 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Character solidification and repentance | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/4/2005 6:36 PM (GMT -6) |   | | I think it's time to review the chronology of the Exodus. 1 Hebrew population increases; New pharaoh. 2 Hebrews oppressed as slaves. 3 Hebrew boys killed. 4 Moses born, grows up, gets chased out. 5 God tells Moses to go back. 6 God tells Moses that he will harden Pharaoh's heart.
4:21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.' "
Maybe its a coincidence that reference is first made to the hardening in the same breath as God's claim over Israel as a son. Maybe. What we can know is that God promises hardening years after Pharaoh's cruelty has been proven. Maybe God was planing the torture of the Israelites by means of Pharaoh and his subsequent hardening all along, but that's not how the story reads. The story has the promise of hardening after the enslavement and the infanticide.
But, one might say that God had the whole thing planned hundreds of years ahead of time. He certainly did have something planned. But to say that he had every detail planned is to edit the Bible. It's a big assumption. We know that God predicted the move to Egypt, Joe's brothers bowing before him, mistreatment, and salvation. These elements do not imply the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Today we know the story and so we read the beginning knowing the end. I was talking with my girlfriend and we were arguing about when Darth Vader knew that Luke was his son. It's amazing how the placement of such a pivotal moment in the story was forgotten. When you watch Empire today you just assume Vader knew it all along, because you know it all along. But that's us reading into the story what is not there. It's the same with the Exodus story. As heretical as it sounds, just because we know the end of the story doesn't mean that God knew it at the time. At very best the Exodus story leans toward solidification but is not conclusive. That the account puts hardening after behavior is just what the solidification view would expect. It would be a clumsy way for a determinist to tell the story.
430 years to the day is remarkable, I agree. But you've jumped to saying it's remarkable because it is what God predicted. That is decidedly false. You have to make up an oppresion taking place 30 after they entered to make the math work. But we know that it was likely much longer a time span than 30 years. They went from 70 to exceedingly numerous and filling the land. The story reads as though the Pharaoh who oppressed them was the same one who ordered Moses' generation of boys to be killed. It may have been otherwise, but that would again make the narrative very deceptive.
If God says or promises or swears by himself, we expect him to be right. So God makes it more clear to us with an oath. So what? A lie is a lie. The truth is the truth. Is his oath the way that we know he's not crossing his fingers when he makes his promises?
Swear allegance is a human choice in these verses. It also is a determined choice apparently. How does that contradict character solidification or the Open View?
You're right; family lines do sometimes die out. That is why the blessing is what is remarkable about this passage. He also says they well be as numerous as the sand and the stars. Does this mean that there is the same amount of stars as there is sand? Or is God speaking generally and in hyperbole? God is more than a scientist; he's a poet too.
I don't think you took my point on the Jeremiah verse. The hyperbole I was referring to was the "no one."
Matthew did say that the script ure was fulfilled, and I agree. That doesn't mean that it wasn't reused or that it was not fulfilled earlier or that Matthew used the passage in the way it was intended. It is fairly clear that the meaning Matthew ascribed to the verses was not originally intended. I doubt that Matthew himself would say otherwise. Jews reused old passages in uninteded ways all the time. Paul is another good example of this.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 6/4/2005 6:40:42 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/5/2005 2:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
Sahid said...
That the account puts hardening after behavior is just what the solidification view would expect.
But the interpretation here seems to be that Pharaoh sinned, and God said, "I will punish that, and harden him." But that is not the primary reason given for Pharaoh being hardened, the actual reason is so that God's name would be proclaimed in all the world.
So this wasn't all about Pharaoh, nor even all about Israel and Egypt, and God orchestrated these events for a purpose not directed primarily at Pharaoh's sin, though certainly he was punishing that, too. But the behavior is not the driving factor here, which is ... what the non-free-willers would expect! God is bringing about his purposes, and arranging affairs, being pro-active, not reactive...
Sahid said...
The story reads as though the Pharaoh who oppressed them was the same one who ordered Moses' generation of boys to be killed. It may have been otherwise, but that would again make the narrative very deceptive.
Genesis 50:25 And Joseph made the sons of Israel swear an oath and said, "God will surely come to your aid..."
Doesn't this indicate clouds on the horizon already?
Sahid said...
Is his oath the way that we know he's not crossing his fingers when he makes his promises?
No, this is the way we know it must be unconditional, "This depends solely on me."
Sahid said...
Swear allegance is a human choice in these verses. It also is a determined choice apparently. How does that contradict character solidification or the Open View?
If it's every tongue, then this must not be character solidification, though!
Sahid said...
He also says they well be as numerous as the sand and the stars. Does this mean that there is the same amount of stars as there is sand? Or is God speaking generally and in hyperbole? God is more than a scientist; he's a poet too.
Yes, I agree that this is poetical, and does this prediction yet also involve human choices? Surely it does.
Sahid said...
I don't think you took my point on the Jeremiah verse. The hyperbole I was referring to was the "no one."
Yes, and that's fine, and yet, does this prediction .. not also require many human choices? Even if "no one" is not strict here?
