 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 11:06 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Christus Victor Ministries
Add This Forum to Your Site
Get a FREE message board
View By: Thread Topic Date not logged in
Log In | New Account
Up to Msg List | Send to a Friend | Help << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Message
TGB
02/17/01 1:00 PM
Doc Boyd, do me a favor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc-
I loaned my copy of God of the Possible to a friend recently. I just got an email from him. Among other comments, he had this to say:
I feel the most surprising thing I noticed is the agenda he has. In my opinion, he does not just want to present open theism as A possible way to view God but the ONLY way to view Him. He wants to spread his view to as many people as possible. I am deeply grieved that you are one of them. I was also suprised by his attack on classical theism. He doesn't want to just present open theism as a viable option along side of classical theism, he wants to destroy classical thesim.
Doc, do you feel the open view is the ONLY legitimate view of God?
Blessings,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
02/18/01 9:51 AM
Great Question, Tom!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom,
As usual, you always ask the most excellent questions. I think that your question has much validity. I personally interpret the main intent of your question to be this: Does Doc perceive the chief goal of open view theists to basically say that evangelicalism should tolerate the open view as being viable alongside the more classical views...OR...does Doc perceive the chief goal to show how IMPLAUSIBLE and UNDESIRABLE the more classical view of God actually is, and posit an alternative that should be taken INSTEAD OF the classical view? I'm sure that everyone can see the large differences between the two intentions.
***************************************************
First View: Tolerance
I personally think that if the first intention is true, then basically people would say things like you did, Tom, in your "boats across a waterway" story. Open view theists would say that the main impulse is fulfilling the main goals of the Christian faith, not necessarily complete doctrinal sameness. A quote from you, Tom:
"We were created to know and glorify God through loving relationship (and to bring others into loving relationship with him). That pretty much sums it up for me. And if OV converts admit to having discovered greater intimacy with God, a greater love and appreciation for him, and a greater urgency in prayer and evangelism, I would think even a Calvinist could manage to muster up a “Praise God!” I know I genuinely rejoice with you, LL, and others on the Reformed end of things for feeling like life’s purpose is best achieved through adopting and living under the direction of a view other than the OV. Can you Reformed brothers and sisters do the same?"
Now this would be considered a statement consistent with a view of TOLERANCE with respect to different theologies. In other words, if you are a Reformed theologian who believes in double predestination OR if you are a Open View theist who doesn't, that doesn't necessarily matter. What matters is that the main missions of the Christian life are still accomplished by both. I think that Dr. Roger Olsen may exemplify this type of attitude, even though he himself states that he is not an open view theist. On a particular occasion, he has said the following:
"My argument all along has been "Since both sides are populated by equally God-fearing, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christians, and since both sides can and do support their views with scriptural as well as logical arguments--why not live and let live and learn to get along with each other in spite of significant disagreement and move on to more important projects such as spiritual renewal of churches, world evangelism, deeping the biblical and theological understanding of Christians, defending the gospel in a world dominated largely by secularism and paganism, etc.?"
As I'm sure everyone can see, Dr. Olsen's statement clearly exemplify's what Tom has stated implicity earlier. Moreover, this is clearly made from a more pragmatic, yet tolerant view of Chrisitian theologizing. Hopefully, everyone can see what I'm saying here.
***************************************************
Second View: Supplanting or Replacement
I think that if the second intention is the case, then basically those open view theists are saying that the more classical views of God are completely inadequate and should be scrapped entirely. They would be saying something like this:
"We believe the more classical views of God to be somewhat incoherent and, frankly, MORALLY ABHORRENT. Therefore, we believe the open view is truly the ONLY view that does justice to a Biblical view of God, when taking theodicy and human freedom into account."
Let me place a quote here from Brandon that makes me think the latter. In his 02/15/01 3:34 PM post:
"Guys and gals? Clark Pinnock one time told me something. You know what he said? No. Of course not. He said, “That their (Calvinist) theology is on it’s way out.” People? God is doing a nu thing!"
