Understanding God’s election
- Thread starter dougcho
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It applies.
We are totally depraved. Your post is the Gods honest truth............But God DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!
He convicts the world of that sin. Giving all of us an opportunity for His salvation.
All of us are depraved, all of us have the opportunity under His conviction of our sin.....His unveiled CROSS.
It's so simple.
We are totally depraved. Your post is the Gods honest truth............But God DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!
He convicts the world of that sin. Giving all of us an opportunity for His salvation.
All of us are depraved, all of us have the opportunity under His conviction of our sin.....His unveiled CROSS.
It's so simple.
-
1
- Show all
I never said God did nothing about it. Unveiled, huh? The world is under the influence and power
of the devil and the gospel message is not only veiled but seen as complete foolishness. Some do
not hear. Oh, I have seen evidence that quite a few here deny these Scriptural truths. They say
everyone hears. Jesus said otherwise. Your eagerness to condemn what I have not said simply
highlights your ignorance of all I have said about Jesus coming to set the captives free, open
the eyes of the blind, unstop the ears of the deaf, raise people to new life. You need a new hobby.
of the devil and the gospel message is not only veiled but seen as complete foolishness. Some do
not hear. Oh, I have seen evidence that quite a few here deny these Scriptural truths. They say
everyone hears. Jesus said otherwise. Your eagerness to condemn what I have not said simply
highlights your ignorance of all I have said about Jesus coming to set the captives free, open
the eyes of the blind, unstop the ears of the deaf, raise people to new life. You need a new hobby.
[QUOTE="studier, post: 5510705, member: 330481"Yes, God works with men. In this case in response to a gentile king who acted with a clean heart. Aren't you able to see these things? [/QUOTE] (the rest of the windy tome cut to save space and make room for my response)
Evidently, you were not able to see the rhetorical question in Jer 13:23 from which the prophet draws an analogy with sinful Israel. In fact, you totally ignored this inconvenient question because it does clearly imply lack of power on the part of the Israelites. You can't answer the question because the answer would not square with your FWT stance. The question logically calls for a negative response! Neither the Ethiopian can change his skin color nor can the leopard change its spots. Since this is irrefutably the case, the next question that must be asked regarding this negative response is: Why not!? Why can't the Ethiopian and the leopard change what objective existence is? And this is indeed both a theological and philosophical question -- and thank God the bible predates all human philosophy! It's a question that gets to the core of objective being. They cannot change what they are because both are powerless to change their essence (nature). Did the Ethiopian learn to become a black person? Or the leopard learn to paint spots on its fur? Were either of these taught to become what they are objectively? All this learning of theirs is the reason they are powerless to push the undo button to become something different? Then your distraction about Israel learning or being taught evil is a big fat nothingburger deflection. And the prophet applied the dual question by sarcastically applying it to Israel! "Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil."
It's no wonder at all you totally ignored the pointed rhetorical question and analogy in this passage. You very obviously did not want to deal with the conspicuous analogy. Smooth move, Mr. Ex Lax!
In the next post, I'll deal with your cherry-picked translation for Gen 20 which differs significantly from the original Hebrew language upon which numerous English translations are based.
Evidently, you were not able to see the rhetorical question in Jer 13:23 from which the prophet draws an analogy with sinful Israel. In fact, you totally ignored this inconvenient question because it does clearly imply lack of power on the part of the Israelites. You can't answer the question because the answer would not square with your FWT stance. The question logically calls for a negative response! Neither the Ethiopian can change his skin color nor can the leopard change its spots. Since this is irrefutably the case, the next question that must be asked regarding this negative response is: Why not!? Why can't the Ethiopian and the leopard change what objective existence is? And this is indeed both a theological and philosophical question -- and thank God the bible predates all human philosophy! It's a question that gets to the core of objective being. They cannot change what they are because both are powerless to change their essence (nature). Did the Ethiopian learn to become a black person? Or the leopard learn to paint spots on its fur? Were either of these taught to become what they are objectively? All this learning of theirs is the reason they are powerless to push the undo button to become something different? Then your distraction about Israel learning or being taught evil is a big fat nothingburger deflection. And the prophet applied the dual question by sarcastically applying it to Israel! "Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil."
