 |
| 
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 7/22/2001 12:36 PM (GMT -6) |   | Check it out:
“Oh rebellious children, says the Lord,
who carry out a plan, but not mine;
who makes an alliance, but against my will,
adding sin to sin…” Isa. 30:1
Edited by - pia†desideria on 07/22/2001 5:37:29 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/22/2001 12:50 PM (GMT -6) | | pia†desideria notes:
“Oh rebellious children, says the Lord,
who carry out a plan, but not mine;
who makes an alliance, but against my will,
adding sin to sin…” Isa. 30:1
That's as explicit as this one:
"But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves." Luke 7:30
Augustine argued that "the will of the omnipotent is never undefeated." The Church tradition largely followed him. HOW on earth can this be maintained in the light of verses like this?
Well, by splitting God's will in two. His MORAL will is thwarted when we sin, but his SOVEREIGN will is fulfilled when we sin. Among the many problems with this view (e.g. talk about a kingdom divided against itself!!!!), Isa 30 and Lk 7 refer to God's PURPOSES and PLANS -- not his moral character.
Calvinists out there, care to respond?
Doc
Edited by - pia†desideria on 07/22/2001 5:37:29 PM
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/22/2001 4:38 PM (GMT -6) | | er, Greg, you said:
quote:
Augustine argued that "the will of the omnipotent is never undefeated." The Church tradition largely followed him.
I hope you, or rather Augustine meant the opposite.
Sometimes those typos can be doosies (how the heck do you spell "doosy" anyway?)!
BTW: gimme some feedback on the truth deal when you get a chance, if you get some time...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/22/2001 5:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the typo tip Modes. oppps.
It should read, "the will of the omnipotent is always undefeated." (Yes, it would be better to say "never defeated," but that is how is it was translated).
What would we do without friends?
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Glamdring
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 7/22/2001 5:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/24/2001 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is a thought on this, in both passages, the word used for "plan" is usually translated "counsel" (both the Hebrew word "etz" and the Greek word "boule").
So these verses seem to have the aspect of "they rejected my advice, they refused my counsel," not "they thwarted my plan."
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
================================================== | | Back to Top | | |
|
Pseudo-Intellectual
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 58
| Posted 7/26/2001 4:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Here is a thought on this, in both passages, the word used for "plan" is usually translated "counsel" (both the Hebrew word "etz" and the Greek word "boule").
So these verses seem to have the aspect of "they rejected my advice, they refused my counsel," not "they thwarted my plan."
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
==================================================
Is this going to be the final word? Doc, Pia, others, will you conceed this one?
Chalk one up for Calvin!!!
dudechild
"If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?" -Art Hoppe
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/26/2001 8:40 AM (GMT -6) | |
"ertz" can be translated counsel, but (my Hebrew is over 20 years rusty, so correct me if I'm wrong) it is also the common word for "plan." (Indeed, the NIV, NASB, NRSV all translate it "plan").
In any case, even if the verse is interpreted as saying "they follow counsel, but not mine," you have to concede that they are not doing what GOD wants them to do. Don't you?
The same holds true for Lk 7:30. The people REJECTED God's purposes, plans, or counsel for themselves. The majority of translations translate the word "purpose," but it could be translated as "counsel" (as in the KJV). The passage still shows that people can and do reject what God wants.
The only "gain" for Calvinists that I can see in translating the words "counsel" is that it would allow them to say that people can reject God's advice, but (presumably) not his sovereign purposes. Even when they reject his counsel, they fulfill his sovereign will. On this view we have to accept that God sovereignly will people to reject his counsel. "I counsel you to accept John the Baptist, but I predestine you not to."
Can the "counsel" be genuine if God is ensuring that they will not follow it?
If you want to call this "chalking one up for the Calvinist," you can. But it strikes me as light chalk. 
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
nelson
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 7/26/2001 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Here is a thought on this, in both passages, the word used for "plan" is usually translated "counsel" (both the Hebrew word "etz" and the Greek word "boule").
So these verses seem to have the aspect of "they rejected my advice, they refused my counsel," not "they thwarted my plan."
Please note the verse cited in Isaiah:
"Oh rebellious children, says the Lord,
who carry out a plan, but not mine;
who makes an alliance, but against my will,
adding sin to sin…"
The plan was something already acted upon: "carry out;" the alliances were those that were already made. God is not rebuking them for any plans they may only have thought of and not fulfilled. God is rebuking them for having acted contrary to his known will.
Depending on what one means by God's "plan," it can be seen as having been thwarted as the verse above illustrates.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/26/2001 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Some WONDERFULLY wonderfully articulate expressions above. It is interesting to see it develop.
But the onging high-profile dividing line between Calvinist and Arminian produces ruts as well as boundary lines. I like the boundary lines--they keep you from going where you know you don't want to. RUTS are something else. They can keep you from discovering what is worth exploring. (I peak as an artist now.) So, in the history of Christian thought "Predestinate" has a broader range of possibilities than I was raised to expect. And since creativity and expectation can go hand in hand, I'll continue...
As perhaps the only one here who has taught at both a Nazarene and a Dutch Reformed college--in back to back semesters!--I might presume to observe that Calvinists and Arminians SOMETIMES stereotype each other.
As remedy, I want to post a quote that discusses "Predestination" from BEFORE the council of Dortrecht. BEFORE Calvin. BEFORE the Reformation. But AFTER Augustine. We take you now to occupied Syria, beyond the political threat of bureaucratic orthodoxies of politicized theologies, to John of Damascus' "Exact Exposition of the Christian Faith." There is nothing Reformed or Calvinistic in this piece. I can't judge its relation to Augustine on the whole. But it does NOT follow Augustine's presentation of predestination!