Sahid said...
It is fairly clear that the meaning Matthew ascribed to the verses was not originally intended.
Yes, I agree.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/6/2005 8:10 AM (GMT -6) | |
Lee Merrill said...Hi everyone,
Sahid said...
"Jacob I have loved; Esau I have hated" are actions (not attitudes) directed toward groups (not individuals). But groups consist of individuals! God predestines groups as proved by scripture. Jacob and Esau represented two nations, Genesis 25:23.
"Two nations are in your womb;
And two peoples will be separated from your body"
Individuals decide which group they want to be part of, as proved by scripture. John 3:16,
Romans 10:9,10
Rahab chose to join the chosen people, Aachan chose to depart from the chosen people by his disobedience.
Ephesians 1:4 "He chose us in Him" "in Him" modifies "chose", it's HOW He chose us, by choosing Him, God guaranteed that all who accept (John 3:16, Romans 10:9,10) Him, are part of the chosen group.
All the potter storys apply to groups as proved by scripture. That's why God chose a POT for the analogy, POTS are CONTAINERS for other objects. Jacob represented the nation that was a VESSEL/CONTAINER of mercy (that Rahab chose to join), Esau represented a nation that was a VESSEL/CONTAINER of wrath, that Aachan chose to join by his disobedience.
That's how you reconcile all the verses of free will of individuals (John 3:16, Romans 10:9,10) with the verses of God predestining groups (Eph. 1:4, Romans 9).
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 6/6/2005 11:30:35 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/6/2005 10:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi ThatDarnCat,
Various folks said...
Lee: But groups consist of individuals!
TDC: God predestines groups as proved by scripture. Jacob and Esau represented two nations, Genesis 25:23.
Well fine, but then how are groups predestined, without any individuals being predestined, and without God knowing the future? What if all refused? What if all repented? Then there is only one group.
TDC said...
"Two nations are in your womb;
And two peoples will be separated from your body"
And God did not really choose Jacob? And really reject Esau? And what group does Isaac represent?
TDC said...
Individuals decide which group they want to be part of, as proved by scripture. John 3:16,
Romans 10:9,10
But is this the end of the chain? Is there an Author to our faith? And a Finisher?
TDC said...
Rahab chose to join the chosen people, Aachan chose to depart from the chosen people by his disobedience.
Then God chose those who would choose him! Now this is like the elections they used to have in Russia, where there was only one candidate, where somebody else made the choice as to who was to appear on the ballot, only people didn't consider that a real election, or a real choice, for the voters.
TDC said...
Ephesians 1:4 "He chose us in Him" "in Him" modifies "chose", it's HOW He chose us, by choosing Him, God guaranteed that all who accept (John 3:16, Romans 10:9,10) Him, are part of the chosen group.
Then Jesus must represent a group, too! Was Jesus' election a corporate one? Whoever might fit the role of Jesus, would be the chosen one?!
I don't think that works here, nor does it work in God's choice of "us" (not some unidentified people!) "you", specific people he is addressing, God chose them:
1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction.
They had power in their preaching! That was how they knew the Thessalonians were chosen, and the preaching must be before they made their response.
TDC said...
All the potter storys apply to groups as proved by scripture. That's why God chose a POT for the analogy, POTS are CONTAINERS for other objects. Jacob represented the nation that was a VESSEL/CONTAINER of mercy (that Rahab chose to join), Esau represented a nation that was a VESSEL/CONTAINER of wrath, that Aachan chose to join by his disobedience.
Then how is it "only the remnant will be saved" (Rom. 9:27)? By "his sentence" (v. 28)? If people may move freely in and out of groups, how can this prophecy be fulfilled?
Romans 9:29 It is just as Isaiah said previously: "Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah."
Now "left us descendants" must be God's choice, not theirs, the implication here is that it could have been otherwise, at the time Isaiah was writing, but this is impossible, if God had decided before creation to choose those who would choose him, this indicates instead that salvation is God's decision, and his decision alone.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/7/2005 6:48 AM (GMT -6) | | | ThatDarnCat:
God predestines groups as proved by scripture. Jacob and Esau represented two nations, Genesis 25:23.
Lee:
Well fine, but then how are groups predestined, without any individuals being predestined, and without God knowing the future? What if all refused? What if all repented? Then there is only one group.
ThatDarnCat:
The same way a plane is 'predestined' to fly to London. 'Whosoever' chooses to buy a ticket on the plane.
The same way God chose Abraham and 'whosoever' was born to him.
ThatDarnCat:
Rahab chose to join the chosen people, Aachan chose to depart from the chosen people by his disobedience.
Lee:
Then God chose those who would choose him! Now this is like the elections they used to have in Russia, where there was only one candidate, where somebody else made the choice as to who was to appear on the ballot, only people didn't consider that a real election, or a real choice, for the voters.
