8.06.2004
Well, I suppose I have to blog now that it's the weekend, and I have semi-consistent access to the internet. I've been thinking about many a theological thing lately, though no one thing in particular. I'm reading a philosophy of religion lately, and am slowly being educated on many of the contours of various belief systems, some of which I had no idea existed.
I suppose one of the things that I have finally gotten semi-settled on is the issue of in/exclusivity. To claim that Christianity is exclusive is to say that only, only those who are preached the gospel by the mouth of another person. At first glance, this seems rational enough, at least in conjuction with my experience in a primarily freewill believing church. Of course, it has some pretty devastating consequenses with the idea of freewill hand in hand. In my experience, I have seen this consequence addressed in sermons geared to motivate the listeners to evangelise, typically something along these lines: "If we don't go preach to the nations, their blood is on our hands. We are guilty of damning every one of them that die without Christ." This reasoning always seemed a bit absurd. After coming to college, I started to flesh out some of these thoughts and experiences. My thoughts eventually came out something like "Well, can't God do whatever He wants? Am I big enough that I can mess up his plans?"
Some of you can see the dilema of these two mindsets, and it does all come back to the ancient debate of sovereign control vs. human responsibility, but that's not where I want to go with this.
The tough question comes up when a preacher claims something like this is, "Well, what happened to, say, the american indians, until they were discovered by Christianity? Or how about the people that died ten seconds after Jesus spoke the great commission? Were they all destined for hell with no hope whatsoever of salvation?" I would like to think not, although God would not be unjust in allowing that to happen.
Let's start here, with this premise: that God is all powerful, and if he should choose, he could save whoever he wanted, however he wanted. He could speak with a booming voice from the sky accompanied by the stereotypical beam of light. Few have had the blessing of such an unmistakable correspondence, but it has happened. We can easily rule out any impotence of such an experience. I think of how people are called to God throughout the Old Testament. Noah, Moses, and even the NT Paul were all approached by God unmistakably. The OTers had no clue of the name of Jesus, or of the Roman Road. God simply approached them in such a way that they could not but follow him. Sounds vaguely reminiscent of the NT disciples.
Now, let's narrow our group of people down to those throughout history that die without hearing the gospel. The people on undiscovered islands, or next door to the church that never know anything of the name of Jesus. Could God decide to save these people? Yes. God can do what he wants. In light of scripture, what does it seem that God has given these people? My sunday school teacher put it quite succintly, in my opinion: "A knowledge that there is a God, and that you are not Him."
The bajillion dollar question is this: Is this knowledge, and this knowledge alone, enough to save? Can man, in his sinful nature, make the logical conclusion that the only way to commune with this God is for that God to make a way, and to dare communication with that God asking for such a way, begging mercy for his insignificance in light of the amazingness of creation?
In all honesty, I don't know the answer to that one. I think that God could definitely turn his heart to this conclusion, and that is a comfort.
All of this, however, does not diminish the Christians' responsibility to evangelise. The great commission is quite clear, and as important as it is that we should not put God in a box, we should more importantly and more practically be about the work that our Savior has given for us to do, and not sit in our plush saved pews, growing old, waiting out glory singing "swing low, sweet chariot."
Not sure that this ended up the way I wanted, but here it is. I hope my words either reflect truth, or are very non-sticky.
