvation. Like Kendal, I believe in eternal security but believe that believers can lose salvation.
I think I might have lost my salvation Sunday. If not, then I certainly lost it Monday morning. But I got it back later this week. My salvation comes and goes sometimes, but my eternal security remains.
When asked if he were saved, Radmacher responded, "yes, no, and sometimes." I like that.
In reading the NT, I find that "I have been saved." Great. Done deal. Further, although this salvation occured in the past, it makes a guarantee about the future. No hell. Cool "Have been saved" does not mean "used to be saved." It means permanently saved.
But that salvation that occured in the past does not gurantee that I will experience it every day. My present experience of that salvation can come and go. My salvation from the penalty of sin in hell is a done deal, but my dailly salvation from the power of sin fulcuates in my experience.
Back to Hebrews, salvation in that book is primarily a future goal rather than a past or present experience. My past salvation gurantees that I will be in heaven, but it does not gurantee that I will live like I'm going there or get rewards when I get there. Salvation in terms of rewards is something for which I have to work.
It is possible to completely miss out on the fulness of my salvation in the present and future. This is the point of Hebrews. If you want a salvation that can be all that it can be, then stick to it. Preservation from hell does not guranttee perservance in Christain victory. Salvation does not gurantee perserverance in that sense. Rather, perservance gurantees salvation in the fullest sense.
Or as someone else pointed out, Heb 6:4-8 contains much the same truth as 1Cor 3:11-16. As believers we are saved from the fire of hell, not from the fire associated with the loss of rewards.
Marty | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 5/4/2002 11:01 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi all-
Here are some thoughts I scribbled down months ago regarding this question.
The idea that since physical birth is irrevocable so spiritual birth must be irrevocable (i.e., “Once a son, always are son”) appears to me to be incorrect. It seems to me that “sonship” (or “daughterhood”!) is, after all, a metaphor, and, like all biblical metaphors and analogies taken from life, has its limits. Not everything a word MAY possibly mean MUST necessarily be a part of its meaning in a given context. Similarly, not everything “sonship” may possibly mean must necessarily be included in the Bible’s intended use of “son” as a metaphor used to describe our relationship to God. One has to probe a bit to discover what point, or points, are bound up in the Bible’s use of a particular metaphor. Are we to conclude that since physical sonship is irrevocable so must spiritual sonship to God be irrevocable? I’d argue that the answer to this question is “No.”
Take physical sonship. Why is it irrevocable? It’s irrevocable because the life we receive from our parents is independent physical life. Once we’re born, our life no longer depends upon our parents’ life, subsequent behavior, or any abiding life-connection to them. Our parents’ life may even cease, but this is of no consequence to us, for our life as “sons” or “daughters” is independent of their life, and this is precisely why physical sonship is irrevocable. I’ll always be my parents’ son because what I received from them was “independent” physical life.
But this is DISSIMILAR to the kind of life we receive from God. When we through faith are “made alive” in Christ, the spiritual life we receive from God is not independent spiritual life. God does not give us life that we possess apart from herself, apart from all abiding life-connections. Eternal life, unlike the physical life we receive from our earthly parents, is conditioned upon the continued connectedness of the relationship. The umbilical cord is NOT severed. This is why, I’d argue, spiritual sonship is forfeitable.
There are other metaphors the Bible uses to describe the nature of our relationship to God which if pressed in a similar way would suggest it is entirely possible to forfeit eternal life. For example, Paul describes us as the “bride” of Christ who in turn is called our “bridegroom.” If we insist that whatever is true of human marriage must also be true of us as Christ’s “bride,” then we would have to insist that apostasy IS possible, for the marriage relationship can be broken through unfaithfulness and dissolved through divorce; therefore, our relationship to God as Christ’s “bride” can be broken through unfaithfulness and dissolved.