IF I READ THIS RIGHT, IT IS *NOT* DETERMINISTIC BUT PICTURES GOD AS INVOLVED WITH US IN A RESPONSIVE WAY, HELPING US COME CLOSER TO HIM, AND, SO TO SPEAK, DOING SO WITH BOTH CARROT AND STICK.
________________________________________________________________________
(During the BGC-flap I'd wanted to post this,
but didn't know how to get it there.)
________________________________________________________________________
Concerning Free Will and Predestination
by St. John of Damascus (8th cent.)
From his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chs. 25-30
Chapter 25. Concerning what is in our own power, that is, concerning Free-will.
The first enquiry involved in the consideration of free-will, that is, of what is in our own power, is whether anything is in our power: for there are many who deny this. The second is, what are the things that are in our power, and over what things do we have authority? The third is, what is the reason for which God Who created us endued us with free-will? So then we shall take up the first question, and firstly we shall prove that of those things which even our opponents grant, some are within our power. And let us proceed thus.
Of all the things that happen, the cause is said to be either God, or necessity, or fate, or nature, or chance, or accident. But God1s function has to do with essence and providence: necessity deals with the movement of things that ever keep to the same course: fate with the necessary accomplishment of the things it brings to pass (for fate itself implies necessity): nature with birth, growth, destruction, plants and animals; chance with what is rare and unexpected. For chance is defined as the meeting and concurrence of two causes, originating in choice but bringing to pass something other than what is natural: for example, if a man finds a treasure while digging a ditch: for the man who hid the treasure did not do so that the other might find it, nor did the finder dig with the purpose of finding the treasure: but the former hid it that he might take it away when he wished, and the other1s aim was to dig the ditch: whereas something happened quite different from what both had in view. Accident again deals with casual occurrences that take place among lifeless or irrational things, apart from nature and art. This then is their doctrine. Under which, then, of these categories are we to bring what happens through the agency of man, if indeed man is not the cause and beginning of action? for it would not be right to ascribe to God actions that are sometimes base and unjust: nor may we ascribe these to necessity, for they are not such as ever continue the same: nor to fate, for fate implies not possibility only but necessity: nor to nature, for nature1s province is animals and plants: nor to chance, for the actions of men are not rare and unexpected: nor to accident, for that is used in reference to the casual occurrences that take place in the world of lifeless and irrational things. We are left then with this fact, that the man who acts and makes is himself the author of his own works, and is a creature endowed with free-will.
Further, if man is the author of no action, the faculty of deliberation is quite superfluous for to what purpose could deliberation be put if man is the master of none of his actions? for all deliberation is for the sake of action. But to prove that the fairest and most precious of man1s endowments is quite superfluous would be the height of absurdity. If then man deliberates, he deliberates with a view to action. For all deliberation is with a view to and on account of action.
Chapter 26. Concerning Events.
Of events, some are in our hands, others are not. Those then are in our hands which we are free to do or not to do at our will, that is all actions that are done voluntarily (for those actions are not called voluntary the doing of which is not in our hands), and in a word, all that are followed by blame or praise and depend on motive and law. Strictly all mental and deliberative acts are in our hands. Now deliberation is concerned with equal possibilities: and an ‘equal possibility1 is an action that is itself within our power and its opposite, and our mind makes choice of the alternatives, and this is the origin of action. The actions, therefore, that are in our hands are these equal possibilities: e.g. to be moved or not to be moved, to hasten or not to hasten, to long for unnecessaries or not to do so, to tell lies or not to tell lies, to give or not to give, to rejoice or not to rejoice as fits the occasion, and all such actions as imply virtue or vice in their performance, for we are free to do or not to do these at our pleasure. Amongst equal possibilities also are included the arts, for we have it in our power to cultivate these or not as we please.
Note, however, that while the choice of what is to be done is ever in our power, the action itself often is prevented by some dispensation of the divine Providence.
Chapter 27. Concerning the reason of our endowment with Free-will.
We hold, therefore, that free-will comes on the scene at the same moment as reason, and that change and alteration are congenital to all that is produced. For all that is produced is also subject to change. For those things must be subject to change whose production has its origin in change. And change consists in being brought into being out of nothing, and in transforming a substratum of matter into something different. Inanimate things, then, and things without reason undergo the aforementioned bodily changes, while the changes of things endowed with reason depend on choice. For reason consists of a speculative and a practical part. The speculative part is the contemplation of the nature of things, and the practical consists in deliberation and defines the true reason for what is to be done. The speculative side is called mind or wisdom, and the practical side is called reason or prudence. Every one, then, who deliberates does so in the belief that the choice of what is to be done lies in his hands, that he may choose what seems best as the result of his deliberation, and having chosen may act upon it. And if this is so, free-will must necessarily be very closely related to reason. For either man is an irrational being, or, if he is rational, he is master of his acts and endowed with free-will. Hence also creatures without reason do not enjoy free-will: for nature leads them rather than they nature, and so they do not oppose the natural appetite, but as soon as their appetite longs after anything they rush headlong after it. But man, being rational, leads nature rather than nature him, and so when he desires aught he has the power to curb his appetite or to indulge it as he pleases. Hence also creatures devoid of reason are the subjects neither of praise nor blame, while man is the subject of both praise and blame.