Hmmm...this is quite interesting. If I were to take this comment at face value, I would say that Pinnock has a mind that Calvinistic theology is being DISPLACED. To me, this type of thinking lends itself much more to the replacement view than the tolerance view. Now, I'm not trying to generalize Pinnock's statement to all open view theists, but I am recognizing what I am seeing.
Allow me to make a note here. Perhaps there is a reason why things like this are being said and questions like these being asked. From Dr. A. B. Caneday's "The Implausible God of Open Theism" (http://www.bgc.bethel.edu/4know/implsbla.htm):
"According to Greg Boyd, "In the light of all that Christians share in Christ, the disagreement between the open view of God and the future and the classical view is minor" (p. 89). However, when one reads God of the Possible, it is not at all evident that Boyd believes the differences to be minor. Throughout his book, he has set up a strong antithesis between the God of classical Christian theism and the God of open theism. He has done this with vocabulary and rhetoric that makes it evident that he regards his own God to be superior. For example, he claims that he worships "the true God," whom he contrasts with the God of classical Christian theism by describing him as "far wiser, far more powerful, and far more secure than we could ever imagine" (p. 68). This does not sound like a theologian who disagrees with a subtle point of theology in a theological seminar or ordination council. This vocabulary and rhetoric has the ring of war to it. It sounds much more like the battle of the Gods, when Elijah mocked the god Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:16-46).
Ok, now. Though it's possible that Dr. Caneday, admittedly, may well be overstating his case, please notice the similarity in thought between his statement and what Tom's friend said. It is clear that both parties feel that "God of the Possible" was written in such a way that providing evidence for plausibility and TOLERANCE was not the true objective, but blatently taking a stand against "classical" theistic conceptions as being incorrect, and implicitly abhorrent to proper human moral sensibilities. May I personally note that in my personal conversations with others who have read the book, some other people have suggested the very same thing to me. To some readers of openness authors, it seems that at least some open view theists possess an agenda to displace more classical views of God.
************************************************
What I have tried to do here is to fill out what I personally feel is the great importance of Tom's question. It really is a big deal, because it allows people who read Doc's works, both for and against open view theism, to understand exactly where he is personally coming from.
If Doc is basically trying to argue for the viability of open view theism to be a plausible theological venue within evangelicalism to be tolerated, then he would, of course, have to say that the other more classical views are LEGITIMATE, in the fact that they are allowable theological perspectives of the Christian God.
If Doc is basically trying to argue that open view theism is the MOST plausible theological view that resolves a considerable amount of problems that classical theism does not and CAN not, then he would probably have to say that the other classical views, due to their incoherence or morally problematic nature, are NOT LEGITIMATE, and that therefore, open view theism is an all-around better view. Thus implicitly saying that open view theism should displace more classical views.
Personally, I'd like to know where Doc stands on this issue too, Tom. So I'm hoping that he'll fulfill your favor. I'm sure he'll be glad to oblige all of us curious people on this matter.
Your brother in Christ,
Mephistopheles2K
PS: While you're at it and if you have time, Doc, could you answer my embolded question on the "compatibilism" thread? 'Preciate ya.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
02/18/01 2:38 PM
Something Else to Be Considered By All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom,
This may possibly give a little indication of what's going on. Quote from the "Christus Victor Convictions" page on this website:
"4. Dispelling The Blueprint Worldview
The Warfare Worldview and the Open View contrast with the Blueprint Worldview which holds that there is a divine reason for all that happens. God either ordained or specifically allowed from all eternity every specific thing that happens, no matter how horrible. This view unwittingly tarnishes God’s character, damages people, and hinders evangelism."
Personally, this leads me to believe that at least the main impetus of Christus Victor may possibly lean more towards displacement of any Chrisitan theologies that could be considered "blueprint" theologies (I assume that this would include some Calvinistic views) rather than merely being tolerant of different views. What do you think? Can you clear this up for us a little more for us, Doc?