It can be objected, “But that’s not the point of Paul’s metaphor,” to which I respond, “Exactly.” The point, then, is that metaphors are used to communicate a specific truth, not an unlimited range of truths. They are not bottomless wells from which we may conclude, for example in the case of “sons/daughters of God,” that whatever is true on one side of the equation (the irrevocability of physical sonship) must be the case on the other side of the equation (the irrevocability of spiritual sonship).
However, “sonship” is obviously used to describe some aspect (or aspects) of our relationship to God. But if it’s not the irrevocability of the relationship, what is it? I’d like to suggest that “sonship” (or “daughterhood” [is that a word?]) to God involves at least the following four aspects/dimensions:
First, “sonship” as a metaphor is designed to reveal that God deals with us on the basis of RELATIONSHIP, a relationship that is both “personal” and “dynamic” (wanna say more about ‘personal’ and ‘dynamic’ but got to move on!).
Secondly, “sonship” is a metaphor that describes the INTIMACY on which this personal relationship to God thrives. It is in fact what the relationship exists FOR. What are parents and their children at their best really interested in? In deepening the intimacy of the relationship. We are created to be intimate with God.
Thirdly, “sonship” describes our INHERITANCE in Christ. Children inherit from their parents. What belongs to the parents belongs to the kids. As sons/daughters of God we inherit a great spiritual fortune. What belongs to God belongs to us.
Lastly, “sonship” as a metaphor speaks of the LIKENESS to which we are called to conform. Sons and daughters “resemble” their parents, do they not? We were designed to bear his image. Sonship/daughterhood is about reproducing God’s likeness in us.
Thus, sonship/daughterhood to God essentially involves having a personal RELATIONSHIP to God the purpose of which is INTIMACY, the blessings of which include the enjoyment of our INHERITANCE in Christ, and the result of which is our conformity to God’s LIKENESS. These four—the establishment of personal relationship, the deepening of intimacy, the enjoyment of our inheritance, and the increased conformity of our lives to God’s likeness—are the essential truths which are at the heart of what it means to be a son or daughter of God.
Enough on that. About the original question, I don’t use the word “lose” because the Bible doesn’t use it. I think it’s helpful to get to the truth of the various passages by limiting ourselves as much as possible to biblical terminology (apostatizing, falling from grace, being severed from Christ, etc.). I think “losing our salvation” isn’t a helpful way to articulate what the Bible suggests because “lose” makes one think of “misplacing.” I get up in the morning and say, “Now where did I put my salvation? Guess I ‘lost’ it.”
Though the writer of Hebrews reprimands the readers for their immaturity (“you ought to be teachers by now!”), such passages I think play a supporting role to the overall point of the book which is to convince the readers not to abandon their faith in Christ, not to apostatize. The warnings addressed to believers found in Hebrews are, it seems to me, hardly appropriate if all that’s at stake is “rewards.”
Lastly, the idea that one’s salvation may come and go while one’s eternal security remains is way off base in my opinion. Wow.
Gotta run, Tom 
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd
Edited by - TGB on 05/04/2002 4:05:59 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 5/5/2002 12:01 PM (GMT -6) |   | Payaso: Furthermore, I was using it [analogy of physical birth] to answer (albeit ineffectively) the objection that eternal security results in a denial of free will. Oh well, live and learn. That won't happen again.
Tom: Are you kiddin? Make sure it keeps happening! Toss out any thought that runs through your mind. That’s how it works here. Anyhow, I could be wrong too! Just throwing out thoughts.
Payaso: In this light, it seems fully appropriate that the warnings in Hebrews concern rewards because a great deal is at stake. I would encourage you to take a look at the many offers of rewards and then see if you find the warnings to still be inappropriate. I think perhaps the subject of rewards suffers too often from neglect in our theologies.
Tom: When you started to comment on this I saw it coming! I had to grimace and take my beating. It won’t happen again! I see your point, and of course I agree, rewards do figure into many NT warnings which describe a great deal that’s at stake. However, I don’t see that all NT warnings can be limited to speaking of rewards. Those in Hebrews especially seem to me to describe more at stake than rewards. You probably want examples, eh? I’ll try to throw something in on the next post. It’s 1:00 AM here. I just got back from seeing Spiderman with a friend. So I can hardly even think theology right now!