It's no wonder at all you totally ignored the pointed rhetorical question and analogy in this passage. You very obviously did not want to deal with the conspicuous analogy. Smooth move, Mr. Ex Lax!
In the next post, I'll deal with your cherry-picked translation for Gen 20 which differs significantly from the original Hebrew language upon which numerous English translations are based.
In Studier's 13,898 He cherry-picked an LXA translation by which to quote Gen 20:6, ignoring the rest of the passage. He favored this translation over his usual favored NKJV or even the ESV because he thinks it supports his FWT. Studier wrote:
Abimelech's heart was "pure" (clean) precisely because God restrained his evil intentions against Sarah.
Then Studier continued on by asking a really dumb question about an issue I clearly addressed about re Abimelech's "moral choice". Since God's grace (power) is more powerful than both the grave and sin, then why is it so difficult for FWers to understand the king's willingly compliance with God's will for both him and Sarah? Since God's power is greater than Death itself, why can't you FWers understand that His power is also greater than the power of sin? Even the LXA above tells us (albeit in stilted, wooden literalism) that God ultimately restrained the king's evil desires toward Sarah. So...whatever purity or cleanness or goodness of conscience the king had, the ultimate credit goes to God and his power of restraining grace -- not to Abimelech.
And our wanna-be bible scholar completely ignores the fact that Abimelech was not entirely without sin! The very fact that he "sent for Sarah and took her" (v. 1), speaks to the lust in his heart that he had for her.
Secondly, the king himself acknowledged wrongdoing! He gave Abraham 1,000 shekels of silver to cover the offense against Sarah (v. 16).
Thirdly, God had punished Abimelech and his entire household by closing up every female's womb (vv. 17-18).
Fourthly, Abraham prayed for healing for Abimelech's household (v. 17) after the king made restitution.
Therefore, even though the king never physically assaulted or violated Sarah, nonetheless the intentions of his dark heart were anything but pure and clean; and so the king and his household suffered because of those evil intentions. Scripture tell us that love "protects", and this narrative demonstates this truth; for God clearly protected (rescued) Sarah (and in so doing He presevered the integrity of His promise to Abraham in Gen 18) -- even in spite of Abraham's sin of lying to Abimelech in the first place since he didn't trust God.
Abimelech's heart was "pure" (clean) precisely because God restrained his evil intentions against Sarah.
Then Studier continued on by asking a really dumb question about an issue I clearly addressed about re Abimelech's "moral choice". Since God's grace (power) is more powerful than both the grave and sin, then why is it so difficult for FWers to understand the king's willingly compliance with God's will for both him and Sarah? Since God's power is greater than Death itself, why can't you FWers understand that His power is also greater than the power of sin? Even the LXA above tells us (albeit in stilted, wooden literalism) that God ultimately restrained the king's evil desires toward Sarah. So...whatever purity or cleanness or goodness of conscience the king had, the ultimate credit goes to God and his power of restraining grace -- not to Abimelech.
And our wanna-be bible scholar completely ignores the fact that Abimelech was not entirely without sin! The very fact that he "sent for Sarah and took her" (v. 1), speaks to the lust in his heart that he had for her.
Secondly, the king himself acknowledged wrongdoing! He gave Abraham 1,000 shekels of silver to cover the offense against Sarah (v. 16).
Thirdly, God had punished Abimelech and his entire household by closing up every female's womb (vv. 17-18).
Fourthly, Abraham prayed for healing for Abimelech's household (v. 17) after the king made restitution.
Therefore, even though the king never physically assaulted or violated Sarah, nonetheless the intentions of his dark heart were anything but pure and clean; and so the king and his household suffered because of those evil intentions. Scripture tell us that love "protects", and this narrative demonstates this truth; for God clearly protected (rescued) Sarah (and in so doing He presevered the integrity of His promise to Abraham in Gen 18) -- even in spite of Abraham's sin of lying to Abimelech in the first place since he didn't trust God.
1. It is not disputed that sinful man may be described as deceitful, evil, loving darkness, and unable to be saved without God.