ThatDarnCat:
No, that doesn't follow. God chose a man, Abraham, and by proxy any that would be born into Abraham. Some were born into Abraham's family and remained by obedience and faith. Some were born into Abraham's family and opted out. Some weren't born into Abraham's family but were grafted in due to their faith. This is similar to the second covenant where God chose only one man, Jesus. Some are born to Christian parents, yet choose to reject it themselves. Some are born to Christian parents and continue in the faith through obedience. And outsiders can be grafted in, as Rahab was.
ThatDarnCat:
Ephesians 1:4 "He chose us in Him" "in Him" modifies "chose", it's HOW He chose us, by choosing Him, God guaranteed that all who accept (John 3:16, Romans 10:9,10) Him, are part of the chosen group.
Lee:
Then Jesus must represent a group, too!
ThatDarnCat:
Exactly! Just as God chose only ONE obedient man for the first covenant, Abraham. God chose only ONE obedient man (His Son) for the second covenant, Jesus.
ThatDarnCat:
All the potter storys apply to groups as proved by scripture. That's why God chose a POT for the analogy, POTS are CONTAINERS for other objects. Jacob represented the nation that was a VESSEL/CONTAINER of mercy (that Rahab chose to join), Esau represented a nation that was a VESSEL/CONTAINER of wrath, that Aachan chose to join by his disobedience.
Lee:
Then how is it "only the remnant will be saved" (Rom. 9:27)? By "his sentence" (v. 28)? If people may move freely in and out of groups, how can this prophecy be fulfilled?
ThatDarnCat:
The flood is a story that explains that. When there was only one righteous man left, before Noah went astray or died, God acted to preserve him and his family.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 6/7/2005 1:04 PM (GMT -6) | | DarnCat: Your theory is giving me no end of entertainment. Especially the the "Rahab jumped into Jacob's pot" analogy. I hope you came up with it on your own.
Before you convince me that God absolutely predestined Jesus to save, only contingently predestined people to be saved, please give me an enlightened, verse-by-verse interpretation of John 10:24-30. If your theory is correct, Jesus must have alluded to it.
John 10 said...
24 The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
JN 10:25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."
Post Edited (Nathan Straub) : 6/7/2005 1:09:24 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/7/2005 7:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi ThatDarnCat,
Various folks said...
Lee: ... but then how are groups predestined, without any individuals being predestined, and without God knowing the future? What if all refused? What if all repented? Then there is only one group.
TDC: The same way a plane is 'predestined' to fly to London. 'Whosoever' chooses to buy a ticket on the plane.
And the plane would still fly, if nobody boarded it? Choosing a group seems to imply choosing a group that will really exist, not one that might be empty.
Various folks said...
Lee: Then God chose those who would choose him! Now this is like the elections they used to have in Russia, where there was only one candidate...
TDC: No, that doesn't follow. God chose a man, Abraham, and by proxy any that would be born into Abraham. Some were born into Abraham's family and remained by obedience and faith. Some were born into Abraham's family and opted out.
Then that is choosing those who would choose him! Like in the Russian ballot box.
Various folks said...
TDC: Ephesians 1:4 "He chose us in Him" "in Him" modifies "chose", it's HOW He chose us, by choosing Him, God guaranteed that all who accept (John 3:16, Romans 10:9,10) Him, are part of the chosen group.
Lee: Then Jesus must represent a group, too!
TDC: Exactly! Just as God chose only ONE obedient man for the first covenant, Abraham. God chose only ONE obedient man (His Son) for the second covenant, Jesus.
But that is choosing Jesus specifically! I meant that if Jesus’ election was corporate, then God chose qualifications for the Messiah, and would take whoever would fit these qualities? I don’t expect that "chosen in him" implies that kind of choice of Jesus, though.
Various folks said...
Lee: ... how is it "only the remnant will be saved" (Rom. 9:27)? By "his sentence" (v. 28)? If people may move freely in and out of groups, how can this prophecy be fulfilled?
TDC: The flood is a story that explains that. When there was only one righteous man left, before Noah went astray or died, God acted to preserve him and his family.
Yes, but could all the Israelites have repented? Then more than the remnant would have been saved, and God’s sentence would not have been carried out, though it was to have been carried out "with speed and finality" (Rom. 9:28).
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 6/7/2005 7:34:37 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/8/2005 6:23 AM (GMT -6) | |
Lee Merrill said...Hi ThatDarnCat,
Various folks said...
Lee: ... but then how are groups predestined, without any individuals being predestined, and without God knowing the future? What if all refused? What if all repented? Then there is only one group.
TDC: The same way a plane is 'predestined' to fly to London. 'Whosoever' chooses to buy a ticket on the plane. And the plane would still fly, if nobody boarded it? Choosing a group seems to imply choosing a group that will really exist, not one that might be empty.
And yet people do buy tickets on the plane and people have accepted the salvation offered by Jesus.
Various folks said...
Lee: Then God chose those who would choose him! Now this is like the elections they used to have in Russia, where there was only one candidate...
TDC: No, that doesn't follow. God chose a man, Abraham, and by proxy any that would be born into Abraham. Some were born into Abraham's family and remained by obedience and faith. Some were born into Abraham's family and opted out. Then that is choosing those who would choose him! Like in the Russian ballot box.