Always In Christ,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
02/18/01 8:25 PM
RE: Something Else to Be Considered By All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy to supply the requested information.
Two preliminary points are worth noting:
a) The Open View began to move from an "interesting theory" to a rather resolved conviction in my mind around 1985. I don't think it got fully worked out, however, till around 1987. I've never concealed this opinion. It was in my first book, Trinity and Process. And I touched on it in a letter to my father in the book Letters From a Skeptic. Nothing much was made of this till some pastors and theologians began to make an issue out of it in 1996 (as I recall). They didn't feel I should be allowed to teach at Bethel or (for some) that the church I pastor should be allowed to remain in the BGC. Charges began circulating, rumors of what I supposedly believe began circulating (you can't believe what I've been told I supposedly believe!). And so, in response to all of this, I wrote the book God of the Possible. Now some charge that I'm trying prosletyze the world with my Open view! I can't win.
b) Actions speak louder than words. The best way to see what role the Open view actually has in my life is to talk to people in my congregation, Woodland Hills Church (Maplewood Mn). How do I preach? I started this church about 8 years ago. It has about 3500 attenders. So far as I can tell, some hold the Open View, some hold an Arminian view, and some even hold a Calvinist view. We get along great. We have open discussions about these matters, but its not center stage. Throughout the whole BGC controversy, I would bet there wasn't a church that explicitly addressed this issue LESS than Woodland Hills Church. NOT because we are affraid of it. We've had a number of open forums on it, as I said. But because ITS NOT CENTRAL TO THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. If you really want to know what is my heart beat about the Gospel, listen to my sermons.
I'll written on this matter, and publically spoken on this matter, a good deal in the last few years only because of all the charges that have been leveled against me.
Now, do I think that the Open View is the "only legitimate" way to view God's relationship to the world? Well, I obviously think its the truest. So, in a book on this topic, I can hardly be faulted for arguing this. But do I think that Arminianism and Calvism are "legitimate" Christian beliefs? In every sense I can construe the word "legitimate", the answer is "dah"! Of course they are.
That doesn't mean I agree with them. And, it doesn't mean that I think the differences between them and the Open view are inconsequential or practically irrelevant. But I also firmly believe its important to "major in the majors" and "minor in the minors." Next to the central claim of the Gospel, and next to the central mission of the church, the open view controversy is minor. Its great to discuss, debate, write books about, etc... but in my opinion it should never bring disunity to the church and never occupy more time than "minor issues" deserve.
We had 27 people receive Christ as Lord and Savior this morning in Church!
THAT, my friends, is MAJOR .
Blessings to all of you.
Greg Boyd
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
02/18/01 8:27 PM
ps to Meph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph, per your request for my response to your request for my suppositions, I posted an explanation for why I haven't and probably won't attempt such a feat on the "problem with compatiblism" thread. I AM still wating for that stupid analogy!
"preciate ya" too.
GB
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
02/18/01 10:34 PM
RE: RE: Something Else to Be Considered By All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memphi said :"I believe that is was Jonathon Edwards that affirmed that two of the true marks of revival was the salvation of souls and transformation of the human life. Those was things that the Devil could NOT replicate or mimic, in his view. Let's keep that in mind. Bottom line: Let's ALL be fair in this thing and CHRISTLIKE in our attitudes towards the matter."
Greg Boyd said: "We had 27 people receive Christ as Lord and Savior this morning in Church!
