Limited vs unlimited atonement?

[jimmyjimmy]

I thought I heard you ask if I was avoiding proclaiming it and not "are we to avoid claiming it".

My mistake.

Got it.

 

[GillDouglas]

But our job is not to present election and special calling to the world. It is to proclaim that God was reconciling the world to Himself through Christ not counting their sins against them and to implore the world to be reconciled to God through faith.

It's best to avoid any topic regarding the doctrine of grace with an unbeliever, any indication that God would do something on their behalf would be very offensive. Best to save that for once they're reborn of the Spirit.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Of course we don't proclaim the gospel saying, "if you are elect, then come to the table". We understand that only the elect will come, but we proclaim the good news first and teach them doctrine later, right?

Right.

You are arguing against HYPER Calvinism, not Calvinism, and I would join you in correcting hypers all day long;

No - I am saying that God did not intend that we have to be o so careful to not tell anyone that Christ died for the sins of the entire world lest we present the gospel incorrectly.

As I see it we should be able to tell the world what the scripture proclaim --- that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself through Christ not counting their sins against them.

We have been given the ministry of reconciliation and we should not have to waffle around a doctrine like limited atonement as we do it.

....we are discussing the L in Limited Atonement at the moment.

Just as I said before.

The doctrine of limited atonement stands or falls on it's scriptural support first and necessary logic based on solid scripture second.

And, since you emphasis that it is that doctrines truth that we are to be discussing, we should stick to that topic.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I am saying that God did not intend that we have to be o so careful to not tell anyone that Christ died for the sins of the entire world lest we present the gospel incorrectly.

I believe in a "well meant offer" as many/most Calvinists do. I'm not hiding or lying when I proclaim the gospel to all men. It's like the parable of the sower. The seed will grow in the right soil. I just toss it out there.

We have been given the ministry of reconciliation and we should not have to waffle around a doctrine like limited atonement as we do it.

I don't waffle. What I meant was that, just as with teaching children, lessons must build upon precious lessons. Infralapsarianism isn't the first lesson.

 

[Marvin Knox]

It's best to avoid any topic regarding the doctrine of grace with an unbeliever, any indication that God would do something on their behalf would be very offensive. Best to save that for once they're reborn of the Spirit.

Agreed.

We should all be able to present the gospel in a way which the Lord can honor without our believing and teaching that the gospel must be full on 5-point Calvinism or it isn't the gospel at all.

Case in point:

I will say what Spurgeon said, Calvinism is the gospel. Pelagianism and Arminianism is man centered and perverts the gospel of grace.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I believe in a "well meant offer" as many/most Calvinists do. I'm not hiding or lying when I proclaim the gospel to all men. It's like the parable of the sower. The seed will grow in the right soil. I just toss it out there.

Agreed.

Me too.

I don't waffle.

I didn't say or mean that you did.

What I meant was that, just as with teaching children, lessons must build upon precious lessons. Infralapsarianism isn't the first lesson.

Gotta take a long break now.

 

[FreeGrace2]

We can "promiscuously" proclaim the gospel to all, and we must! That's our duty, and anyone who comes will never be turned away.

Here's the issue: all people are sinners and all people deserve hell. No one either earns or deserves heaven. I think we can all agree on this.

However, the doctrine of limited atonement and the reformed idea of election means that Christ didn't die for everyone because God didn't choose them for salvation.

So, the (should be) obvious result is that limited atonement provides an excuse for those who end up in hell.

Here's how it would go: I'm a sinner and in hell, yet there are sinners who are in heaven. All because God chose them for heaven and Christ died only for them.

So I'm in hell because God did not choose me for heaven.

Being a sinner is immaterial in the world of limited atonement. The only issue is about who Christ died for.

Now for some reality: Christ died for everyone, which purchased the gift of eternal life for everyone. But Jesus gives this gift only to those who have believed in Him for it.

Rev 20:15 is quite clear about why people will be cast into the lake of fire; for not having eternal life, which is a free gift, available to everyone.

So, there will be no excuses in hell. Those who are there will understand they ignored or rejected the free gift that would have saved them from hell.

God provided, but they refused the gift.

In the world of limited atonement, God never provided for those in hell. Which gives them an excuse for being there.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"Kinda like pulling the puppet strings, huh? No, even kings in ancient times who were understood as being sovereign let their people make a lot of choices.

Just because IS sovereign doesn't mean He makes all the choices. But that is what I keep hearing from the reformed. Not that they say it in those words."

There is no comparison between God (the Creator of ALL things) and human kings.

That's one way to ignore the parallels.

I said this:
"Do you know for what purpose God elects? iow, He chooses for what?"

Depends on the individual. Why did God choose Issac; who was indeed a liar, and a deceiver?