# posted by Sir Omer : 8/06/2004 08:19:00 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Hey Chris:
This was my response to Pete's comments on my post about "Hell". Let me know what YOU think about it when you get a chance. About the post and all the comments too! We talked about the Deity of Christ this Sunday in Sunday School. Last week we talked about the Trinity. We basically summed up everything in one verse and it goes along with what you were saying when you said, "God is God and you are not Him." It's Colossians 2:9 and it says, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority." and basically we were saying, who has the power to give and take life? Who has the power to forgive sins or not? Who has the power to judge and separate the sheep and the goats? All of us looked at each other and said, "None of us do, only God does." So, that's what we've been studying. Comment me back or somethin'! :)
How do I feel about hell? Well, let me tell you something. For all of my life, I believed that heaven was up and hell was down. I believed that there was this being called God who created everything. I even believed that He really had a Son who died on a cross. I believed all that stuff, but it wasn't until August 28th, 1997 that I placed my FAITH in those facts. I do believe that hell is a real place and that those who do not know God and have a PERSONAL relationship with His Son will go there. How does that make me feel? Well, it makes me feel like I need to get my butt in gear and start telling some people! What on earth am I here for??? In other words, that is the only reason why I am still left on earth, to do the will of my Father in heaven, which is the same mission that Jesus had when He was here. To save people! To point the Way! To do the Great Commission! Jesus didn't come just to save me, or you, he came to save EVERYONE, but EVERYONE doesn't know that. So, that makes me pretty selfish if I want to keep all this free stuff to myself. Here's the thing though; just because EVERYONE or you or whoever, doesn't believe it, it doesn't make it any less true. What do you really believe? If someone says they don't believe God created everything, or even that He created them, and that He has a plan for them, even if they don't believe that, it doesn't make it any less true. No matter what you believe, it doesn't change the fact that God made you, heaven is real, hell is real, and everyone on planet Earth is going to end up in one place or the other. It's very black and white for me. You're either saved or you're lost. You either have a relationship with Jesus Christ or you don't. You're either going to heaven, or hell. Where do you really think you're going Pete?
This was my response to Pete's comments on my post about "Hell". Let me know what YOU think about it when you get a chance. About the post and all the comments too! We talked about the Deity of Christ this Sunday in Sunday School. Last week we talked about the Trinity. We basically summed up everything in one verse and it goes along with what you were saying when you said, "God is God and you are not Him." It's Colossians 2:9 and it says, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority." and basically we were saying, who has the power to give and take life? Who has the power to forgive sins or not? Who has the power to judge and separate the sheep and the goats? All of us looked at each other and said, "None of us do, only God does." So, that's what we've been studying. Comment me back or somethin'! :)
How do I feel about hell? Well, let me tell you something. For all of my life, I believed that heaven was up and hell was down. I believed that there was this being called God who created everything. I even believed that He really had a Son who died on a cross. I believed all that stuff, but it wasn't until August 28th, 1997 that I placed my FAITH in those facts. I do believe that hell is a real place and that those who do not know God and have a PERSONAL relationship with His Son will go there. How does that make me feel? Well, it makes me feel like I need to get my butt in gear and start telling some people! What on earth am I here for??? In other words, that is the only reason why I am still left on earth, to do the will of my Father in heaven, which is the same mission that Jesus had when He was here. To save people! To point the Way! To do the Great Commission! Jesus didn't come just to save me, or you, he came to save EVERYONE, but EVERYONE doesn't know that. So, that makes me pretty selfish if I want to keep all this free stuff to myself. Here's the thing though; just because EVERYONE or you or whoever, doesn't believe it, it doesn't make it any less true. What do you really believe? If someone says they don't believe God created everything, or even that He created them, and that He has a plan for them, even if they don't believe that, it doesn't make it any less true. No matter what you believe, it doesn't change the fact that God made you, heaven is real, hell is real, and everyone on planet Earth is going to end up in one place or the other. It's very black and white for me. You're either saved or you're lost. You either have a relationship with Jesus Christ or you don't. You're either going to heaven, or hell. Where do you really think you're going Pete?
I very definitely want to encourage you to seek out God's Truth and solidify what you believe. I guess my caution to you would be to be sure to get all sides of the issue. From my perspective the dwebboard seems predominately calvinistic and you say that your college minister is also. I've also noticed a disdain(perhaps a misinterpretation on my part?) for your past experience in church. I would say that we have strived to attend churches where the Bible is taught as Truth, where the gospel is proclaimed clearly, and where we are challenged to live as Christ. I would say that perhaps until your college years, you were probably not ready for esoterical philosophical doctrinal issues that are still being debated by theologians today. If you were, this was not expressed to me. All I'm trying to say is as you pursue your "self-made theological degree", be sure you examine all sides. On dwebb its seems the more proficient debaters are Calvinists. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are correct in their interpretation. My $.02, for what it's worth. MOM
# posted by 
: 8/09/2004 04:52:00 PM
: 8/09/2004 04:52:00 PM
1 Peter 3:15 was the verse I was thinking of. I couldn't remember the reference before. Yea Bible Gateway! In re-reading, my post sounds harsh (unintended). Rene was telling us about their youth camp pastor that was apparently taking a Calvinistic approach. (Unknown beforehand to the head of the camp) She said early in the camp he would not preach about salvation. When the head of the camp confronted him and asked him to include the gospel, he did so, but on a level that the typical 7th grader could not understand. His unconcern was expressed by his statement that if God wanted him(this typical camper) to be saved, he would be, despite what he (this visiting camp pastor did) She felt it was an issue of submitting to an elder. The visiting pastor being fresh out of seminary and the head of camp being a pastor in his 50's with many years experience at ministering to youths. Not that someone's disrespect or lack of personality is necessarily an indication that their theology is wrong (ad hominem, right?) MOM, again
# posted by : 8/09/2004 05:11:00 PM
: 8/09/2004 05:11:00 PM
MOM,
lots of thoughts here, so if they come out a bit jumbled, I'm sorry. I'll go backwards, and maybe that'll help.