THAT, my friends, is MAJOR"
AND I SAY AMEN!!!!!! That's what it's all about
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/19/01 2:31 PM
Something Else to Be Considered By All Part Two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph Man says in the "Supplanting or Replacement":
"Let me place a quote here from Brandon that makes me think the latter. In his 02/15/01 3:34 PM post: "Guys and gals? Clark Pinnock one time told me something. You know what he said? No. Of course not. He said, “That their (Calvinist) theology is on it’s way out.” People? God is doing a nu thing!" Hmmm... this is quite interesting. If I were to take this comment at face value, I would say that Pinnock has a mind that Calvinistic theology is being DISPLACED. To me, this type of thinking lends itself much more to the replacement view than the tolerance view. Now, I'm not trying to generalize Pinnock's statement to all open view theists, but I am recognizing what I am seeing. "
I had a couple of e-mail exchanges with Clark last year to year and a half ago. I asked him about what Carson said in the footnotes of his book, "The Gagging of God," concerning the book, "The Openness of God" being really on the shabby side when it came to the chapter on history. Clark said, "Did he really say that?" to which I responded, "Well you tell me, I'm just reporting." Now as Greg has said on this site, the history question really needs to be worked on a lot more. So, I'm figuring that's possibly what Carson meant by what he said in the footnotes. Does Carson mean that OT's stretch the history question too far to fit their theology? Or does he mean that there is such scanty evidence to show that OT is plausible from a traditonal perspective? I dunno.
However, when Pinnock made the statement that he did, I think he was "just reporting" as well. Just saying, "Here's what I see. It's on it's way out." Now I realize, that you, Meph Man, are "not trying to generalize Pinnock's statement to all open view theists, but you are recognizing what you are seeing." Problem is, when you say *generalize* Pinnock's statement to encompass all open theists, and *recognizing what you are seeing*, are you saying that possibly Pinnock and other OT's are *trying* to displace the Calvinistic system? I think Pinnock and others would like to see OT become a predominant plausible view. However, I don't think they would necessarily like to see Calvinism put out of existence. I read another article where Pinnock says that Calvin did good theology. And I think what he meant there was similar to what Greg has said here about Calvinism being legitimate.
Also, one other thing. I think the very fact that this discussion board is in existence is testimony to the fact that we don’t have people with a “take-over” mentality in OT ranks. Maybe there are some. But here, we want to argue for the legitimacy of ideas. If the evangelical church as a whole begins to accept OT as plausible, it will certainly not be because we have been duped. This appears to me to be what those in the “ivory towers” seem to be thinking. “You non-techies haven’t got an education.” You will be driven by every wind and wave of doctrine. Whatever comes down the theological pike. Almost conspiratorial. When I hear that? If that is what is being implied? I hear the teacher on Charlie Brown, “Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah…” The health and wealth gospel? Hyperfaith, etc? That’s theological pike stuff. This, to me, is legit. Think ‘bout what Shine said in the anthro thread. All I heard all my life was tech talk. Thank God, someone brought it down a level or two.
Brandon
P.S. Greg, that’s great that 27 people made commitments to Christ. Snatching them from the evil one! Halle-Julia!!!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Shine150
02/19/01 10:54 PM
Remember Gamaliel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think all Doc would like (and i know the dude pretty well) would be to have he Gamaliel principle applied to him. This wise homie said:
"I tell you, let these men alone... if this understanding is of human origin, it will fail, but if it is of God...you may even be found fighting against God" (Acts 5:38-39).
Let everyone put forth their ideas, because they believe hey are true. All the talk about "overthrowing" harken's back to the Middle Ages where people settled disputes by burning their opponents at the stake. Why not rather talk, listen, love and grow?
that's all my wisdom for now
Shine150
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Proverbs23_23
02/20/01 1:16 PM
RE: RE: Something Else to Be Considered By All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg...AMEN!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DogBzkit
02/20/01 4:37 PM
RE: Doc Boyd, do me a favor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the "newness" and "lack of history" to doctrines like the open view.
It is to bad that most Evangelicals have written off aspects of the Restoration Movement. UGH! most have never heard of it! And, sadly, most Evangelicals zealous to protect the Gospel of grace have interpreted away (usually by semantic misunderstandings) the Restoration view of baptism. As a result thier views are often distorted or treated as heresy. One of these views was the way they differed from their baptist and presbyterian brothers on the issue of predestination and foreknowledge.
Anway..one important contribution missed is that Alexander Campbel and others like him advocated a position which closely resembles what is now called the open view. In fact most restorationists fought hard against an imperialistic Calvinism and were treated as heretics...hmmm sound familiar Mr. Piper?