Note also that the angels, being rational, are endowed with free-will, and, inasmuch as they are created, are liable to change. This in fact is made plain by the devil who, although made good by the Creator, became of his own free-will the inventor of evil, and by the powers who revolted with him, that is the demons, and by the other troops of angels who abode in goodness.
Chapter 28. Concerning what is not in our hands.
Of things that are not in our hands some have their beginning or cause in those that are in our power, that is to say, the recompenses of our actions both in the present and in the age to come, but all the rest are dependent on the divine will. For the origin of all things is from God, but their destruction has been introduced by our wickedness for our punishment or benefit. For God did not create death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things. But death is the work rather of man, that is, its origin is in Adam1s transgression, in like manner as all other punishments. But all other things must be referred to God. For our birth is to be referred to His creative power; and our continuance to His conservative power; and our government and safety to His providential power; and the eternal enjoyment of good things by those who preserve the laws of nature in which we are formed is to be ascribed to His goodness. But since some deny the existence of Providence, let us further devote a few words to the discussion of Providence.
Chapter 29. Concerning Providence.
Providence, then, is the care that God takes over existing things. And again: Providence is the will of God through which all existing things receive their fitting issue. But if Providence is God1s will, according to true reasoning all things that come into being through Providence must necessarily be both most fair and most excellent, and such that they cannot be surpassed. For the same person must of necessity be creator of and provider for what exists: for it is not meet nor fitting that the creator of what exists and the provider should be separate persons. For in that case they would both assuredly be deficient, the one in creating, the other in providing. God therefore is both Creator and Provider, and His creative and preserving and providing power is simply His good-will. For whatsoever the Lord pleased that did He in heaven and in earth, and no one resisted His will. He willed that all things should be and they were. He wills the universe to be framed and it is framed, and all that He wills comes to pass.
That He provides, and that He provides excellently, one can most readily perceive thus. God alone is good and wise by nature. Since then He is good, He provides: for he who does not provide is not good. For even men and creatures without reason provide for their own offspring according to their nature, and he who does not provide is blamed. Again, since He is wise, He takes the best care over what exists.
When, therefore, we give heed to these things we ought to be filled with wonder at all the works of Providence, and praise them all, and accept them all without enquiry, even though they are in the eyes of many unjust, because the Providence of God is beyond our ken and comprehension, while our reasonings and actions and the future are revealed to His eyes alone. And by "all" I mean those that are not in our hands: for those that are in our power are outside the sphere of Providence and within that of our Free-will.
Now the works of Providence are partly according to the good-will(of God) and partly according to permission. Works of good-will include all those that are undeniably good, while works of permission are....... For Providence often permits the just man to encounter misfortune in order that he may reveal to others the virtue that lies concealed within him, as was the case with Job. At other times it allows something strange to be done in order that something great and marvelous might be accomplished through the seemingly-strange act, as when the salvation of men was brought about through the Cross. In another way it allows the pious man to suffer sore trials in order that he may not depart from a right conscience nor lapse into pride on account of the power and grace granted to him, as was the case with Paul.
One man is forsaken for a season with a view to another1s restoration, in order that others when they see his state may be taught a lesson, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man. For it belongs to our nature to be east down when we see persons in distress. Another is deserted by Providence in order that another may be glorified, and not for his own sin or that of his parents, just as the man who was blind from his birth ministered to the glory of the Son of Man. Again another is permitted to suffer in order to stir up emulation in the breasts of others, so that others by magnifying the glory of the sufferer may resolutely welcome suffering in the hope of future glory and the desire for future blessings, as in the case of the martyrs. Another is allowed to fall at times into some act of baseness in order that another worse fault may be thus corrected, as for instance when God allows a man who takes pride in his virtue and righteousness to fall away into fornication in order that he may be brought through this fall into the perception of his own weakness and be humbled and approach and make confession to the Lord.
Moreover, it is to be observed that the choice of what is to be done is in our own hands: but the final issue depends, in the one case when our actions are good, on the cooperation of God, Who in His justice brings help according to His foreknowledge to such as choose the good with a right conscience, and, in the other case when our actions are to evil, on the desertion by God, Who again in His justice stands aloof in accordance with His foreknowledge.
Now there are two forms of desertion: for there is desertion in the matters of guidance and training, and there is complete and hopeless desertion. The former has in view the restoration and safety and glory of the sufferer, or the rousing of feelings of emulation and imitation in others, or the glory of God: but the latter is when man, after God has done all that was possible to save him, remains of his own set purpose blind and uncured, or rather incurable, and then he is handed over to utter destruction, as was Judas. May God be gracious to us, and deliver us from such desertion.
Observe further that the ways of God1s providence are many, and they cannot be explained in words nor conceived by the mind.
And remember that all the assaults of dark and evil fortune contribute to the salvation of those who receive them with thankfulness, and are assuredly ambassadors of help.
Also one must bear in mind that God1s original wish was that all should be saved and come to His Kingdom. For it was not for punishment that He formed us but to share in His goodness, inasmuch as He is a good God. But inasmuch as He is a just God, His will is that sinners should suffer punishment.
The first then is called God1s antecedent will and pleasure, and springs from Himself, while the second is called God1s consequent will and permission, and has its origin in us. And the latter is two-fold; one part dealing with matters of guidance and training, and having in view our salvation, and the other being hopeless and leading to our utter punishment, as we said above. And this is the case with actions that are not left in our hands.