No, that doesn't follow. God says, those who accept Jesus are predestined for good works. God says, those who accept Jesus are predestined to be His bride. God predestines the group, 'whosoever' accepts Jesus' salvation is placed in the group. Your Russian analogy doesn't apply.
Various folks said...
TDC: Ephesians 1:4 "He chose us in Him" "in Him" modifies "chose", it's HOW He chose us, by choosing Him, God guaranteed that all who accept (John 3:16, Romans 10:9,10) Him, are part of the chosen group.
Lee: Then Jesus must represent a group, too!
TDC: Exactly! Just as God chose only ONE obedient man for the first covenant, Abraham. God chose only ONE obedient man (His Son) for the second covenant, Jesus. But that is choosing Jesus specifically! I meant that if Jesus’ election was corporate, then God chose qualifications for the Messiah, and would take whoever would fit these qualities? I don’t expect that "chosen in him" implies that kind of choice of Jesus, though.
God chose Abraham for the purpose of raising up a people through whom the Messiah would come. That didn't guarantee salvation for everyone born into Abraham. That's a separate issue.
Our election is corporate. It's "in Him". If you're "in Him", you're part of the elect. How did you get "in Him"? I bet you prayed a prayer of repentance, didn't you?
Various folks said...
Lee: ... how is it "only the remnant will be saved" (Rom. 9:27)? By "his sentence" (v. 28)? If people may move freely in and out of groups, how can this prophecy be fulfilled?
TDC: The flood is a story that explains that. When there was only one righteous man left, before Noah went astray or died, God acted to preserve him and his family. Yes, but could all the Israelites have repented? Then more than the remnant would have been saved, and God’s sentence would not have been carried out, though it was to have been carried out "with speed and finality" (Rom. 9:28).
"I have reserved to myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal."
1 Kings 19:18 "Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him."
"I will leave" -- future tense, who will He leave?
"all knees that have not bowed to Baal, every mouth that has not kissed [Baal]" -- past tense, preceeds the 'leaving'
The seven thousand that chose NOT to bow the knee to Baal, God has preserved them. Just as Noah, being righteous, was preserved by God in the ark.
The choice to follow God preceeded God's preservation of these people.
Perfect examples of people choosing to be included in God's elect group.
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 6/8/2005 6:34:39 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/8/2005 6:44 AM (GMT -6) | |
Nathan Straub said...
DarnCat: Your theory is giving me no end of entertainment. Especially the the "Rahab jumped into Jacob's pot" analogy. I hope you came up with it on your own.
Before you convince me that God absolutely predestined Jesus to save, only contingently predestined people to be saved, please give me an enlightened, verse-by-verse interpretation of John 10:24-30. If your theory is correct, Jesus must have alluded to it.
Jesus will save 'whosoever'. John 3:16, Romans 10:9,10, Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13
What part of "who ever", "whosoever" don't you understand?
John 10 said...
24 The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
JN 10:25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."
John 10:29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."
Who are the sheep? John 10 starts talking about the sheep right away, they are a group that exists prior to this chapter.
John 3:16 'whosoever' are the sheep
God has given 'whosoever' to Jesus, they are the sheep.
Do you really think Jesus, speaking to what was a largely agrarian and pastoral (think sheep-herding) society, would use an analogy that didn't ring true? That He'd posit that just as a stranger could walk up to a bunch of sheep and they would recognize his voice, so too, people who have no prior relationship with Jesus, recoqnize His voice? The Jews would have found this ridiculous. They'd say:
Sheep only know the voice of one who has spent much time with them, in fact probably only know the people who they bonded with from birth.
Thus, mapping the points of the analogy to the point Jesus was making, is that people who have a relationship with Jesus know His voice and will not follow another shepherd.
You're positing that sheep, having never heard the voice of the shepherd, know it. And that fails not only this analogy, but all examples in scripture of people coming to Jesus.
John 1:35Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples,
36 and he looked at Jesus as He walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"
37 The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
1. Identification of Messiah to John's disciples PRECEEDS
2. Choice of John's disciples to follow Jesus
All other examples follow this pattern.
You posit that whoever has eternal life, believes in Him, but you have the order wrong. scripture places the believing in Him PRIOR and a necessary cause of having eternal life.
John 3:15so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
It's all right there in John 3:15.
The choice, "whoever believes", preceeds the placement into the election, "in Him", the predestination of the elect to eternal life, "in Him have eternal life".
He elected those "in Him" to have "eternal life". That's who the elect are, those "in Him". How do you get placed "in Him"? John 3:16, Romans 10:9,10, Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 6/8/2005 8:20:51 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/8/2005 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Hebrews 11:31 By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.
James 2:25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
How to join the elect, by faith and by works.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 6/9/2005 1:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh, where to start? You seem to make Ephesians 1:4 your proof-text, so let's look at that. Afterwards, I'll examine John 10.
Ephesians 1:4, you quote as "He chose us in Him". You conveniently forget the next clause. "For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will -- to the praise of His glorious grace, which He has freely given us in the One He loves."