No, it doesn't depend on the individual. Every election mentioned in Scripture was for a specific purpose. Consider these 6 categories of election:

Categories of Divine Election

1. Election of Christ: an individual election
1 Pet 2:6 Isa 28:16 Isa 42:1 Luke 9:35 Luke 23:35
2. Election of Angels: a group or corporate election
1 Tim 5:21
3. Election of Israel: a group or corporate election
Amos 3:2 Deut 7:6 Acts 13:17
4. Election of believers: a group or corporate election
Eph 1:4a [note: this verse doesn’t say that God chose who would be believers, but that He chose believers…to be holy and blameless]
1 Peter 2:9
5. The Election of the 12 Disciples: a group or corporate election John 6:70
6. The Election of Paul: an individual election Acts 9:15

How many of these categories of election were chosen (elected) for salvation? None. But all were chosen (elected) for service. That included even Judas, who never believed in Christ.

Election is about service, not salvation.

The only verse in the Bible that speaks of being chosen for salvation is 2 Thess 2:13, but the word for "chosen" isn't at all related to any of the 3 Greek words that are routinely translated as "elect" as a verb or adjective, or "election" as a noun.

 

[GillDouglas]

Here's the issue: all people are sinners and all people deserve hell. No one either earns or deserves heaven. I think we can all agree on this.

However, the doctrine of limited atonement and the reformed idea of election means that Christ didn't die for everyone because God didn't choose them for salvation.

So, the (should be) obvious result is that limited atonement provides an excuse for those who end up in hell.

Here's how it would go: I'm a sinner and in hell, yet there are sinners who are in heaven. All because God chose them for heaven and Christ died only for them.

So I'm in hell because God did not choose me for heaven.

Being a sinner is immaterial in the world of limited atonement. The only issue is about who Christ died for.

Now for some reality: Christ died for everyone, which purchased the gift of eternal life for everyone. But Jesus gives this gift only to those who have believed in Him for it.

Rev 20:15 is quite clear about why people will be cast into the lake of fire; for not having eternal life, which is a free gift, available to everyone.

So, there will be no excuses in hell. Those who are there will understand they ignored or rejected the free gift that would have saved them from hell.

God provided, but they refused the gift.

In the world of limited atonement, God never provided for those in hell. Which gives them an excuse for being there.

How do you deal with Paul's teaching on the elect?

"He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, the He also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30)

Here are my thoughts on it. What does 'called' mean? It appear that there are two types, external and internal. An example of an external call is the preaching of the gospel. When the gospel is preached people are called externally or summoned to know and love Christ. Yet not all respond positively, not all who hears externally becomes a believer, because sometimes it falls on deaf ears. We can conclude that not all that are called outwardly are justified.

Then there is the internal call to consider. No human being has to power to work inwardly on another, but we know that God can. God can call someone inwardly, thus affecting the deepest depths of a persons soul, and even radically change the human heart. The inward call of God is so great on the soul, that all who are called inwardly respond positively. We can conclude that all that are called inwardly are justified. Those that are called externally must also be called internally, in order that they would be reborn of the Spirit.

Since there are some that are justified (believers) and some that are not (unbelievers), it is clear that God internally calls some and some are not. As Paul says; God knows from eternity whom He will inwardly call, and those whom He calls are justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"Here's the issue: all people are sinners and all people deserve hell. No one either earns or deserves heaven. I think we can all agree on this.

However, the doctrine of limited atonement and the reformed idea of election means that Christ didn't die for everyone because God didn't choose them for salvation.

So, the (should be) obvious result is that limited atonement provides an excuse for those who end up in hell."

How do you deal with Paul's teaching on the elect?

I couldn't help but notice how much my point was totally ignored. But that's generally what I find when I make that point with Calvinists. They have nothing to say about it.

However, to your question, I understand what he said about it. In fact, Jesus made my point by what He said about Paul's election to Ananias:
Rom 9:
15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.
16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

So Paul was chosen "to proclaim My name to Gentiles and people of Israel". That's service, not salvation. In plain language.

Then we see what Paul told Timothy about his election:
1 Tim 2:7 - And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

"He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, the He also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30)

I didn't see election in this verse. How does it relate?

I do see predestined, called, justified and glorified. But not elected.

Here are my thoughts on it. What does 'called' mean? It appear that there are two types, external and internal.

Where does this "appear"? In the Bible or in the minds of some?

We know what the word means by looking it up in a lexicon.

Since there are some that are justified (believers) and some that are not (unbelievers), it is clear that God internally calls some and some are not.

To my point then, those not "internally called" have the excuse that they weren't called. Same problem with limited atonement and refored election. It creates an excuse for those who end up in hell.

 

[MDC]

Agreed.

We should all be able to present the gospel in a way which the Lord can honor without our believing and teaching that the gospel must be full on 5-point Calvinism or it isn't the gospel at all.