First of all, with the crazy camp pastor. From what he sounds like, he is what Dwebbers would dub a hyper-calvinist. I don't know if you know this or not, but all of the Wolever family are calvinists, and they recently left Emmanuel because the pastor was really starting to lean that way. This doctrine (the hyper version) removes any volitional will from the individual, stating that God is directly responsible for all actions. It makes him out to be the puppetmaster, rather than the subtle orchestrator. The hyper crowd also often come to that conclusion that evangelizing is pointless, as God will save who he will. But in doing so, they are disobedient to scripture, wherein we are explicitly commisioned to spread the Word to all nations.
A (normal) calvinist would not say that we are not to preach the gospel. But in the calvinist's view, salvation is not dependant on him. Only God can save, and only God will save. We cannot convince anyone, the work is the Holy Spirit's. The calvinist would agree with the visiting preacher's sentiment that his actions, in and of themselves, would not save anyones, but would probably disagree with his application. Part of his reluctance to do so was probably from the typical calvinist disdain for the "seeker" mentality. Do not let this term decieve; this disdain is not to say that we are not to seek the lost. The point is that salvation is in God's hands, and that although we are commanded to evangelize, we are also commanded to teach, which is a part of the process that many churches ignore. These churches (camps) seek for the sake of numbers, rather than for the salvation of souls. They water down the truth in order to make it more palatable, and to win as many as possible for the sake of having a larger roster.
How large is FBC's "membership?" How many of these members are "active" in our church? How many are actually true believers? I am not saying that this mentality has been primary in our church (FBC under Keith), quite the contrary. I think that Keith preaches the word faithfully and scripturally, and there hasn't been a sermon of his that I have listened to that I haven't walked away with something. But there have been facets and fads that our church has fell prey to in the name of "evangelism." I don't think that the Jesus video was the best in the world. It was a "blanket" type scheme, and although I'm not saying that God could not work through that, I am saying that it would be better if we could get our members to concentrate on relational evangelism that is in action every hour of every day, rather than a cold contact, mass one time effort technique, we would be much more effective.
My only real disappointment in my past exerience in church has to do with much of the things that I have learned and been challenged with since my senior year of high school. I wish that I would have been educated more on the diversity within Christianity, as well as the tough arguements against Christianity, rather than simply that they were "wrong." So many times throughout my life, I heard that Catholics were not Christians, and that they believed a bunch of crazy stuff. I later learned that they are one of two present day Churches that has existed for the entirety of the history of Christianity. But I didn't know that I wanted to know any of this while I was not learning it, so I didn't miss much until after the fact.
As to the esoterical philosophical doctrinal issues that I am now learning, I am slowly realising that many of them simply do not matter, and that the crux of the matter is that Jesus is the God-man that came and died and was resurrected, and is my redeemer, that he lives, and that others can have life through him, salvation from the sin-soaked lives that makes any righteous we think we have as filthy rags before God.
As to whether God controls all of our actions, or we are truly autonomous creatures, or whether God is in time, outside of time, or something in between, or whether a pygmy on a deserted island can be saved if we don't go to him or not are fun to discuss and debate, but have little to no impact on how I live my life.
I hope that this was clear, and addresses your concerns.
love,
Chris
lots of thoughts here, so if they come out a bit jumbled, I'm sorry. I'll go backwards, and maybe that'll help.