He chose us in Him before the creation of the world. And what's more, there were some He didn't choose. And there was no observable difference between the two groups, until God graciously made us alive with Christ, even when we were still dead in transgressions -- including unbelief and disobedience -- and gave us the gift of faith and salvation. This is my interpretation of Eph. 2:1-9. In light of these verses, there is no excuse for reading into 1:4 some sort of category without the people chosen being foreknown.
And now, as to John 10. I requested a verse-by-verse commentary. You left out verse 26, "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." I am not at all saying faith is not necessary for salvation. I am saying that "whoever believes will be saved" is a counterfactual statement. It only works if someone believes. And as you will understand from a careful reading of John 6-10, "my sheep" means "the children God has given me" (see Isaiah 8:18, Heb. 2:13). You remember "all the Father has given me will come to me", and "no one can come to me unless the Father draws him"? No one will believe without God choosing him and opening his eyes. And all who are chosen will believe. How do you read verse 26?
I do see your point about "in him" coming after belief, but you are collapsing contexts. (Read James Sire's book, scripture Twisting. It's one of my favorite books.) Ephesians speaks of "in him" as having to do with the decree of election. John uses "in him" as the object of belief. These two are not the same. It could not really be an actual, eternal, effective decree of election before the creation of the world if it began the moment someone believed "in him" and could end whenever that person chose to jump out of the pot. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/9/2005 6:33 AM (GMT -6) | |
Nathan Straub said...
Oh, where to start? You seem to make Ephesians 1:4 your proof-text, so let's look at that. Afterwards, I'll examine John 10.
Ephesians 1:4, you quote as "He chose us in Him". You conveniently forget the next clause. "For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will -- to the praise of His glorious grace, which He has freely given us in the One He loves."
"in Him" still modifies "chose", doesn't matter when Jesus was chosen, 'whosoever' may still join.
And now, as to John 10. I requested a verse-by-verse commentary. You left out verse 26, "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep."
Jesus uses the analogy of sheep and shepherds because He knew they understood that sheep, having grown up with the shepherd and having bonded with the shepherd, know the shepherd's voice. So He uses the sheep and shepherd analogy to show that those who have no relationship with Him don't know His voice. The Pharisees didn't know Him.
John 5:39 "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."
They didn't have life because THEY were UNWILLING.
If they had been WILLING, they would have had life.
Like Rahab, ANYONE can join the "chosen people" by their faith (Hebrews 11:31) and their works (James 2:25). Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 6/9/2005 7:01:18 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 6/9/2005 10:09 PM (GMT -6) | | ThatDarnCat said...
"in Him" still modifies "chose", doesn't matter when Jesus was chosen, 'whosoever' may still join.
1. How does "in him" make the decree anything less than eternal, absolute, and specifically personal?
2. Whosoever may still join, but can they? What did Jesus reply when his disciples asked him, "who then can be saved?" "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." And in John 15, "Without me you can do nothing."
ThatDarnCat said...Nathan Straub said...
And now, as to John 10. I requested a verse-by-verse commentary. You left out verse 26, "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." Jesus uses the analogy of sheep and shepherds because He knew they understood that sheep, having grown up with the shepherd and having bonded with the shepherd, know the shepherd's voice. So He uses the sheep and shepherd analogy to show that those who have no relationship with Him don't know His voice. The Pharisees didn't know Him.
How do you mean the Pharisees didn't know him? He was asking them questions in the temple when he was twelve years old. And if your theory is correct, no one can be saved if they have not known God from their earliest years. How then can a pagan be saved? And recheck John six. It says many disciples turned back and no longer followed him after what he taught about eating his flesh and drinking his , being the bread from heaven, and the fact that to do what God requires they must believe on Jesus, but that no one can come to him unless it be given of him from above. So these disciples, who knew him and had been following him, left: proving that they were not his sheep.
Or maybe you had a different definition of "knowing him" and "having a relationship with him". How's this: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Mat. 11:27)
The only counterparts to Jesus' sheep I have found in the parables are wolves and goats. Neither of these seem able to change their natures and become sheep.
So what do you think? How does one become one of Jesus' sheep? One who is not a sheep cannot believe in Jesus (Jn. 10:26). But those who were chosen for eternal life have been purchased by the shepherd by his life (Jn. 10:15), and know the shepherd (so he must have revealed himself to them), are sought out by the shepherd with each one specifically in mind (Mat. 18:12). What can I conclude? | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/10/2005 6:54 AM (GMT -6) | |
Nathan Straub said...
1. How does "in him" make the decree anything less than eternal, absolute, and specifically personal?
ThatDarnCat:
Unless you can show me your name in scripture, it obviously isn't personal. If it isn't specific, naming names, then there's a principle given. And that principle is 'whosoever' assents, is placed "into Him" by God.
It's eternal starting from the time you assent to being placed "into Him". It cannot be eternal stretching backwards because then you never would have gotten there. That's the problem with an actual infinity.
Absolute? Are you just throwing any adjective up and seeing what sticks?
How can it be any less than red and spongy as well?
Let's pick one of the random "chosen people", Aachan. How does being "in Abraham" make the first covenant anything less than specifically personal?