2. Paul’s point in Romans 3:10-12 is stated in v. 9 & 20: All are sinners, and no one will be saved via obeying moral law, the purpose of which is to make souls aware of being sinners. The phrase “no one seeks God” must be interpreted/harmonized with the command of Jesus to “seek and you will find” (Matt. 7:7) and the TOP (in Heb. 11:6) that God “rewards those who earnestly seek him”.
Thus, in order to understand the biblical doctrine of election it is necessary to explain how these Scriptures can be harmonized.
Your explanation?
2. Paul’s point in Romans 3:10-12 is stated in v. 9 & 20: All are sinners, and no one will be saved via obeying moral law, the purpose of which is to make souls aware of being sinners. The phrase “no one seeks God” must be interpreted/harmonized with the command of Jesus to “seek and you will find” (Matt. 7:7) and the TOP (in Heb. 11:6) that God “rewards those who earnestly seek him”.
Thus, in order to understand the biblical doctrine of election it is necessary to explain how these Scriptures can be harmonized.
Your explanation?
Once again, from within the ranks of Calvinism, a commentary on its own:
What good for any of us for you to focus so pointedly and repetitively on the "nothingness of man" and ignore where men are volitionally responsive Rufus? We understand sin is universal and that all of humanity including we who are His are all in need of His Grace. You simply need to focus on and overwork depravity to make your erroneous system work.
Well, I showed you in brief in Jer13:25 what had taken place in Israel. And I showed you in the Hebrew and Greek wording what is meant in Jer13:23. But, as usual, you must have your focus and your battles.
I might suggest you find a few decent commentaries and let someone take you through the Text. At least you're seeing that this is about Israel who had become accustomed to (= learned and practiced at) do evil (as Jer describes their evil doings) and thus quite far gone.
This is God's Prophet speaking to His covenant people about their current condition. Look at the plea at the end of Jer13: NKJ Jer13:27 I have seen your adulteries And your lustful neighings, The lewdness of your harlotry, Your abominations on the hills in the fields. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! Will you still not be made clean?" Even here there is the appeal to repentance to the leopard and the Ethiopian so to speak.
So, generally speaking, yes there is practical application here re: the severity of sin and the judgment of God. But there is also the flip side of God who appeals to people making Himself known to them and seeking their willing repentance.
No worries I guess, we get that there are elect compatibilist leopards who God just grabs and changes.
The Reformed or “Calvinists,” as they are all too frequently identified, have been viewed as pairing almost dualistically “the nothingness of man” with “the overmastering power of God,” and, accordingly, as teaching a fundamentally predestinarian or deterministic theology—whether in utter accord with Calvin's thought or in a further, negative development of it. (p. 21)
______________________________________
What good for any of us for you to focus so pointedly and repetitively on the "nothingness of man" and ignore where men are volitionally responsive Rufus? We understand sin is universal and that all of humanity including we who are His are all in need of His Grace. You simply need to focus on and overwork depravity to make your erroneous system work.
Well, I showed you in brief in Jer13:25 what had taken place in Israel. And I showed you in the Hebrew and Greek wording what is meant in Jer13:23. But, as usual, you must have your focus and your battles.
I might suggest you find a few decent commentaries and let someone take you through the Text. At least you're seeing that this is about Israel who had become accustomed to (= learned and practiced at) do evil (as Jer describes their evil doings) and thus quite far gone.
This is God's Prophet speaking to His covenant people about their current condition. Look at the plea at the end of Jer13: NKJ Jer13:27 I have seen your adulteries And your lustful neighings, The lewdness of your harlotry, Your abominations on the hills in the fields. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! Will you still not be made clean?" Even here there is the appeal to repentance to the leopard and the Ethiopian so to speak.
So, generally speaking, yes there is practical application here re: the severity of sin and the judgment of God. But there is also the flip side of God who appeals to people making Himself known to them and seeking their willing repentance.
No worries I guess, we get that there are elect compatibilist leopards who God just grabs and changes.
This has been explained more times than Carter has little liver pills on this thread alone. The commands in the bible denote man's moral/spiritual duty towards God. The only way any sinner can seek God is by him effectually drawing sinners to his Son. Sinners do not naturally seek God because there is no fear of God before their eyes (Rom 3:18). And the only way to access this godly disposition of heart is by God's effectual grace, since it is a divine gift (Jer 32:40) bestowed under the New Covenant. The fear of the Lord is not something that sinners can conjure up within themselves.