But of actions that are in our hands the good ones depend on His antecedent goodwill and pleasure, while the wicked ones depend neither on His antecedent nor on His consequent will, but are a concession to free-will For that which is the result of compulsion has neither reason nor virtue in it. God makes provision for all creation and makes all creation the instrument of His help and training, yea often even the demons themselves, as for example in the cases of Job and the swine.
Chapter 30. Concerning Prescience and Predestination.
We ought to understand that while God knows all things beforehand, yet He does not predetermine all things. For He knows beforehand those things that are in our power, but He does not predetermine them. For it is not His will that there should be wickedness nor does He choose to compel virtue. So that predetermination is the work of the divine command based on fore-knowledge. But on the other hand God predetermines those things which are not within our power in accordance with His prescience. For already God in His prescience has prejudged all things in accordance with His goodness and justice.
Bear in mind, too, that virtue is a gift from God implanted in our nature, and that He Himself is the source and cause of all good, and without His co-operation and help we cannot will or do any good thing, But we have it in our power either to abide in virtue and follow God, Who calls us into ways of virtue, or to stray from paths of virtue, which is to dwell in wickedness, and to follow the devil who summons but cannot compel us. For wickedness is nothing else than the withdrawal of goodness, just as darkness is nothing else than the withdrawal of light While then we abide in the natural state we abide in virtue, but when we deviate from the natural state, that is from virtue, we come into an unnatural state and dwell in wickedness.
Repentance is the returning from the unnatural into the natural state, from the devil to God, through discipline and effort.
Man then the Creator made male, giving him to share in His own divine grace, and bringing him thus into communion with Himself: and thus it was that he gave in the manner of a prophet the names to living flyings, with authority as though they were given to be his slaves. For having been endowed with reason and mind, and free-will after the image of God, he was filly entrusted with dominion over earthly things by the common Creator and Master of all.
But since God in His prescience knew that man would transgress and become liable to destruction, He made from him a female to be a help to him like himself; a help, indeed, for the conservation of the race after the transgression from age to age by generation. For the earliest formation is called ‘making1 and not ‘generation.1 For ‘making ‘ is the original formation at God1s hands, while ‘generation1 is the succession from each Other made necessary by the sentence of death imposed on us ‘on account of the transgression.
This man He placed in Paradise, a home that was alike spiritual and sensible. For he lived in the body on the earth in the realm of sense, while he dwelt in the spirit among the angels, cultivating divine thoughts, and being supported by them: living in naked simplicity a life free from artificiality, and being led up through His creations to the one and only Creator, in Whose contemplation he found joy and gladness.
When therefore He had furnished his nature with free-will, He imposed a law on him, not to taste of the tree of knowledge. Concerning this tree, we have said as much as is necessary in the chapter about Paradise, at least as much as it was in our power to say. And with this command He gave the promise that, if he should preserve the dignity of the soul by giving the victory to reason, and acknowledging his Creator and observing His command, he should share eternal blessedness and live to all eternity, proving mightier than death: but if forsooth he should subject the soul to the body, and prefer the delights of the body, comparing himself in ignorance of his true dignity to the senseless beasts, and shaking off His Creator1s yoke, and neglecting His divine injunction, he will be liable to death and corruption, and will be compelled to labor throughout a miserable life. For it was no profit to man to obtain incorruption while still untried and unproved, lest he should fall into pride and under the judgment of the devil. For through his incorruption the devil, when he had fallen as the result of his own free choice, was firmly established in wickedness, so that there was no room for repentance and no hope of change: just as, moreover, the angels also, when they had made free choice of virtue became through grace immovably rooted in goodness.
It was necessary, therefore, that man should first be put to the test (for man untried and unproved would be worth nothing), and being made perfect by the trial through the observance of the command should thus receive incorruption as the prize of his virtue. For being intermediate between God and matter he was destined, if he kept the command, to be delivered from his natural relation to existing things and to be made one with God1s estate, and to be immovably established in goodness, but, if he transgressed and inclined the rather to what was material, and tore his mind from the Author of his being, I mean God, his fate was to be corruption, and he was to become subject to passion instead of passionless, and mortal instead of immortal, and dependent on connection and unsettled generation. And in his desire for life he would cling to pleasures as though they were necessary to maintain it, and would fearlessly abhor those who sought to deprive him of these, and transfer his desire from God to matter, and his anger from the real enemy of his salvation to his own brethren. The envy of the devil then was the reason of man1s fall. For that same demon, so full of envy and with such a hatred of good, would not suffer us to enjoy the pleasures of heaven, when he himself was kept below on account of his arrogance, and hence the false one tempts miserable man with the hope of Godhead, and leading him up to as great a height of arrogance as himself, he hurls him down into a pit of destruction just as deep.
Taken from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 9. St. John of Damascus is a very important Orthodox Church Father. His eighth century Exact Exposition is seen as a very accurate summation and synthesis of Orthodox doctrine. It thus is a very authoritative compendium of the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church.
PotOnWheel
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 07/28/2001 10:23:07 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/28/2001 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
In any case, even if the verse is interpreted as saying "they follow counsel, but not mine," you have to concede that they are not doing what GOD wants them to do. Don't you?
Yes, but they still do not thwart God's plan, Jesus did not want Judas to betray him ("he was troubled in spirit"), but this event was foreseen, even part of God's plan.
quote:
The only "gain" for Calvinists that I can see in translating the words "counsel" is that it would allow them to say that people can reject God's advice, but (presumably) not his sovereign purposes.
I agree, that is what I believe.
quote:
On this view we have to accept that God sovereignly wills people to reject his counsel. "I counsel you to accept John the Baptist, but I predestine you not to."