Your friendly neighborhood theologian, Tom
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Marty Cauley Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 11 | Posted 5/5/2002 5:30 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi All,
The rebuttal was offered that the salvation cannot experience daily fluctuation but sonship in terms of relation can. But I don’t see our relationship with God dissolving and solidifying like the morning frost. Let’s see now, today I’m a son. Tomorrow, I’m not. Maybe I will be again by the end of the week. I don’t think so. How about bride today, divorced tomorrow, bride again the next day? Nope. My fellowship with my wife fluctuates, but the relationship is permanent.
However, our daily experience of salvation over the power of sin can fluctuate. Daily confession is required for daily victory (i.e., salvation from the power of sin) and fellowship (e.g., 1Jn 1:9). Relationship is permanent; fellowship is not. Present dynamic salvation should be a growing experience (1Pet 2:2). But it may wither instead. But even if it withers, it does not strip the static component of salvation from its regenerative force (nor its judicial victory over the penalty of sin).
The fact that Peter describes being born again as being accomplished with indestructible seed in 1Pet 1:23 would suggest that the life produced is indestructible. Paul describes a link with becoming a son and receiving the Spirit in Gal 4:6. Sonship in this dimension would suggest sonship by birth. In birth God imparts His life to us. This life is denoted as eternal life. Just as my parents have imparted their genetic code to me in giving me life so God has imparted His type of life as well. My sonship, as an expression of the life that He has imparted to me, is eternal. This impartation is in terms of quality and quantity. It is eternal in quantity and moral in quality. Paul describes us as sons of light (1Thess 5:5). However, the context shows that sons of light are in danger of living like sons of night, but they will not suffer the same wrath that the sons of night will suffer (1Thess 5:6-10). Again, such sonship does not guarantee daily performance, nor is it conditioned on daily performance. Quite to the contrary, such sons are promised that they will not suffer wrath even if their daily performance is of the night.
Sonship is a rich NT term. There are aspects of our sonship and salvation that are forfeitable and thus may be lost in terms of failing to achieve the intended consummation. In this since it is possible to describe this as loss. The NT talks about losing your life, your reward, and your crown in the future. The full salvation, which is intended for us as sons, may indeed be lost.
Paul’s classic treatment of the victorious Christian life in Rom 8 has conceptual parallels to our present experience of salvation from the present power of sin. In 8:2 he says that we have been set free from the law of sin. He elsewhere describes the law as the power of sin (1Cor 15:56). The context is describing a power struggle. In verse 8:3, could not do is from adunatos (which means powerless). Its verbal from is found in v. 8, where he says that those who are in the flesh cannot (i.e., do not have the power). This passage is dealing with the believer’s daily salvation from the power of sin (cf. Rom 10:10,13). Marty
Edited by - Marty Cauley on 05/05/2002 10:31:37 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 5/6/2002 7:57 AM (GMT -6) |   | Payaso-
I’m trying to figure out your handle: pay-a-so? “I want to ‘pay you so’ get out of here!” Close?
Thought I owed you an explanation of what I meant when I said the warnings in Hebrews didn’t make sense as warnings about the impending loss of ‘reward’. I thought more than loss of reward was at stake. What do the warning passages actually say? Do they describe or discuss rewards? For example, in 1 Cor. 3.15 (and context) it seems we have a clear warning that believers may suffer the loss of rewards without forfeiting salvation. Can the warnings passages in Hebrews be understood as the same sort of thing?
Heb. 6.8 and 10.26ff describe the result of "falling away" in terms of being "cursed," "burned," and “having no available sacrifice for sins" but only a "fearful expectation of judgment and the fury of fire which consumes." Not only is there no mention of rewards (as in 1Cor. 3) but it would be difficult to conclude that only rewards are implied by such language. Heb. 10.29 asks, "How much severer punishment" are they worthy of who trod under foot the Son of God? These warnings, I believe, hold out to genuine believers the awful consequences of ultimate apostasy and describe far more than the mere loss of rewards. I could be wrong of course, but that’s where I am at present.