Well, what studier actually did was used a translation of the LXX to show how the Greek translators read the Hebrew original to draw out the meaning of "learning" in the original Text, which studier substantiated with lexical references for both the Hebrew and the Greek. And in those lexical details an objective reader can see how the translation "accustomed" is derived from "learning".
How this is supposed to be a substantiation of FWT is anybody's guess.
How and when did God restrain him?
How this is supposed to be a substantiation of FWT is anybody's guess.
How and when did God restrain him?
You still haven't answered the questions the prophet asked in Jer 13:23a nor addressed the analogy he made between the entities in v. 23a and Israel in part b. What do Ethiopians and leopards have to do with Israel? Can you connect the prophet's dots?
But now that you have appealed to Ethiopians' and leopards' ability to repent, I take it that you would have to answer "yes" to the question in v. 23a? Leopards can change their spots after all, and Ethiopians by a mere act of their "freewill" can change their skin color, right?
After all, you do seem to despise in your heart the sovereign grace of God and his love and compassion and mercy toward helpless sinners which moves him to recuse them from their imprisonment/slavery/bondage to sin, the world and the devil. In the black darkness of your universe, God is a monster if He actively plays the part of the Good Samaritan, right? God is far more righteous than the Good Samaritan if he just provides opportunity for all to be saved instead of actually saving anyone!
Only FWers could come with such a twisted, perverse, satanic view of God and his grace. You FWers clearly have this in common with Satan: Both of you hate God's sovereign grace and will resort to anything to discredit His grace and character, while pretending to be God who can actually change the nature of his created beings.
But now that you have appealed to Ethiopians' and leopards' ability to repent, I take it that you would have to answer "yes" to the question in v. 23a? Leopards can change their spots after all, and Ethiopians by a mere act of their "freewill" can change their skin color, right?
After all, you do seem to despise in your heart the sovereign grace of God and his love and compassion and mercy toward helpless sinners which moves him to recuse them from their imprisonment/slavery/bondage to sin, the world and the devil. In the black darkness of your universe, God is a monster if He actively plays the part of the Good Samaritan, right? God is far more righteous than the Good Samaritan if he just provides opportunity for all to be saved instead of actually saving anyone!
Only FWers could come with such a twisted, perverse, satanic view of God and his grace. You FWers clearly have this in common with Satan: Both of you hate God's sovereign grace and will resort to anything to discredit His grace and character, while pretending to be God who can actually change the nature of his created beings.
Read the passage in your favored NKJV or ESV translations.
And if I could answer the "how" then I would contradict Prov 20:24.
And by the way, sinners DO NOT have to learn how to sin! Rather, scripture teaches that sinners need to be taught to NOT sin! They need to be taught to do good and live righteously. As usual, you get everything backwards! Give me one text in scripture that teaches that all men are sinners because they were taught to be unrighteous and wicked. But now you want to detract from the fundamental role of man's nature and make nurturing alone the scapegoat for man's sinfulness.
And if I could answer the "how" then I would contradict Prov 20:24.
And by the way, sinners DO NOT have to learn how to sin! Rather, scripture teaches that sinners need to be taught to NOT sin! They need to be taught to do good and live righteously. As usual, you get everything backwards! Give me one text in scripture that teaches that all men are sinners because they were taught to be unrighteous and wicked. But now you want to detract from the fundamental role of man's nature and make nurturing alone the scapegoat for man's sinfulness.
Once again, from within the ranks of Calvinism, a commentary on its own:
The Reformed or “Calvinists,” as they are all too frequently identified, have been viewed as pairing almost dualistically “the nothingness of man” with “the overmastering power of God,” and, accordingly, as teaching a fundamentally predestinarian or deterministic theology—whether in utter accord with Calvin's thought or in a further, negative development of it. (p. 21)
What good for any of us for you to focus so pointedly and repetitively on the "nothingness of man" and ignore where men are volitionally responsive Rufus? We understand sin is universal and that all of humanity including we who are His are all in need of His Grace. You simply need to focus on and overwork depravity to make your erroneous system work.