He has done this for everybody, though:
RO 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
I would add, that God's purposes are all purposes of love, we will not ever see to the depths of God's plan, or of his love.
quote:
Can the "counsel" be genuine if God is ensuring that they will not follow it?
Yes, there may be other purposes, even if it is known that the counsel will be rejected (Mt. 13:13-15, John 15:22)
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
================================================== | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 7/29/2001 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Today, our pastor did a message from Exodus 13. Verse 17 states, "When Pharoah let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, that was shorter. For God said, 'If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.'"
It would seem to me disingenious of God to make such a statement if one, he knew they were going to, because, two, he had planned it that way (not to mention the fact that God uses the word "might," not "would," which implies that the future is open).
I reject the Calvinist view of two wills simply because there are too many verses like this that indicate otherwise(and need to be explained otherwise) and because I do not see such a thing taught in scripture.
To me, it has similarities with those who accept the notion of a pre-trib. rapture. They assume that because the church isn't talked about after (I believe chapter four of Revelation) that the church has been raptured, even though there is no biblical evidence, yet they must believe this because they have already accept a premise by which to predicate a belief on. By the same token, Calvinist's must accept the notion of two wills, because they have already accepted the premise that God's will cannot be defeated and (when presented with scripture evidence to the contrary), must split his will into two parts in order to make the belief they have already accepted scriptural. I wonder though if many would accept it if they had heard of it before reading scripture? As for me, the idea of "two" wills simply seems absent from scripture. I don't see it in there. So I must reject it. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/30/2001 1:27 AM (GMT -6) | | A Question about Meaning
Lee agrees that "people can reject God's advice, but (presumably) not his sovereign purposes." He agree that "God sovereignly wills people to reject his counsel," saying, in effect, "I counsel you to accept John the Baptist, but I predestine you not to." But he adds, " God's purposes are all purposes of love, we will not ever see to the depths of God's plan, or of his love."
Lee, does "God's purposes of love" include predestinating to have people to eternally reject his genuine offer of salvation and suffer torment in hell? If so, what does the word "love" mean you say "all God's purposes are love?" To sharpen the question, if God was not perfectly loving, if he were, for example, partly malicious, how would his behavior be different? If this is what perfect love looks like, what would imperfect love -- or partial malice -- look like?
Just wondering
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 7/30/2001 7:20 AM (GMT -6) | | PotWheel: Just a suggestion...from my place, I tend to get intimidated by long posts and I would suggest simply posting the link to such a long article. That way those who would simply like to read the ongoing discussion without having to bypass the article could do so without wasting time. I, for one, am not interested in a lengthy tome on what happened before the reformation and prefer simply having a link...but that is me...John 17:3 Harold
Finally, as far as stereotyping, I would agree with the point made by Dinesh D'Souza in his excellant book, "The End of Racism,". When stereotypes occur it is because there is truth behind the stereotype and while we should always recognize the individual, we should also recognize the truth the stereotype comes from...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/30/2001 9:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Tomes vs.
"Hats off" to writerdad for the sound words on Tomes and .
True. But in THIS case I really, really wanted to post that piece as a reference. As a veteran of reading *everything* in the Piper/Boyd debate and tons of background it seems mightily important to me to have that 3rd alternative posted somewhere within reach of all concerned. The "Exact exposition" served as a standard in half the Christian world for 1100-1200 years, and summarizes the Fathers before it. But here is why it is a "3rd way" (though older) in my estimation... The "classic" view (EDF) comes out of a Substance-based theology that is present in the West. John of Damascus can offer us a narrative that is Hypostasis based. The "divine attributes" in the West became something that was treated as if God was made out of some almost preexistent substance. That, I guess, seems to limit His decisions and responsiveness to us. The Church fathers actually INVENTED the use of Hypostasis that is our Christian understanding of what a "person" is. I read that for Aristotilian/pagan Greek mind the "accidents" of personality and individuality were just stray things (bad) that would be thankfully eliminated in the process of the next reincarnation. I only read that; as I have not formal studies in the subject. But learning all that, and having the 'Exact exposition REALLY. Really, really was helpful to me in weathering the storms that buffeted the denomination of my great-grandparents.....even while I am so far away from it. (I earned that one post!)
Her is a link on the topic above.
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 7/30/2001 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | PotOnWheel: I am glad you did not take it personally. The parts I read do pertain to the discussion and I understand why you posted it. I was simply trying to make a brief comment on length, that many times if a discussion is too long, I may not get the chance to read it that I would like. Keep posting! John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/30/2001 12:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear writerdad:
BTW. I did stay-at-home one year each for my two boys -- 9-18 months for the first, and Kindergarten for the second. Now I'm the primary, as I get off work at 3 and pick up from school.
The part of that long post I like is the last section (Ch.30) because it's got flesh -on-them-bones. Drama. Even where God lets ill befall the one He loves who's piety is in danger of becoming an idol. Wow!
The beginning is academic--written for an Arab setting; winning their respect in its logical development and crafting some of their terms/catagories to tell the Christian story. He is not "creative" in the sense of telling anything original to the tradition. But it found its place in Christian literature as a classic.
To the laundry.
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/30/2001 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
For God said, 'If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.'
The NASB gives a different sense on this, though:
quote:
God said, "Lest the people change their minds when they see war, and they return to Egypt."