First of all, with the crazy camp pastor. From what he sounds like, he is what Dwebbers would dub a hyper-calvinist. I don't know if you know this or not, but all of the Wolever family are calvinists, and they recently left Emmanuel because the pastor was really starting to lean that way. This doctrine (the hyper version) removes any volitional will from the individual, stating that God is directly responsible for all actions. It makes him out to be the puppetmaster, rather than the subtle orchestrator. The hyper crowd also often come to that conclusion that evangelizing is pointless, as God will save who he will. But in doing so, they are disobedient to scripture, wherein we are explicitly commisioned to spread the Word to all nations.
A (normal) calvinist would not say that we are not to preach the gospel. But in the calvinist's view, salvation is not dependant on him. Only God can save, and only God will save. We cannot convince anyone, the work is the Holy Spirit's. The calvinist would agree with the visiting preacher's sentiment that his actions, in and of themselves, would not save anyones, but would probably disagree with his application. Part of his reluctance to do so was probably from the typical calvinist disdain for the "seeker" mentality. Do not let this term decieve; this disdain is not to say that we are not to seek the lost. The point is that salvation is in God's hands, and that although we are commanded to evangelize, we are also commanded to teach, which is a part of the process that many churches ignore. These churches (camps) seek for the sake of numbers, rather than for the salvation of souls. They water down the truth in order to make it more palatable, and to win as many as possible for the sake of having a larger roster.
How large is FBC's "membership?" How many of these members are "active" in our church? How many are actually true believers? I am not saying that this mentality has been primary in our church (FBC under Keith), quite the contrary. I think that Keith preaches the word faithfully and scripturally, and there hasn't been a sermon of his that I have listened to that I haven't walked away with something. But there have been facets and fads that our church has fell prey to in the name of "evangelism." I don't think that the Jesus video was the best in the world. It was a "blanket" type scheme, and although I'm not saying that God could not work through that, I am saying that it would be better if we could get our members to concentrate on relational evangelism that is in action every hour of every day, rather than a cold contact, mass one time effort technique, we would be much more effective.
My only real disappointment in my past exerience in church has to do with much of the things that I have learned and been challenged with since my senior year of high school. I wish that I would have been educated more on the diversity within Christianity, as well as the tough arguements against Christianity, rather than simply that they were "wrong." So many times throughout my life, I heard that Catholics were not Christians, and that they believed a bunch of crazy stuff. I later learned that they are one of two present day Churches that has existed for the entirety of the history of Christianity. But I didn't know that I wanted to know any of this while I was not learning it, so I didn't miss much until after the fact.
As to the esoterical philosophical doctrinal issues that I am now learning, I am slowly realising that many of them simply do not matter, and that the crux of the matter is that Jesus is the God-man that came and died and was resurrected, and is my redeemer, that he lives, and that others can have life through him, salvation from the sin-soaked lives that makes any righteous we think we have as filthy rags before God.
As to whether God controls all of our actions, or we are truly autonomous creatures, or whether God is in time, outside of time, or something in between, or whether a pygmy on a deserted island can be saved if we don't go to him or not are fun to discuss and debate, but have little to no impact on how I live my life.
I hope that this was clear, and addresses your concerns.
love,
Chris
Thanks for the answer. I've been worried you'd be mad at me. I applaud your efforts to discover more and more of God. It's a limitless quest. My concern was that you not be swayed by eloquent argument alone. It appears that you are on the right track. Rene and I discussed this a little when they were here. Is this increase in Calvinism a recent trend? My thought was that it might be a response to the increase in liberalism in recent years. Like a pendulum going from one extreme to the other. I have fun reading the discussions and the different personalities and styles of argument. Along with the humor. I hope you don't mind my invading your space a bit. I love you! MOM give Val a big hug from all of us!
# posted by : 8/10/2004 08:58:00 PM
: 8/10/2004 08:58:00 PM
Ok, this is totally off the subject, but why do all the older blogs still show up. Isn't that what the archives are for? Just curious...I'm blog challenged, you know.
Mom
Mom
# posted by : 8/12/2004 07:26:00 AM
: 8/12/2004 07:26:00 AM
Wendy,
Yes, the same ones from high school. I still keep up with Angie, and saw her when we were down there for the wedding.