Marty: The rebuttal was offered that the salvation cannot experience daily fluctuation but sonship in terms of relation can.
Tom: Not by me. I’m not even quite sure what this means.
Marty: Let’s see now, today I’m a son. Tomorrow, I’m not. Maybe I will be again by the end of the week. I don’t think so. How about bride today, divorced tomorrow, bride again the next day? Nope. My fellowship with my wife fluctuates, but the relationship is permanent.
Tom: I totally agree that we fluctuate a lot and that this doesn’t amount to apostatizing and getting resaved every day. However, your relationship with your wife is not permanent. You may dissolve it through divorce. Marriages can take a beating and fluctuate radically and still survive. But divorce can dissolve the relationship.
Marty: Relationship is permanent; fellowship is not.
Tom: Some relationships are permanent. Some are not. Physical sonship is permanent because it brings into existence a relationship independent of all subsequent life-connections. It’s “independent” life. I’ll always be my father’s son. But given other metaphors Scripture employs to describe our relationship with God, I doubt the ‘irrevocability’ of physical sonship is what’s intended to be carried over to spiritual sonship. The marriage relationship is not a permanent one and it is used to describe the God-human relationship too. So, why do you not carry the potential ‘revocability’ of marriage over to the God-human relationship?
Marty: Paul’s classic treatment of the victorious Christian life in Rom 8 has conceptual parallels to our present experience of salvation from the present power of sin.
Tom: How about Rom. 8.12a? Paul tells believers, “If you live according to the sinful nature, you will die.” What’s Paul have in mind? The mere loss of reward or “full salvation”? Or is this spiritual death, the opposite of the sort of “life” which is the result of putting to death the misdeeds of the body in 8.12b?
Tom 
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd
Edited by - TGB on 05/06/2002 1:02:46 PM
Edited by - tgb on 05/06/2002 2:24:30 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 5/6/2002 11:34 AM (GMT -6) |   | Tom, this is on the fly--sorry.
quote: Tom: How about Rom. 8.12a? Paul tells believers, “If you live according to the sinful nature, you will die.” What’s Paul have in mind? The mere loss of reward or “full salvation”? Or is this spiritual death, the opposite of the sort of “life” which is the result of putting to death the misdeeds of the body in 8.12b?
That question of yours got me thinking, and reminded me of the topic in the followingLINK. (I've posted the link before, so I won't try to advertise it again here. Its onan EO take on Paul's definition of Sin and Death.) Again, I'm posting on the fly. But I think that link would suggest: that "spiritual death" isn't so separate from physical death (in the unity of our psycho-somatic anthropology) in Pauline anthropology; and also that............
Ooops. I'm going to fast. I THOUGHT (My bad....I've got to read more carefully. Sorry.) thought that you were contrasting physical death and eternal death. And I was going to raise the question of whether it isn't a bit desceptive to split them. And further ask whether it isn't helpful to consider them as being part of the same thing.
SORRY TO MAKE SO MANY ERRORS. STILL.....GOOT READING ON THAT LINK. (I think you've been there before.)
Gone-to-Pot
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  BBBCanada Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 2763 | Posted 5/6/2002 1:00 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hey you guys! You should know that this website is basically Arminian in it’s fundamental theology. You’re in troubbbllleee!
Just looking at Heb 6.
Some view Heb 6:3 to mean that what is being talked about here is a returning to the elementary teaching of verse 1 and therefore what this means is, “Let’s press on toward maturity if God permits,” “if” meaning that it would be impossible to go forward namely when a person falls back completely.