Thus the text may say that this decision was based on foreknowledge, instead of on a guess...
quote:
does "God's purposes of love" include predestinating to have people to eternally reject his genuine offer of salvation and suffer torment in hell? If so, what does the word "love" mean you say "all God's purposes are love?"
MT 13:38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil.
Thus there are people who are "sons of the devil," moving always towards more and more evil, devoted to his ways. I hope that all people may repent, but I know that some will not: the Antichrist, the false prophet, for instance (Rev. 20:10).
God did destine Judas to betray Jesus, and Jesus was sorrowful about the betrayal, and also repeated the Scripture prophecy, and told him, "yes, that is you," and said to him "what you are doing, do quickly," and let him kiss him in the garden, and Jesus still called him "friend" (in the sense of "companion").
Now there is love here still, all the way through, but also predestination, God's choice for this to happen, and to happen through Judas. So there is more to the situation than just "God predestined Judas to reject Jesus and suffer torment in hell," God is acting in love towards Judas all through Judas' life ("He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me"), and though the Scripture predicts Judas' betrayal, he is also held responsible.
All that to say this, yes, there is predestination, even for the lost, and yes, there is love, even for the lost, and I'm not sure how to put it all together, I need to think and read more about this. But I believe, for example, that there may possibly be Purgatory (Luke 12:4-5, for instance), and Jesus also has the keys of death and hell, so if there is any way to pull people out, consistent with his love and his holiness, he will (Luke 16:26).
quote:
To sharpen the question, if God was not perfectly loving, if he were, for example, partly malicious, how would his behavior be different? If this is what perfect love looks like, what would imperfect love -- or partial malice -- look like?
He could keep the devil's children and God's children together forever, there are lots of ways the situation could be more painful, I would expect...
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
================================================== | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/30/2001 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee, I am puzzelled by your two notes in your previous post.
1) You quote the NASB of Ex.13:17: ]God said, "Lest the people change their minds when they see war, and they return to Egypt." From this you conclude, " the text may say that this decision was based on foreknowledge, instead of on a guess..."
I'm afraid I don't see you're point. The NASB, and all translations, captures the subjunctive mood of the Hebrew with the "Lest" (or "If" or "may" or "perhaps" in other translations). The interesting thing, here, is that God is thinking of the future in terms of what MAY or MAY NOT happen.
2) You respond to my question about what the meaning of "love" is when you assert that "God's purposes are all love" if these purposes include eternally damning people as follows:
"yes, there is predestination, even for the lost, and yes, there is love, even for the lost, and I'm not sure how to put it all together..."
Doc: I appreciate your honesty, Lee. But I'm still left with the question: what can it possibly mean to say God loves those he predestines to damnation? If a word is meaningful, it must contrast with its antithesis. So, how does God's "love" for those he predestines to damnation contrast with what would be the case if God didn't love them -- if God positively hated them? If his sending them to hell reflects his love, what would reflect his hatred?
Just wondering.
Regarding your wondering about purgatory: I am with C.S.Lewis and others in thinking that maybe Protestantism over-reacted against the Catholic version of this teaching when it through out purgatory altogether. I think the issue should be open for discussion. But even if you embraced something like the idea of a "character purging period" for people destined to heaven, I don't see how it would help resolve this present dilemma. Or maybe I'm missing your point.
Thanks for your contributions Lee.
Blessings always
Doc
"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 7/30/2001 6:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc: a quick thank you for addressing Lee's response to my post on the Exodus verse. I was thinking along the same lines.
A couple quick points: how can God truly love someone he predestines to hell? Most reformed believers that I have dialogued with say he doesn't, that God only loves his elect. Still, I am curious how God loves those he has elected to damnation? An analogy we could understand might go like this: I have five children that have drowned and I decide I am going to save (regenerate) three of them and let the other two drown (not regenerate). Now I could easily say that I love the three, but not the other two.
Finally, I would be interested in someone articulating why I should believe in a spliting of God's will. John 17:3 Harold On a personal note (to PotOnWheel): I am in my 9th year of being a stay at home dad (I can hardly believe it) with three of them 8, 6, and 2. It's a blessing, but it is hard work...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/31/2001 1:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"Lest the people change their minds when they see war, and they return to Egypt." The NASB, and all translations, captures the subjunctive mood of the Hebrew with the "Lest" (or "If" or "may" or "perhaps" in other translations).
I guess I understood this a little differently, "lest" here I took to mean "if they saw war, they would turn back," i.e. the outcome was sure, not just probable: "You should take the side streets, lest you encounter the evening rush hour traffic on the Interstate this evening."
quote:
... even if you embraced something like the idea of a "character purging period" for people destined to heaven, I don't see how it would help resolve this present dilemma.
Sorry, I should have explained more what I meant: If some form of Purgatory is possible, then (potentially) we have only the beast, the false prophet, and the devil (and his angels) for sure in hell throughout eternity. What I guess I meant is that if there is a way for people to be delivered from hell, God will find that way, because he is not glad about it, either ("those who want to go from here to you," if Abraham cares about people in hell, God must, too). And Jesus has the keys, even to hell, and you don't keep keys if you don't intend to ever let people out, it seems to me...
And all those verses in Paul with "all" in them: "the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe" (1 Tim. 4:10), or (the clincher for me):
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
Shall God have created a world in which his main desire for all men is frustrated? That doesn't seem possible, to me. That seems to mean that his will is not done, in a very critical area.
I'm still thinking about this, but those are my (very) current thoughts. I appreciate you all's input...
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
==================================================
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 07/31/2001 6:07:50 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/31/2001 10:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee says: " if there is a way for people to be delivered from hell, God will find that way, because he is not glad about it..."