Aachan wasn't chosen. Abraham was. You can't show me where Aachan was chosen in scripture but I can show you where God chose Abram and Abram responded in faith.
Anyone born 'into Abraham' became part of the first covenant as they were a descendant of Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob. This national election was for a purpose though, and individual salvation relied on individual choices, and Aachan made the wrong choices. This national purpose allowed outsiders to join, by faith and by works, as Rahab did.
Abraham and Jesus were the vessels of their respective covenants. The pots. That's what the potter analogy is all about. Pots/vessels are containers for other 'objects'.
Jeremiah 18:6"Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel."
You weren't chosen specifically, unless you can show me your name in scripture. Jesus was chosen, anyone born again 'into Him' become part of the elect.
John 3:14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;
15so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
No one can come unless drawn by God:
John 6:44"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."
Yet Jesus is drawing all to Him:
John 12:32"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."
So why do some not arrive? They are unwilling:
John 5:39 "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." The Pharisees weren't Jesus' sheep because they rejected Him, John 5:39,40, they didn't know Him.
Zacharias was, however:
Luke 1:67And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:
68"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people"
Why was Zacharias ready for the Messiah and the Pharisees weren't?
Luke 1: 5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.
Same testimony Job had:
Job 1:1There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.
8The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil."
Nathan:
2. Whosoever may still join, but can they? What did Jesus reply when his disciples asked him, "who then can be saved?" "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
ThatDarnCat:
Of course I can't save myself. But if I'm willing, God can:
Rev 3:20 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
Matthew 11:28 "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
Nathan:
So what do you think? How does one become one of Jesus' sheep?
1. Open the door and let Him in Rev 3:20
2. Come to Him Matt 11:28
3. Be blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil Luke 1:6, Job 1:1
4. Call on the name of the Lord Joel 2:32
5. Be willing to come to Him John 5:40
6. Believe in Him John 3:15,16
7. Confess with your mouth, believe in your heart Romans 10:9,10
8. By faith and by works Hebrews 11:31, James 2:25
9. Faith with works James 2
10. Believe in the Lord Jesus Acts 16:31
Every example presented involved the volition of the people involved.
Nathan:
Or maybe you had a different definition of "knowing him" and "having a relationship with him".
ThatDarnCat:
You may be confused with the difference between peripheral knowlege of someone and experiential, trusting, relational knowlege of someone, I'm not.
When Jesus arrived on the scene, those who truly knew God, in that kind of experiential, trusting, relational knowlege, were willing to come to Jesus. Zacharias, the sheep (this is what John 10:29 is about)
When Jesus arrived on the scene, those who didn't know God, in that kind of experiential, trusting, relational knowlege, were unwilling to come to Jesus. the Pharisees, the goats
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 6/10/2005 9:30:01 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 6/10/2005 4:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Kitty said...
Unless you can show me your name in scripture, it obviously isn't personal. If it isn't specific, naming names, then there's a principle given. And that principle is 'whosoever' assents, is placed "into Him" by God.
Well, I can point to Josiah and Cyrus chosen by name. Jacob was chosen over Esau before he was born. "The older will serve the younger." Paul generalizes from Jacob and Esau to "even us, whom He also called, not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles." (Rom. 9:24) I don't know why you maintain that because God hasn't told us who exactly he has chosen, but how to tell who they are (by their obedience of faith and perseverance), that his decree must be contingent. The Westminster Confession 3.5 calls God's motive a "secret counsel". Since when is a secret written down for everyone to see?
Kitty said...
It's eternal starting from the time you assent to being placed "into Him". It cannot be eternal stretching backwards because then you never would have gotten there. That's the problem with an actual infinity.
It can't be eternal stretching backwards if you don't believe God's eternity past is atemporal. I do. How can an eternal decree starting from the point at which you choose Christ be "from the creation of the world"? How can it be a decree at all? It's just a truism.
Kitty said...
Absolute? Are you just throwing any adjective up and seeing what sticks?
No, I'm trying to pin it down as ultimate, immutable, and determinative. But I though absolute was shorter.
Kitty said...
Let's pick one of the random "chosen people", Aachan. How does being "in Abraham" make the first covenant anything less than specifically personal?
I'm going to need some more documentation to establish the correlation between "in Abraham" and "in Christ". Of course, the promise made to Abraham included his descendants. But Paul says "not everyone descended from Abraham is a true son of Abraham." It is those who have the faith of Abraham who are foreknown and included in the promise. But yes, a categorical decree is not personal. I consider personal to mean particular to each person meant. The promise to Abraham was made for Abraham's sake. The New Covenant is for the sake of Jesus Christ. But that is not specific. There is more to it. The names of those to whom God chose to give eternal life have been written in his book from the creation of the world. (Rev. 17:8)
Kitty said...
Aachan wasn't chosen. Abraham was. You can't show me where Aachan was chosen in scripture but I can show you where God chose Abram and Abram responded in faith.
Anyone born 'into Abraham' became part of the first covenant as they were a descendant of Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob. This national election was for a purpose though, and individual salvation relied on individual choices, and Aachan made the wrong choices. This national purpose allowed outsiders to join, by faith and by works, as Rahab did.