The weakness here is that doesn’t seem to be referring to “going forward” as much as he is saying that it is impossible for renewal of repentance. Basically the writer would be saying that the reason for the pressing on toward maturity would mean that if one does not the only other alternative to progress would be “backsliding” or “apostasy.” That is, if one becomes apostate moving on to maturity would be out of the question and therefore it would be impossible to go back even to the foundations. Therefore the best defense against “backsliding” would be maturity. Also, urging on to maturity would be by God’s permission, because at the point not even being able to receive elementary teachings means that one has slipped so far back that it is impossible to do so (that is receive elementary teaching)
Verses 4 to 6 seem to be referring to not so much to God (everybody knows God can restore) but to human teachers and the lasped themselves who cannot be restored. The passage doesn’t seem to give us any reason to believe that God may intervene to restore those whom men cannot restore.
What is the identity of those who cannot be restore to repentance? Genuine Christians or not? It is conclusive that those mentioned here are those who have experience genuine Christian conversion.
“Once enlightened” refers to the “reception of the light of the Gospel” and describes the experience of conversion. That is the acceptance of teaching.
To “taste” does not merely mean to experience the flavor and not to consume. For then what would we say of Christ who “tasted” of death in it’s fullness? The whole point of this passage would be nullified if it was referring merely to just “getting a glimmer of light and no genuine experience of salvation.” Calvin compares the regenerate and the reprobate, but the comparison is not to be found in Hebrews. That they were sharers of the Holy Spirit is surely the mark of a genuine Christian and there is no place where those who shared in the Holy Spirit were not Christians.
The “word of God” is salvation and to taste that it is good means to have a personal experience of it’s goodness by receiving the benefits which it brings.
To “fall away from the faith,” is indicative of true believers. Trangression as a one time act and trangression as something continuous is mentioned in this passage by the verb and the corresponding noun. Though I cannot bring these up cause I don’t know how to. Though a total renunciation of Christianity is meant the nature of what this means is vague. In otherwords what they may laspse into is not clear. It could mean that anything that ignored Christ was hopeless.
“Since to crucify themselves to the Son of God and put Him to open shame” could mean to crucify Christ and put him into disgrace and metaphorically repeat the act of rejection perpetrated at Golgatha. Nothing could be more shameful than that. Some scholars say that “to renew” could mean that crucifying Christ would make this impossible as long as they continue to do so. The possibility of renewal is there, but continuance in apostasy would mean their destruction. But generally speaking one cannot be renew while they continue to crucify Christ. Restoration is possible, but it is highly doubtful. The persons in this passage really have no desire to repent. The whole epistle is about this.
The analogy that the writer uses for his audience is meant as encouragement. They show some signs of progress toward maturity and he doesn’t want them to become lazy and sluggish. The passage cannot refer to a “hypothetical situation” where, yes, these things can happen but in reality never do, thus showing an imaginary state of affairs…for what would be the whole point in describing “imaginary danger” which could not threaten them? Though the writer encourages them and is hopeful for his audience, this should not take down a notch or two the real fear that the writer experiences upon the possible fate of those who fall away.
Anyway, that’s enough for now.
Brandon "Nerds," incidentally, are almost always men." 6 Modern Myths About Christianity & Western Civilization
Edited by - BBBCanada on 05/06/2002 6:12:17 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Marty Cauley Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 11 | Posted 5/6/2002 4:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | Permanent Sonship
I believe that salvation and sonship have components that are both static and dynamic. I found the present discussion's question of the static dimension of sonship to be interesting. Does Paul actually intend to affirm the believer's sonship despite severe moral and theological failure on the part of the believer? I believe the answer is yes. This is not to say that there are not passages in which sonship may be lost. Certainly, such passages exist and attest to the dynamic components. But the point of this inquiry is not to deny dynamic sonship but to affirm static as well.
As noted previously, Paul states: "You are all sons of light and sons of the day" (1Thess 5:5). He then proceeds to urge these sons of light to live as sons of light, to be morally awake. But he also assures them that they will be spared from God's wrath and live with Jesus even if they are morally asleep.