Doc: Lee, I thought you believed God predestined them to go to hell. How can he possibly not be glad about it, let alone be at a loss of finding a way to get them out of it?
I totally agree with your sentiments: God would indeed do all he could to get people out of hell. In my view, he did by dying for them on the cross. But I can hold this view only because I don't believe God always gets his way. If you DO believe this, I don't see how you can say God would like to "find a way" to get them out.
Me thinks YOU are where I was 20 years ago: a Calvinist in theory, but not in heart -- and only inconsistently so in theory. I wonder if further reflection will lead you in a more "free will" direction. hmmm? (by the way, don't take my suspicion of inconsistency as any sort of insult: from my perspective it is a compliment.)
Later,
Doc
"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/1/2001 4:30 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I totally agree with your sentiments: God would indeed do all he could to get people out of hell. In my view, he did by dying for them on the cross. But I can hold this view only because I don't believe God always gets his way. If you DO believe this, I don't see how you can say God would like to "find a way" to get them out.
I didn't mean that God was perplexed, though, as if he were unsure of the way, I meant that he will take the way that saves the most people.
I appreciate the quote by C.S. Lewis, but it seems that this was not a firm opinion of his:
quote:
Whatever St. Paul may have meant, we must not reject the parable of the sheep and the goats. There, you see there is nothing about Predestination or even about Faith--all depends on works. But how this is to be reconciled with St. Paul's teaching, or with other sayings of our Lord, I frankly confess I don't know. ... You know what Luther said: "Do you doubt if you are chosen? Then say your prayers and you may conclude that you are." (Letters of C.S. Lewis, Aug. 3, 1953)
But as far as Scripture speaks about God's sovereignty, it seems to be clear that God's plans cannot be frustrated:
JOB 42:2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted."
PR 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord.
ISA 14:27 For the Lord Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?
I wonder how these verses can be interpreted to say that God doesn't always get his way, they seem to be saying the opposite, as far as I can tell.
God bless you,
Lee
==================================================
"What we love, we shall grow to resemble" (Bernard of Clairveaux)
==================================================
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 08/01/2001 10:18:58 PM
Edited by - Lee Merrill on 08/01/2001 10:21:29 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/1/2001 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Fair enough Lee. But two points:
1) If God always gets his way, then you have to admit that the damned are there because it was "God's way." You simply can't hold God saves as many as possible if you believe God always gets his way (unless it would constitute a logical contradiction to suppose that the individuals who end up in hell weren't there -- but that would be difficult, I think).
2) Please check out the section on this website entitled "Does God Ordain Evil" in the Spiritual Warfare Section. I there offer short comments on most of the proof texts used to support the view that God always gets his way.
Blessings brother
Doc
"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/1/2001 6:22 PM (GMT -6) | | To Lee and Others on "God Not Always Getting His Way". Here's a portion of something I wrote on freedom in the Bible for a different purpose. It addresses the issue of this thread specifically.
The Purpose of Creation and Freedom
Once we understand that God created the world to express his love, its not too difficult to understand how it could become the war zone it now is. For, as all emotionally healthy people intuitively know, love must be chosen. And choice means that a person can say "no." Unless a person can choose not to love, they cannot genuinely choose to love. The possibility of the one is build into the possibility of the other. Love simply cannot be coerced or programmed into people.
The early church, prior to Augustine, understood this clearly which is why they emphasized that "God is not a God of coercion, but of persuasion." Moreover, they consistently stress the important role that freedom of choice plays in what transpires in the world. The early church understood that if love is God’s goal for creation, the possibility of the opposite of love – evil – must be the price God is willing to pay, for you can’t have the one without the other. The creation doesn’t have to have actual evil, but it must allow for the possibility of evil – if the possibility of genuine love is to exist.
This is why God commanded humans to have dominion over the world (Gen 1:26-28). If we were not free to disobey God, a command would be unnecessary. We would do what God created us to do automatically. Because God wants his will carried out in love, he empowers humans to carry out his command freely. And this, of course, entails that we can refuse to carry out his command if they choose.
For the same reason, God gave Adam and Eve a choice in the Garden, represented by "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen 2:17). Tragically, they choose to disobey God and brought a curse upon themselves and their descendants (Gen 3:1-19). This disobedience was not part of God’s original plan: it rather was the rejection of God’s original plan. And the possibility of this rejection had to exist if God’s original plan was to be possible. His plan was, and yet is, for people to administrate his providence as they receive, replicate and reflect back God’s triune love.
The Bible and Freedom.
The Bible uniformly confirms the point that people are created free. We find God giving people choices throughout the Bible. For example, God tells the Israelites in the Old Testament:
"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways…then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed...I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live..."(Duet 30:12-19).
God gives the Israelites a choice to either choose life, which is loving him, or to choose death, which is rejecting him. God obviously longs for them to choose life, but it is ultimately up to them to decide. They are free.
Another example of the Lord placing choices before people, calling on them to choose to follow him, is found in Ezekial 18.
If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right…he shall surely live, says the Lord GOD….The person who sins shall die….But if the wicked turn away from all their sins…they shall surely live; they shall not die. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord GOD, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?… Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord GOD. Turn, then, and live. (Ezek. 18:5,9, 20, 23, 31-32).