I read your posts on Hell and Eternal Security, and have a lot that I think I want to say, but I'm not sure. It's one of those things where I don't really disagree with any of your conclusions, but am a little unimpressed with the arguementation. I looked around the CARM website, and am a bit torn on what I think of it. It is a great source of information about Christianity, and is great at teaching what they claim is truth (most of what they say is in line with what I believe, but I've found some things that very substantial arguements can be made for another position, and I am not really sure on), but I think that they underestimate what they are up against. In their little quiz, "Are you a Christian" or something, the alternative, wrong answers were all really silly, rather that trying to present real answers that real people would respond with.
Along that line, I would encourage you to continue to talk to Pete. About anything you can. He is someone that will challenge you on every level, and is a cool guy on top of all of it. He is sincere and honest in his efforts to discover the truth, and is willing to question things, and in ways, that many orthodox christians would not.
I hope that this is a satisfactory answer. I know some of it is a bit vague, and I will try to remedy that on some of the issues you brought up that I am slowly beginning to look at. Thanks for your patience in waiting for my reply.
In Christ,
Chris<><
Yes, the same ones from high school. I still keep up with Angie, and saw her when we were down there for the wedding.
I read your posts on Hell and Eternal Security, and have a lot that I think I want to say, but I'm not sure. It's one of those things where I don't really disagree with any of your conclusions, but am a little unimpressed with the arguementation. I looked around the CARM website, and am a bit torn on what I think of it. It is a great source of information about Christianity, and is great at teaching what they claim is truth (most of what they say is in line with what I believe, but I've found some things that very substantial arguements can be made for another position, and I am not really sure on), but I think that they underestimate what they are up against. In their little quiz, "Are you a Christian" or something, the alternative, wrong answers were all really silly, rather that trying to present real answers that real people would respond with.
Along that line, I would encourage you to continue to talk to Pete. About anything you can. He is someone that will challenge you on every level, and is a cool guy on top of all of it. He is sincere and honest in his efforts to discover the truth, and is willing to question things, and in ways, that many orthodox christians would not.
I hope that this is a satisfactory answer. I know some of it is a bit vague, and I will try to remedy that on some of the issues you brought up that I am slowly beginning to look at. Thanks for your patience in waiting for my reply.
In Christ,
Chris<><
MOM,
No, I wasn't mad. I was hoping the same thing about you. I know when starting to get into written communication, it's easy to take things the wrong way. I've learned to try to take things as benignly as possible.
Calvinists have been around since the reformation (or at least Calvin's time), but the breakdown of their basic doctrines (TULIP) is hardly scratching the surface of all the intricacies and passions of the group. Trev tells me that Calvin's Institutes, which is his collaborative work, is nothing like what you hear from calvinists today. It's on my wish list (and is huge), but I hope to read it sometime. There was a dying down, at least in America, with all of the emigration from Europe, but it has always been around.
I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the rise of liberalism, except that liberalism may have caused reformed people to respond louder, and stand firmer in their convictions. I encoureage you to keep studying them, you may learn something. I was delighted when I found that you were lurking in DWebb, for the very reason that I was curious what you (and the rest of our family) would think of all of these theological variances, as they are a bit scarce in Enid.
Having my old posts on the page is simply an option that I can adjust in the settings of my blog. I think I have it set that 50 entries show up. Some people have as few as 5 entries, which I think is far too few. It just makes it easier to look at all of the old ones. What do you think would be a good number?
Love you, and thanks for your input.
No, I wasn't mad. I was hoping the same thing about you. I know when starting to get into written communication, it's easy to take things the wrong way. I've learned to try to take things as benignly as possible.
Calvinists have been around since the reformation (or at least Calvin's time), but the breakdown of their basic doctrines (TULIP) is hardly scratching the surface of all the intricacies and passions of the group. Trev tells me that Calvin's Institutes, which is his collaborative work, is nothing like what you hear from calvinists today. It's on my wish list (and is huge), but I hope to read it sometime. There was a dying down, at least in America, with all of the emigration from Europe, but it has always been around.
I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the rise of liberalism, except that liberalism may have caused reformed people to respond louder, and stand firmer in their convictions. I encoureage you to keep studying them, you may learn something. I was delighted when I found that you were lurking in DWebb, for the very reason that I was curious what you (and the rest of our family) would think of all of these theological variances, as they are a bit scarce in Enid.