I am not arguing that The Restoration Movement is responsible for starting the open view. But, they were not process theologians either. So, while Pinnock, Boyd, Sander's and the Basinger's are perhaps to be credited for best formulating this position it would be wise to study how the Restorationists dealt with this subject also.
On a side note: I think we need to be careful that in labeling the Open View it does not simply degenerate into another litmus test for orthodoxy or just another doctrine to be debated. At the same time it must be admitted that it is in fact an alternative way to look at God. No one single theology can capture the mystery.
I have found personally that it has changed my life drastically. As Kierkegaard said: "It would be a shame if Christianity came into the world only to be explained."
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
02/21/01 4:54 AM
RE: RE: Doc Boyd, do me a favor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello DogBzik:
I know of ONE "restorationist" open theist in the 19th century. W. Brent, Plan of Salvation, 1874. You speak as though this view was common. Were there others I'm not familiar with?
Greg Boyd
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
DogBzkit
02/21/01 5:46 PM
RE: RE: RE: Doc Boyd, do me a favor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Greg. Thanks for the response. I will have to look up some of this again. All my books are still in storage. Anyway, a contemporary would be Marshall Legget "Introduction to the Restoration Ideal." I cannot think of the names of some of the Prof's at Cinncinatti Bible College..but they hold views similar to OT. I want to be carefull here. I was intending to say that the Restoration movement as a whole hold similar views to OT. They were very much against Calvinistic views. I will get more info for you asap. Thanks again and please keep up the great work.
ps. I met you once in San Diego, CA during graduation ceremonies. You gave a couple presentations at the Seminary. I loved it! I was "hangin" with Mark Strauss that nite...you picked on him about being to short to play Basket ball. It was funny.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/23/01 3:02 PM
RE: Remember Gamaliel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the bone I want to pick with Boyd. When you say, "the Gamaliel principle applied to him" you obviously want to *extend this principle* that was applied to the "birthing of Christianity" to your respective theology. Is this a proper thing to do hermeneutically? Can/could we not apply this to Calvinism? Can we apply this principle to Roman Catholicism? Are you claiming that Open Theology is "true Christianity" while others are not? What about the hundreds of evangelical ministries that are currently active around the world? What do you exactly mean by this Acts quote?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
02/23/01 3:53 PM
RE: RE: Remember Gamaliel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously as a Pharisee, Gamaliel was committed to his particular theology as the truest understanding of God. But Gamaliel was not quick to condemn fellow Jews who followed Jesus, because he was open to the possibility that God could be at work in other Jews' understandings. If the followers of Jesus were proposing something wholly man-made, Gamaliel reasoned that it was just matter of time before it would flop on its own. But if God was a part of it, then trying to destroy this new understanding would be futile.
Just because doc appeals to Gamaliel's reasoning in this passage does not mean that he feels God is not involved in other Christian traditions like Roman Catholicism and Calvinism. Obviously these traditions have withstood the test of time, presumably not on their own merits, but by God's grace and the work of the Holy Spirit in and through them. Doc is just saying, give open theism some time to sink or swim before banning it--not for the sake of open theists (although they would certainly appreciate it), but rather for the sake of those who might be tempted to waste a lot of energy condemning its ideas and exiling its adherents. Anyway, that's my take on it. Blessings, GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/24/01 9:54 AM
Still...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG said:
"Just because doc appeals to Gamaliel's reasoning in this passage does not mean that he feels God is not involved in other Christian traditions like Roman Catholicism and Calvinism."
Thanks for your response GDG. Still...it doesn't really answer my question. Can we extend this principle to Open Theism or any of the other respective theologies? No doubt it should be applied to Christianity at its “birthing.” But I wonder if it should be applied to respective theologies that are a result of that birthing. I say that not only out of respect to the other traditions, but partly because there are many cults and world religions that have withstood the test of time as well. And, in the eyes of some observers, OT is just as bad as some of these cults, etc.