The Lord gives individuals the choice of embracing his ways or not. If they choose to follow him, they live. If not, they die. The Lord emphatically expresses his will in this passage: he doesn’t want anyone to perish. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He want everyone to embrace the life he offers them. But God created people free, for he wants their choice to follow him to come from their own heart, not from a pre-scripted blueprint. And this means that, with regard to any individual, God may not get his way regarding.
The Bible also reveals that people are free by depicting them as the originators of their own actions and as morally responsible for these actions. For example, Jesus’ taught that, "The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks" (Lk 6:45). Similarly, Jesus taught that it was out of the person’s own heart that "evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, [and] slander" arise (Mt 15:19). These are not things that God desires or intentionally plans for his creation. They originate in a persons’ own heart.
The Bible uniformly depicts evil intentions and evil actions in this way. To give just a few illustrations, king Solomon is said to have done "what was evil in the sight of the LORD… because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel" (I Kgs 11:6, 9.) So too, king Rehoboam " did evil, for he did not set his heart to seek the LORD" (2 Chron 12:14). Similarly, Zedekiah "did what was evil in the sight of the LORD" because "he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the LORD, the God of Israel" (2 Chron 36:12-13). And the reason why Jerusalem had degenerated to such a low moral point during the time of Jeremiah, according to the Bible, was because God's people had "a stubborn and rebellious heart" and had "turned aside and gone away" (Jere 5:23). The Lord had been calling on them to "wash your heart clean of wickedness so that you may be saved." And he had asked them, " How long shall your evil schemes lodge within you? (Jere 4:14). But the people obstinately refused. In all these instances we see that evil originates not in God’s plan, but in "the heart" of people resisting God’s plan. As Jeremiah says, the evil is lodged within us.
The Frustration of God.
The Bible also discloses that evil originates in free agents, not in God, by revealing that out of his love God is frequently frustrated by the way people obstinately resist his plans (e.g. Isa. 63:10 Acts 7:51; Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7, cf. Eph. 4:30). Indeed, God’s heart breaks over people’s rebelliousness (e.g. Exod. 34:9; 33:3,5; Deut. 9:6, 13; 10:16; 31:27; Judges 2:19; 2 Kings 17:14; 2 Chron. 30:8; 36:13; Ne 9:16; Isa. 46:12; 48:4; Jer. 7:26; Hos. 4:16). The pain of God’s heart over human rebellion is clearly revealed in Jesus when Jesus’ laments over Jerusalem.
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
Christ, who is our picture of God, earnestly longs for everyone in the city of Jerusalem to come to him and receive the life he has to offer. But, even though he was the Son of God, whether they did so or not was not up to him: it is up to them. In a creation populated with free agents, God doesn’t always get what he wants. Augustine and the church tradition that followed him were simply mistaken when they insisted that "the will of the omnipotent is always undefeated." Because God desires a creation in which love is possible, he allows for a creation in which his will can be defeated.
The Bible is explicit in stating that people can and do thwart God’s will. The lawyers and Sadducees of Jesus’ day"rejected God’s purpose for themselves" (Lk 7:30) by refusing the ministry of John the Baptist. How can anyone maintain that God’s purposes are never thwarted in the light of this passage? Even more explicit is the message of Isaiah to the children of Israel:
Oh, rebellious children, says the LORD,
who carry out a plan, but not mine;
who make an alliance, but against my will,
adding sin to sin. (Is. 30:1)
Because they were free agents, the Israelites had the power to accept or reject God’s will for them. Their rebellion was not part of a divine blueprint. They were not fulfilling God’s sovereign will by rebelling against him. They were rebelling precisely because they were rejecting God’s sovereign will.
No where is this more evident than in the salvation and damnation of people. As we saw above, the Bible teaches that God desires every person to accept his love and be saved (e.g. 1 Tim 2:4, 4:10; 2 Pet 3:9; cf. Ezek 18:23, 32; 33:11). Yet, the Bible also makes it clear that many people refuse this. Even though Jesus died "for the sins of the whole world" (I Jn 2:2), and even though God is always working in people’s hearts to influence them to accept him, some people "love darkness rather than light" (Jn 3:19). Because people must be free if love is to be genuine, they have the capacity to thwart God’s will and bring destruction upon themselves.
When people refuse God’s plan for their lives, it is not because their destruction fits into God’s mysterious blueprint for creation. To the contrary, throughout their lives God tries to save them – which is why he is frustrated with their obstinance. "All day long," the Lord says, "I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people" (Rom 10:21). God truly grieves when the people he loves and tries to influence to come into his eternal kingdom choose to resist him.
Angelic Freedom.
Acknowledging that humans have free will explains much, but not all, of the evil in the world. To fully account for the tragically war-torn nature of this creation we need to understand that God created angels as free agents as well. While the Bible provides us with few details about God’s dealings with angels, we are told that certain angels rebelled against God in the past and continue to resist his will in the present (Mt 25:41; Jn 8:44; Eph 6:12; 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 1:6; Rev 12:7-8). This alone is enough to teach us that angels are free, for it is impossible to conceive of a being lacking freedom choosing to go against the desires of its Creator.
-- The peice goes on, but this enough for here. I'd like to get your feedback.
Blessings
Doc
ps. I've tried to get the bold and red worked out, but I can't find where I've made the mistake. It is still screwy, I apologize, but I'm going to bed either way TECHNOLOGY!
"Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." C.S.Lewis
Edited by - GregBoyd on 08/01/2001 11:26:54 PM
Edited by - GregBoyd on 08/01/2001 11:31:18 PM
Edited by - GregBoyd on 08/01/2001 11:32:19 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:01 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 |
|
|