Actually, I have answered this. Your mistake and inability to see my answer is based in the same thing that causes your lack of understanding and your misuse of the verses.
Again, this is an analogy of what happened to unfaithful Israel after it had learned and become accustomed to evil and that evil was specified by one of God's Prophets who were customarily sent by God to in essence issue a covenant lawsuit against His covenant people.
In the context of the degenerative [learning and training] process that has taken place they are deep into unfaithful degeneracy (evil) thus the rhetorical question indicating there is a point of no return, which in itself is a warning or just a statement of where things are. And then the plea for their return is still given among all the warnings of the judgment that is being threatened.
It seems to me God sent His Prophet to appeal to the will of His people in a warning, threatening, educating manner, which seems to me to be part of His main process with His volitional creation. We might even think of applying this to the Gen20 discussion.
The Reformed or “Calvinists,” as they are all too frequently identified, have been viewed as pairing almost dualistically “the nothingness of man” with “the overmastering power of God,” and, accordingly, as teaching a fundamentally predestinarian or deterministic theology—whether in utter accord with Calvin's thought or in a further, negative development of it. (p. 21)
______________________________________
What good for any of us for you to focus so pointedly and repetitively on the "nothingness of man" and ignore where men are volitionally responsive Rufus? We understand sin is universal and that all of humanity including we who are His are all in need of His Grace. You simply need to focus on and overwork depravity to make your erroneous system work.
Actually, I have answered this. Your mistake and inability to see my answer is based in the same thing that causes your lack of understanding and your misuse of the verses.
Again, this is an analogy of what happened to unfaithful Israel after it had learned and become accustomed to evil and that evil was specified by one of God's Prophets who were customarily sent by God to in essence issue a covenant lawsuit against His covenant people.
In the context of the degenerative [learning and training] process that has taken place they are deep into unfaithful degeneracy (evil) thus the rhetorical question indicating there is a point of no return, which in itself is a warning or just a statement of where things are. And then the plea for their return is still given among all the warnings of the judgment that is being threatened.
It seems to me God sent His Prophet to appeal to the will of His people in a warning, threatening, educating manner, which seems to me to be part of His main process with His volitional creation. We might even think of applying this to the Gen20 discussion.
Once again, from within the ranks of Calvinism, a commentary on its own:
The Reformed or “Calvinists,” as they are all too frequently identified, have been viewed as pairing almost dualistically “the nothingness of man” with “the overmastering power of God,” and, accordingly, as teaching a fundamentally predestinarian or deterministic theology—whether in utter accord with Calvin's thought or in a further, negative development of it. (p. 21)
That's quite the statement for you who never seems to shy away from taking some reformed-based position on most things.
The timing in this part of Scripture is not clear, but in light of Gen20:18 it looks like God had acted swiftly and fairly intensely in the matter and the dream Abimelech had was not the whole story.
It reads to me like Abimelech acted first in taking Sarah after hearing she was not Abraham's wife. So, in this sense he has the clean heart spoken of.
After this, God restrained him and did not allow him to touch Sarah. How we're not told but Gen20:18 is interesting. Some of the old rabbinic commentary says God closed up everyone's sexual abilities and even all of their orifices so it wasn't just sex they lost the abilities of. Seems pretty creative based upon on what's said at the end of the chapter, but it shows that some interpretations were considering things apart from human will in the issue.
So, even to say the Lord acted "compatibly" with his will is seemingly unwarranted. God could have simply created circumstances to keep him away from her.
Then God came to him in the dream and said he's a dead man. Do you want to tell us this is compatibilism?
Honestly, do you have to work hard to make a mess of things, or is it just natural for you? Branch out from your tradition and consider some other perspectives.
This verse specifically and clearly says these people had learned and become accustomed to evil. Place yourself in the Mosaic culture and over time learning from pagan culture and forgetting God. This is what's being discussed here.
The Text is discussing how God's covenant people who had almost a thousand-year history with God under Law by Jeremiah's time and had become entrenched with pagan cultures and forgot God and trusted in lies and evil. This is a covenant people who had known God and His Law re: sin and righteousness for generations and then learned from pagans and became accustomed to pagan evil. So, God is appealing to them to return and telling them what will happen to them for their unfaithfulness.