Having my old posts on the page is simply an option that I can adjust in the settings of my blog. I think I have it set that 50 entries show up. Some people have as few as 5 entries, which I think is far too few. It just makes it easier to look at all of the old ones. What do you think would be a good number?
Love you, and thanks for your input.
Heavens, no, I'm not mad. I should have used the smiley faces. I understand that Calvinism has been around a long time. It just seems like I hear more about it recently, like it was making a re-appearance. Or maybe I'm really out of it. Well, we'll talk to you later. Love you guys! MOM
# posted by : 8/13/2004 03:54:00 PM
: 8/13/2004 03:54:00 PM
Hey Fam,
I have a lot I could say here but I'll keep it brief since I'm supposed to be working for my dad here in a few minutes.
Calvinism is a scary thing and I don't recommend that people dive into it - especially if you're diving in with the normal baptistic presuppositions about God and how He works. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense (the not diving in part. Why? Because Calvin and the reformers were not Baptists...they were Catholics. Which means that we're going to be hard pressed to try to understand what the reformers taught (Covenant Theology which leads to Calvinism) without getting into the mind of Catholic theologian.
No one wants to do THAT so instead I recommend that those interested in Calvinism look into Covenant Theology since that is the framework in which Calvinism makes sense. Calvinism (the real version) doesn't really work outside of its framework and when Baptists or similar groups (Groups are similar - usually - if they won't baptize infants) start calling themselves "Calvinists" you can bet that they're missing the big picture.
Anyway - I have to go...but if anyone wants to really look into Calvinism they must analyze the whole shabang. Otherwise, it's a scary thing - and to claim that Calvinism is one of the extreme ends of some pendulum swing is not far from the truth.
I'm a Calvinist but I would say I'm of the "Calvin" sort, not the modern baptistic sort.
One might easily get discouraged at such a daunting task as studying "Covenant Theology" or "Calvinism" but it's really not that bad. You just have start asking the right questions. And here are a few to start:
For Covenant Theology:
How was it that Abraham and the OT saints were saved?
What was God's means of bringing salvation to the world?
What does it mean to be "in Christ"?
What is a covenant?
What promises were given in the covenants?
How is it that Gentiles are heirs to these promises?
Israel was God's chosen people in the OT, but what about today? Who are God's chosen people today?
For Calvinism:
What was Adam and Eve's sin?
What did this sin cause?
What is the only means of salvation from this sin?
What is faith?
Where does faith come from?
Seeya - sorry about the length...but I had so much more to say! maybe later...
Post a Comment
I have a lot I could say here but I'll keep it brief since I'm supposed to be working for my dad here in a few minutes.
Calvinism is a scary thing and I don't recommend that people dive into it - especially if you're diving in with the normal baptistic presuppositions about God and how He works. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense (the not diving in part. Why? Because Calvin and the reformers were not Baptists...they were Catholics. Which means that we're going to be hard pressed to try to understand what the reformers taught (Covenant Theology which leads to Calvinism) without getting into the mind of Catholic theologian.
No one wants to do THAT so instead I recommend that those interested in Calvinism look into Covenant Theology since that is the framework in which Calvinism makes sense. Calvinism (the real version) doesn't really work outside of its framework and when Baptists or similar groups (Groups are similar - usually - if they won't baptize infants) start calling themselves "Calvinists" you can bet that they're missing the big picture.
Anyway - I have to go...but if anyone wants to really look into Calvinism they must analyze the whole shabang. Otherwise, it's a scary thing - and to claim that Calvinism is one of the extreme ends of some pendulum swing is not far from the truth.
I'm a Calvinist but I would say I'm of the "Calvin" sort, not the modern baptistic sort.
One might easily get discouraged at such a daunting task as studying "Covenant Theology" or "Calvinism" but it's really not that bad. You just have start asking the right questions. And here are a few to start:
For Covenant Theology:
How was it that Abraham and the OT saints were saved?
What was God's means of bringing salvation to the world?
What does it mean to be "in Christ"?
What is a covenant?
What promises were given in the covenants?
How is it that Gentiles are heirs to these promises?
Israel was God's chosen people in the OT, but what about today? Who are God's chosen people today?
For Calvinism:
What was Adam and Eve's sin?
What did this sin cause?
What is the only means of salvation from this sin?
What is faith?
Where does faith come from?
Seeya - sorry about the length...but I had so much more to say! maybe later...
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