This is an affirmation that they are and remain God's sons temporally and eternally even if they fail to demonstrate this reality dynamically. Static sonship provides the basis for dynamic sonship, but static sonship does not guarantee dynamic expression, nor does dynamic failure dissolve the static relationship. In other words, the relationship denoted by sonship in this passage is permanent.
Further, note that the affirmation of sonship is to all these believers, even the ones who are morally asleep. We find the same truth stated again by Paul: "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 2:26). Paul again applies this affirmation to the entire readership. This is astonishing! These believers were apostates (Gal 1:6-9; 3:1; 4:21; 5:4,7). They are disserting Christ for a false gospel (Gal 1:6-9). Yet Paul assures them that they are still indeed God's sons.
You are all sons of God (Gal 2:26).
You have been severed from Christ… (Gal 5:4)
You have fallen from grace. (Gal 5:4)
Note the contrast in tenses. They all remain God's sons even though they have been severed from Christ and fallen from grace. Theological defection does not nullify static sonship. Dynamic severance from Christ does not cut the static soteriological umbilical cord.
Conclusion, Paul does indeed intend to affirm the eternal security of the believer's relationship with God with the word son in these passages.
Marty
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 5/6/2002 7:26 PM (GMT -6) |   | Excellent post Brandon!
Marty-
Great post too. I like the way you think bro!
Gal. 5.4, of course, is not addressed to all Galatian believers. Paul zeros in only on "you who want to be justified by law." Gal. 4.21 also specifies "you who want to under the law" as well. Seems to me that not all Galatian believers had gone the route of apostasy. Some apparently had. Some apparently were considering it. The leaven was working through the lump. Judaizers were busy working among them as Paul wrote.
I don’t find it surprising that Paul says in Gal. 3:26 "you are all sons of God." Of course, you left out the immediately following qualifier: “…through faith in Jesus”! Seems to me the point he's making here regarding the church would allow all-inclusive language. That’s OK. The reality of which he speaks doesn’t HAVE to extend to every single individual in the group. Gal. 1.6 for example can hardly mean that every believer had apostatized, adopted circumcision, and placed herself under the law again. Some had not.
Paul apparently did not consider those who had apostatized to still be heaven-bound. Gal. 5.21 (still carrying forward from his comments to those who had fallen fron grace) stipulates that "those who do such things [works of the flesh] shall not inherit the kingdom of God." The loss of what you’re calling “dynamic sonship” does determine one’s destiny.
What do you do with the Heb. 6 which describes the "fury of flame" and "impending judgment" in store for those who fall away?
Blessings, Tom 
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd
Edited by - TGB on 05/07/2002 12:29:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  BBBCanada Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 2763 | Posted 5/8/2002 4:15 AM (GMT -6) |   | Here's a question. What do you think about angels, Adam and Eve and infants in terms of this discussion of perserverance?
Are these not actual concrete cases of falling out of a state of grace? If that is the case then this would certainly put a damper on eternal security. For all a person would need is just one biblical example or so it seems to me, of falling away and the case would be rested. In fact, the Bible gives more than one example, but surely, angels, Adam and Eve and infants would be prime examples.
Brandon "Nerds," incidentally, are almost always men." 6 Modern Myths About Christianity & Western Civilization | | Back to Top | | |
 |  might-be-don Registered Member
 Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 830 | Posted 5/8/2002 4:24 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hmmmmm....
Noticed that maybe we were addressing the wrong question altogether. The thread title reads, "Can Someone really loose their Salvation? "
From the dictionary:
loose: : to let loose : to free from restraint : to make less rigid, tight, or
It would seem to me that to loose our salvation would be one of the things we should strive for in this uptight world. In the words of a current ad, "Freedom is calling you" .
Footloose and fancy free...
peace and love, don
A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? " | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 5/8/2002 5:30 AM (GMT -6) |   | I saw that too but didn't say anything!
Be LOOSED Brother Don! Be LOOSED I say!