Greg also said that Calvinism “undermines” the real urgency for prayer. He also said something like it is one thing to be obedient for obedience’s sake. But sometimes, I wonder if there are other factors that come into play that stifles prayer or obedience, etc. Ultimately, I can see the connection, but the “passiveness” in the church is not wholly due to Calvinistic tendencies. Our lack of obedience was due to our struggle to find our “place in the world.” That is, we were between two worlds. There was the Kingdom’s sphere and Caesar’s sphere. Remember, before OT came along or before there was a better understanding of it in the public (even now there is a general misunderstanding) there were and still are some “on fire” Christians out there! The Religious Right comes to mind. These people were fired up not over a theological system! They were fired up because of the crap they perceived in the world. Some theologies like “pre-tribulational dispensationalism” are more directly responsible for much Christian inactivity. “Well, it’s going to happen anyway! It’s all in God’s timetable! This is how it’s going to happen!!” Ugh… Regardless, one of the problems of the Christian Right was/is their trying to “christianize” a nation from the “top” down. This is possibly a *result of* “Kingdom Now” theology or it may be the other way around. That is, as a result of the active involvement in society, Kingdom Now theology has become an outworking of it (at least it has become better defined). Anyhoo…just some thoughts.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
02/24/01 1:19 PM
RE: Still...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Boyd is not the first person to suggest that Calvinist doctrines tend to undermine the urgency of prayer. 400 years ago a guy named Jacob Arminius said Calvin's doctrine "restrains...all zeal and studious regard for good works...[and] extinguishes the zeal for prayer." Arminian theology grew out of dissatisfaction with Calvinism, particularly regarding prayer. Sure there are calvinists with powerful prayer lives. Lots of 'em. It's just that Arminians and open theists would argue that rather than being served by their theology, calvinists' confidence that "prayer changes things" is in spite of their theology.
I guess I'm not seeing your point. GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/24/01 1:47 PM
Still... Still...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. We both agree with Arminius that Calvinism undermines the urgency for prayer.
2. We both agree that there are some powerful prayer lives in the Calvinist camp.
3. I think we can agree that before OT, there were many freewill theists who didn’t have active powerful prayer lives. And…
4. We may also agree that there were many freewill theists who *had* active powerful prayer lives in spite of (prior to) OT. That is freewill theists were not aware of OT as a system of theology before they had active prayer lives.
Question. What other factors have had a bearing on the passiveness in the church toward prayerlessness? I would submit that it wasn’t wholly Calvinism per se. I think there were other factors that had a direct bearing on such prayerlessness and Christian inactivity in the world. Some of those were/are theologies such as “pretribulational dispensationalism.” There was the general attitude that “Christians are in the world, but not of it” prior to Reagan getting into office. It seems to me that Greg overstates the case of Calvinism being wholly responsible for such inactivity. Is he saying that Calvinism is wholly responsible for undermining prayerlessness? A large factor it ‘tis. But not the only factor me thinks. You see, you get people like Meph Man who believe that prayer is vital because of his “homo sapien chooser theory" (what a term, I think it ought to become standard terminology). According to him and others, we still have an active part to play. Not all is determined. However we have seen through that line of reasoning. All really is determined. Sooo…I am left with these questions. I hope you get my point now.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
02/27/01 10:15 AM
RE: Still... Still...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any thoughts on my last post?
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Up to Msg List | Send to a Friend | Help << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Community Moderators: adiaphora
Site-Specific Moderators: springs
Jump To: cdearmond's Forums Christus Victor Ministries
Christus Victor Ministries
This site is part of the Christus Victor Ministries Community
GET A FREE MESSAGE BOARD. CLICK HERE.
Add This Forum to Your Site | Get a Free Message Board | Browse Other CoolBoards
What is CoolBoard? | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | ©1999-2000 CoolBoard.com
Copyright © Christus Victor Ministries, 2000, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:04 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 |
|
|