So, if anything, this is God's elect nation who have been generationally taught good and righteousness and have unlearned it, forgotten God, and learned pagan evil. It's simply repetitive history of the Hebrews and proceeding towards God sending Messiah.
You know what Paul teaches about the Mosaic era and Law. And you thus know this is not about sinners being taught to do good. This is about righteousness by faith and ultimately about men under Law needing Messiah.
The Reformed or “Calvinists,” as they are all too frequently identified, have been viewed as pairing almost dualistically “the nothingness of man” with “the overmastering power of God,” and, accordingly, as teaching a fundamentally predestinarian or deterministic theology—whether in utter accord with Calvin's thought or in a further, negative development of it. (p. 21)
______________________________________
I read it in the Hebrew and the Greek and in several translations and I fully comprehend how learning and being trained and living under such can become being accustomed to something. It's a pretty simple word and concept flow unless we're just wired to argue. You should know that normally when I bring up something like this, I've already looked at the language.
That's quite the statement for you who never seems to shy away from taking some reformed-based position on most things.
The timing in this part of Scripture is not clear, but in light of Gen20:18 it looks like God had acted swiftly and fairly intensely in the matter and the dream Abimelech had was not the whole story.
It reads to me like Abimelech acted first in taking Sarah after hearing she was not Abraham's wife. So, in this sense he has the clean heart spoken of.
After this, God restrained him and did not allow him to touch Sarah. How we're not told but Gen20:18 is interesting. Some of the old rabbinic commentary says God closed up everyone's sexual abilities and even all of their orifices so it wasn't just sex they lost the abilities of. Seems pretty creative based upon on what's said at the end of the chapter, but it shows that some interpretations were considering things apart from human will in the issue.
So, even to say the Lord acted "compatibly" with his will is seemingly unwarranted. God could have simply created circumstances to keep him away from her.
Then God came to him in the dream and said he's a dead man. Do you want to tell us this is compatibilism?
Honestly, do you have to work hard to make a mess of things, or is it just natural for you? Branch out from your tradition and consider some other perspectives.
This verse specifically and clearly says these people had learned and become accustomed to evil. Place yourself in the Mosaic culture and over time learning from pagan culture and forgetting God. This is what's being discussed here.
The Text is discussing how God's covenant people who had almost a thousand-year history with God under Law by Jeremiah's time and had become entrenched with pagan cultures and forgot God and trusted in lies and evil. This is a covenant people who had known God and His Law re: sin and righteousness for generations and then learned from pagans and became accustomed to pagan evil. So, God is appealing to them to return and telling them what will happen to them for their unfaithfulness.
So, if anything, this is God's elect nation who have been generationally taught good and righteousness and have unlearned it, forgotten God, and learned pagan evil. It's simply repetitive history of the Hebrews and proceeding towards God sending Messiah.
You know what Paul teaches about the Mosaic era and Law. And you thus know this is not about sinners being taught to do good. This is about righteousness by faith and ultimately about men under Law needing Messiah.
Your explanation is liver, because it ignores rather than harmonizes Scripture.
If God effectually drew sinners, Jesus wasted his breath commanding them to "seek" (Matt. 7:7),
and no "reward" would be warranted (Heb. 11:6).
In fact, there would be no need for Scripture, because God could simply have drawn A&E to Himself from the start
and saved a whole lot of ink and anguish.
So try again.
If God effectually drew sinners, Jesus wasted his breath commanding them to "seek" (Matt. 7:7),
and no "reward" would be warranted (Heb. 11:6).
In fact, there would be no need for Scripture, because God could simply have drawn A&E to Himself from the start
and saved a whole lot of ink and anguish.
So try again.
-
1
- Show all
Who has more power? Satan or the Lord Jesus Christ?
You and I saw the Gospel as foolishness when we are perishing.
The word never says," Those who are perishing will never hear and believe the Gospel."
Get on board Sis.
The Gospel is for ALL. We are not special. ANYONE can believe and be saved.
You and I saw the Gospel as foolishness when we are perishing.
The word never says," Those who are perishing will never hear and believe the Gospel."
Get on board Sis.
The Gospel is for ALL. We are not special. ANYONE can believe and be saved.
-
1
- Show all