Tom 
"It will change, but not soon." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Marty Cauley Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 11 | Posted 5/8/2002 4:58 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hey Tom,
Please reread the book of Galatians. Paul is upset with the membership at large because of their apostasy. My point does not require that every single individual in the church be guilty of apostasy. It would suffice to note the church in general had committed apostasy. I referenced 3:1, which says, “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you.” I need only find one example of a believer who remained a son of God in spite of his apostasy to prove that apostasy does not nullify sonship. Here, I have a whole church full of them.
Your comment that I did not quote the rest of Gal 3:26 (pardon my previous typo) which says, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” I did not take time to point out the full significance of this qualifier, but this does not mean that Paul does not really mean the entire church when he uses inclusive language. They are not sons of God because of their current faith (which is soteriological defective as Paul points out repeatedly) but because of the faith they had exercised earlier. Their past faith has made them sons of God in the present. They have been made permanently sons of God because of their past faith which they have now abandoned. Paul still affirms that they are sons of God although they have abandoned their original faith. The Arminian contention that one must continue in faith to remain a son of God in this soteriological sense fails to do justice to the context. Your appeal to Gal 5:21 assumes that what is at stake is a soteriological inheritance. I do not share this conviction. You may not be familiar with the misthological interpretation of this verse. (Note, misthology refers to doctrine of rewards.) Paul teaches that the inheritance is a reward (Col 3:24). It is earned by the way you live. Paul is warning these Galatians that they will lose the reward of the inheritance. Rewards can be lost.
As to Hebrews 6 and the other warnings in Hebrews, Arminian exegesis is vastly superior to Calvinistic theology in that these passages do in fact address believers who are in danger of committing apostasy. Calvinistic claims that genuine believers will not commit apostasy are futile. However, I would content that rewards are what are at stake. In this book we also encounter a son who lost his inheritance (e.g., Esau, Heb 12:16-17). He still received an inheritance as a son, but not the inheritance that he could have had as a first-born son. As believers, our static inheritance is secure, but our dynamic inheritance can be forfeited. Our soteriological inheritance is eternally secure (hence eternal security), but our misthological inheritance is insecure.
I take a very strong view of rewards and believe that unfaithful believers will be punished in heaven with the loss of rewards. There are many NT passages that use mighty strong language to describe this punishment. Basically, I am an Arminian who believes in the eternal security of all believers and the eternal punishment of unfaithful believers.
I don’t have time to explain all the rewards passages on this chat site. I pretty much in agreement with the material you will find atwww.faithalone.org. You might find their old list on rewards an interesting place to start: www.faithalone.org/news/topic.html#REWARD
Marty
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Marty Cauley Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 11 | Posted 5/10/2002 2:57 AM (GMT -6) |   | Infants—the blood of Christ provisionally rather than eternally applies to them until the reach the age of accountability and trust in Christ. If they die before they reach the age of accountability on earth, then they will have opportunity to exercise such faith when they reach it in heaven. My theory is that all infants who die before they reach the age of accountability will go to heaven and be raised up as innocents. When they reach the age of accountability, they will believe and thus be given eternal life and thus eternal security.
Adam and Eve—were originally created as innocents. They did not have eternal life. This is indicated in Gen 3:22-24 where the text states that man would not live forever because he had not eaten of the tree of life. As an act of mercy he was driven from the tree of life so that he would not live forever in his state of sin. Death allows us to escape this body of sin. Eating from the physical tree of life would have granted eternal physical life to those who partook of it. Adam and Eve did not have eternal life either physically or spiritually. They did not have the blood applied to them until after they had sinned.
Fallen Angels—please note that the appeal to fallen angels results not only in denial of eternal security temporally but eternally. The question that often comes up is, How do we know that once we reach heaven, we will never sin and be rejected as the angels in heaven were? If perfect heavenly angels can sin and be rejected from heaven, then why can not perfect heavenly saints sin and be rejected from heaven?