This is a prima facie difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The former deals with promises to a nation. The latter deals with promises to individuals, in the church. (Jer. 31:31-34) Furthermore, I don't know where Achan is spending eternity. If "cutting off from his people" means no share in the resurrection of the righteous, then I would say Achan was a natural descendant and not a spiritual descendant of Abraham. In the church this would mean someone who grew up in a Christian home, but did not persevere in the faith.
Kitty said...
Abraham and Jesus were the vessels of their respective covenants. The pots. That's what the potter analogy is all about. Pots/vessels are containers for other 'objects'.
Exactly. Vessels of mercy are made to hold and display God's mercy (not his people). Vessels of wrath are made to hold and display God's wrath (not his enemies). But I have no idea where you get collective vessels from the actual text. It says "some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use." (Rom. 9:21) So who's the representative of wrath in the New Testament so we can jump into his pot? Isn't this a stretch?
The "whoever believes" verses in John 3 and other places are conditional. Conditional means the result happens when the condition is met. If the condition is impossible, the logic is still good.
Kitty said...
No one can come unless drawn by God:
John 6:44"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."
Yet Jesus is drawing all to Him:
John 12:32"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."
Why did Jesus say "no one can come... unless the Father draws him"?
Jesus said...
(John 6:63b-65) The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
So, he was not drawing everyone. Now look at the context of John 12:32. What brings him to talk about his death and its results? "Some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast... said... 'We would like to see Jesus.'" When Jesus was told, he replied with the verses we are considering. This points toward his death bringing about salvation for all men, not just Jews, but Greeks and barbarians as well.
Paul said...
(1 Cor. 1:21-24) For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
This verse indicates that after the resurrection, God has called both Jews and Greeks from among the rest of the Jews and Greeks. And all those whom he has called recognize the power and wisdom of God in the gospel.
Kitty said...
So what do you think? How does one become one of Jesus' sheep?
1. Open the door and let Him in Rev 3:20
2. Come to Him Matt 11:28
3. Be blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil Luke 1:6, Job 1:1
4. Call on the name of the Lord Joel 2:32
5. Be willing to come to Him John 5:40
6. Believe in Him John 3:15,16
7. Confess with your mouth, believe in your heart Romans 10:9,10
8. By faith and by works Hebrews 11:31, James 2:25
9. Faith with works James 2
10. Believe in the Lord Jesus Acts 16:31
Every example presented involved the volition of the people involved.
Yes, every example presented involved the volition of the people involved. But what have we learned is necessary for those conditions to be met? "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him..."
Kitty said...
When Jesus arrived on the scene, those who truly knew God, in that kind of experiential, trusting, relational knowlege, were willing to come to Jesus. Zacharias, the sheep (this is what John 10:29 is about)
When Jesus arrived on the scene, those who didn't know God, in that kind of experiential, trusting, relational knowlege, were unwilling to come to Jesus. the Pharisees, the goats
To push back the question of how they knew God to before Jesus came is just to push back the question. It's still there, unanswered by you.Post Edited (Nathan Straub) : 6/10/2005 4:34:45 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/10/2005 5:45 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Nathan:
Well, I can point to Josiah and Cyrus chosen by name.
ThatDarnCat:
For a task, not for individual salvation.
Nathah:
Jacob was chosen over Esau before he was born.
ThatDarnCat:
For a purpose, a task. And, they represented two nations, two people groups:
Genesis 25:The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb;
And two peoples will be separated from your body;"
which Paul quotes in Romans 9.
Nathan:
I'm going to need some more documentation to establish the correlation between "in Abraham" and "in Christ".
ThatDarnCat:
You need "more documentation" that there were two covenants mentioned in the bible?
Nathan:
Of course, the promise made to
Abraham included his descendants. But Paul says "not everyone descended from Abraham is a true son of Abraham."
ThatDarnCat:
That's what I've been saying. Just being born "into Abraham" was not enough, you could opt in (like Rahab) or opt out (like Aachan). It was based on faith and works, just like the second covenant is.
The point is, the election was of 1. one person, the "container", 2. by faith and works
Nathan:
It is those who have the faith of Abraham who are foreknown and included in the promise. But yes, a categorical decree is not personal.
I consider personal to mean particular to each person meant. The promise to Abraham was made for Abraham's sake. The New Covenant is for the sake of
Jesus Christ. But that is not specific. There is more to it.
ThatDarnCat:
Since there are no specific names in scripture regarding individual salvation (no "Nathan Straub", no "ThatDarnCat"), there has to be a principle mentioned regarding individual salvation.
Hence the "He chose us in Him". And "Two nations are in your womb". And all billion verses on "if", "he who", "willing", that show how to get "in Him".
Nathan:
The names of those to whom God chose to give eternal life have been written in his book from the creation of the world. (Rev. 17:8)
ThatDarnCat:
The book of the Lamb (the Lamb slain from the creation of the world) Revelation 21:27
Note the verses on "blotting" names out. Names are written in it when? Either before the creation of the world or when people are born. Subsequently, we only see names "blotted out".