Quite frankly, if we do not have eternal security now, we will not have it then. We will never be secure. The answers to this question concerning our future eternal security are founded upon the acceptance of our present eternal security. We know that we will be eternally secure then because we are eternally secure now.
(1) We already have eternal security in the present for all eternity. If present sin does not prevent us from having eternal security, then neither will future sin. Promises of eternal security do not rest on our sinlessness. To the contrary, they are given in spite of our sinfulness. Fallen from faith or faithfulness has no impact on such security now so there is no reason to assume future failure in either regard will either. The blood of Christ has dealt with all of our sins: past, present, future. Future sins, all of them, even in heaven, have already be forgiven in regard to eternal security. We know that the promises and blood keep us saved in the future because they do in the present. We are now and forever will be secure in our soteriological sinlessness.
(2) The doctrine of perfect sanctification rules out the possibility of sin once a believer reaches heaven. Believers will not be able to sin in the future just as God cannot sin in the present. The I AM, the Eternally Present One, cannot sin so neither can we. Like Him, our ontological sinlessness applies even to the present. At our fundamental level, we cannot sin even now (1Jn 3:9). Since we cannot sin at this ontological level, sin does not affect who we are. We are children of God even now (1Jn 3:2), and permanently so, even if we live like children of the devil. However, when we reach heaven and are delivered from this body of sin and of death, we will become experientially what we are already ontologically—sinless. We will not sin because we cannot sin. There will be no dichotomy between what we are and the way we act. Present sinlessness is the premise and promise of future sinlessness. Perfect sanctification is build upon permanent sanctification, and permanent sanctification is build upon present ontological sanctification. We are eternally secure in who we are and in whose we are. We are now and forever will be secure in our ontologically sinlessness. Marty
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Marty Cauley Registered Member
 Date Joined May 2002 Total Posts : 11 | Posted 5/10/2002 3:01 AM (GMT -6) |   | Rom 8:13—this verse describes the potential death of believers, referred to as brethren in v. 12. Those believers who walk according to the Spirit will live. Those believers who walk according to the flesh will die. Since this life and death are dependent upon our walk, they do not refer to soteriological truths. Our soteriological possession of life is not premised on the way we live. However, our experience of life and death are so conditioned. The result of sin is death, even for a believer.
Paul has set the stage for this conclusion earlier in describing the present walk in life versus death for the believer (Rom 6:4,16,21,23; 7:10,13,24; 8:2,6,11). Or as Paul said elsewhere, believers who live according to the flesh are dead even while they live (1Tim 5:6). They are the living dead. Although they have both physical and spiritual life, their experience is one of death.
They are dead in terms of their spiritual experience and in terms of their fellowship with God. Death is separation from God, who is life. Such believers are separate from God in terms of fellowship and in terms of power. Tragically, such believers will also experience misthological death. Death is the absence of life. But life can be experienced at multiple levels and so can death.
Those believers who have eternal life at the soteriological level may fail to experience eternal life temporally at the filial level and eternally at the misthological level. They will not reign in life (Rom 5:17). Rather, their temporal and misthological experience will be one of death. They will not share this reign in life. They will be separated from this experience with God as a result of their sin. They will have an impoverished experience both now and in the future.
Believers cannot be separated from God in terms of their relationship. Their fundamental relationship with God cannot die. But their fellowship with Him both now and in the future can die. Those believers who are cast into the outer darkness are separated from God in terms of fellowship. They do not share the joy of ruling with Him in heaven. To be sure, they will share the joy of being with Him in heaven, but this joy will certainly be impoverished compared to life of those who rule with Him. The wages of sin is death: temporal and misthological in the case of the believer. In contrast to the wages of sin, the gift and reward of God is eternal life. At the static level eternal life is a gift. At the dynamic level it is a reward (Rom 6:22-23). Marty
| | Back to Top | | |
 | 44 posts in this thread. Viewing Page : 1 2 | | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:31 PM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|