Hence it's a subtractive process.
"....Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book....."
"....He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life....."
"....You have rebuked the nations, you have destroyed the wicked; you have blotted out their name forever and ever...."
"....Let them be blotted out of the book of the living....."
So, getting your name "blotted" out of the book is volitional and keeping your name in the book is volitional.
Nathan:
This is a prima facie difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The former deals with promises to a nation. The latter deals with promises to individuals, in the church.
ThatDarnCat:
Old Testament, a nation for a purpose, a vessel for the Messiah.
New Testament, a body for a purpose, Christ's body, Christ's bride.
ThatDarnCat:
Abraham and Jesus were the vessels of their respective covenants. The pots. That's what the potter analogy is all about. Pots/vessels are containers for other 'objects'.
Nathan:
Exactly. Vessels of mercy are made to hold and display God's mercy (not his people). Vessels of wrath are made to hold and display God's wrath (not his enemies).
ThatDarnCat:
Wrong, vessels hold objects, not ideas. Vessels of mercy are vessels containing people to whom mercy has been applied.
Nathan:
But I have no idea where you get collective vessels from the actual text. It says "some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use." (Rom. 9:21) So who's the
representative of wrath in the New Testament so we can jump into his pot? Isn't this a stretch?
ThatDarnCat:
Jeremiah 18:6"Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.
Genesis 25:23, quoted in Romans 9
"Two nations are in your womb"
If God applies the potter analogy to a nation, how do you get off applying it to individuals?
Nathan:
The "whoever believes" verses in John 3 and other places are conditional.
ThatDarnCat:
Yeah, "believes" is the condition. LOL
No one can come unless drawn by God:
John 6:44"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."
Yet Jesus is drawing all to Him:
John 12:32"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."
Nathan:
Why did Jesus say "no one can come... unless the Father draws him"?
ThatDarnCat:
and also say "if I am lifted up from earth, will draw all men to Myself"? Looks like we have a universal application of the drawing.
Nathan:
John 6:
63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
64 "But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
ThatDarnCat:
All present knowlege of his disciples who had spent 3 1/2 years with Him. And there's all those sticky volitional phrases.
If we're willing, God places us "in Him" and we become part of the elect. Those who are unwilling, obviously are not placed "in Him".
John 5:39 "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."
See, we can't save ourselves. God enables us when we're willing.
So many gazillions of volitional passages in scripture.
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 6/10/2005 6:10:00 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/10/2005 6:06 PM (GMT -6) | |
Nathan Straub said...
To push back the question of how they knew God to before Jesus came is just to push back the question. It's still there, unanswered by you. What part of
Luke 1:5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.
verse 6 don't you understand?
Zacharias recognized Jesus because he knew God.
The Pharisees didn't.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/11/2005 2:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Had a thunderstorm that took out my phone line, and other folk's modems, so I've been offline and a bit busy on other concerns!
Various folks said...
Lee: Then that is choosing those who would choose him! Like in the Russian ballot box...
ThatDarnCat: God says, those who accept Jesus are predestined for good works. God says, those who accept Jesus are predestined to be His bride. God predestines the group, 'whosoever' accepts Jesus' salvation is placed in the group. Your Russian analogy doesn't apply.
It seems it does, though, if God is choosing whoever will choose him, then the choice is ours, of who specifically belongs, or doesn't belong.
Various folks said...
Lee: But that is choosing Jesus specifically! I meant that if Jesus’ election was corporate, then God chose qualifications for the Messiah, and would take whoever would fit these qualities? I don’t expect that "chosen in him" implies that kind of choice of Jesus, though.
TDC: God chose Abraham for the purpose of raising up a people through whom the Messiah would come. That didn't guarantee salvation for everyone born into Abraham. That's a separate issue.
Yes, but I meant the choice of Jesus, if Jesus' election was corporate, then God didn't really choose Jesus specifically, only qualifications for a Messiah, only I don't think that was the way God chose the Messiah!
TDC said...
Our election is corporate. It's "in Him". If you're "in Him", you're part of the elect. How did you get "in Him"? I bet you prayed a prayer of repentance, didn't you?
I did, and it was his work! Not mine. And if he chose us in him, then we were there "in Him" in some sense already, when he chose us, were we not? Implying that this is foreknowledge of us being in Christ, not simply a condition of entry.
Various folks said...
Lee: Yes, but could all the Israelites have repented? Then more than the remnant would have been saved, and God’s sentence would not have been carried out...
TDC: "I will leave" -- future tense, who will He leave? "all knees that have not bowed to Baal, every mouth that has not kissed [Baal]" -- past tense, preceeds the 'leaving' The seven thousand that chose NOT to bow the knee to Baal, God has preserved them. Just as Noah, being righteous, was preserved by God in the ark. The choice to follow God preceeded God's preservation of these people.
Yes, but isn't it still impossible that more than the remnant could be saved? That free will is at least limited to only being for a remnant? That is my question here...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| 143 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:15 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 |
|
|