Case in point:

You mean like how the Arminians present it correct Marvin? Jesus loves you and died for you.. God is wooing you to make a decision for Christ but won't violate your free will.. Kinda like that rt? No what I think is that compromise is what you are espousing. Arminians present a perversion of the gospel all the time in a similar way as I just mentioned, but yet I don't see you reproving them or using examples as ways that don't honor the Lord. Or how freegrace is denying Gods elective love in the salvation of His people? To deny election unto salvation as scripture teaches, is to deny the gospel of grace! Do you agree? So what's wrong with preaching on mans depravity and inability? On Gods elective love and mercy in Christ? Of the substitutionary atoning work and righteousness of Christ that secures salvation for them that believe? You seem ashamed is what I see. And I very seriously doubt you believe in what is today called "Calvinism"... which is the gospel and nothing else. You would rather offend God and His people than stand against the perversion of pelagianism and Arminianism

 

[jimmyjimmy]

You mean like how the Arminians present it correct Marvin? Jesus loves you and died for you.. God is wooing you to make a decision for Christ but won't violate your free will.. Kinda like that rt? No what I think is that compromise is what you are espousing. Arminians present a perversion of the gospel all the time in a similar way as I just mentioned, but yet I don't see you reproving them or using examples as ways that don't honor the Lord. Or how freegrace is denying Gods elective love in the salvation of His people? To deny election unto salvation as scripture teaches, is to deny the gospel of grace! Do you agree? So what's wrong with preaching on mans depravity and inability? On Gods elective love and mercy in Christ? Of the substitutionary atoning work and righteousness of Christ that secures salvation for them that believe? You seem ashamed is what I see. And I very seriously doubt you believe in what is today called "Calvinism"... which is the gospel and nothing else. You would rather offend God and His people than stand against the perversion of pelagianism and Arminianism

Well said. Great points.

 

[Marvin Knox]

To my point then, those not "internally called" have the excuse that they weren't called. Same problem with limited atonement and refored election. It creates an excuse for those who end up in hell.

Would you also say that those who were not fortunate enough to have someone pray to God for their salvation (and have God answer that prayer by sending an evangelist and then moving on their heart by His Holy Spirit) have an excuse for not believeing on the Lord for salvation?

Would you say that those who were not fortunate enough to have Jesus visit them in the way that He did Saul of Tarsus also have an excuse before God when they find that they will be justly punished for their many sins?

We are all, as sinners, worthy of eternal punishment for our sins are we not? It was our personal choice, whether "elect" or otherwise, to commit those sins was it not?

How is it an excuse for our sins if God has mercy on those whom He choses to have mercy on and passes others by?

People could could gripe and moan all they want (I'd do the same thing). But we wouldn''t be forwarding a legitimate excuse IMO.

 

[Marvin Knox]

You mean like how the Arminians present it correct Marvin? Jesus loves you and died for you.. God is wooing you to make a decision for Christ but won't violate your free will.. Kinda like that rt?

Wrong - and you didn't hear me say anywhere that all those things are correct doctrine. Nor do I believe that they are - as I have clearly said numerous times.

You have never heard me say those things in a presentation of the gospel to the world and I never have.

No what I think is that compromise is what you are espousing. Arminians present a perversion of the gospel all the time in a similar way as I just mentioned,

I have not compromised the gospel in any way.

I don't see you reproving them or using examples as ways that don't honor the Lord. Or how freegrace is denying Gods elective love in the salvation of His people?

If you haven't seen me do that you haven't been paying attention.

I have debated against Pelagian doctrine and Arminian methods for 4 decades or more. In this forum alone I have done it for at least 3 years and constantly suffer slings and arrows because of my Reformed stance on the doctrines of grace.

To deny election unto salvation as scripture teaches, is to deny the gospel of grace! Do you agree? So what's wrong with preaching on mans depravity and inability? On Gods elective love and mercy in Christ? Of the substitutionary atoning work and righteousness of Christ that secures salvation for them that believe?

You have never heard me deny election unto salvation. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You have never heard me deny depravity and inability. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You have never heard me deny God's elective love and mercy in Christ. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You have never heard me deny the substitutionary atoning work and righteousness of Christ. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You have never heard my deny hat Christ secures salvation for them that believe. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You seem ashamed is what I see.

You see what your obviously mean spirited soul causes you to see.

I very seriously doubt you believe in what is today called "Calvinism".

I believe in the Reformed doctrines of grace exactly as did John Calvin before me.

You are right that I do not believe that all 5 points represent John Calvin in particualar or even Reformed doctrine in general. Which is why limited atonement is not mentioned in Westminster Confession of Faith the most thorough and primary confession accepted by Reformed Christians throughout history and in most quarters today.

which is the gospel and nothing else.

Limited atonement is not the gospel nor does it form any part of it.

You would rather offend God and His people than stand against the perversion of pelagianism and Arminianism

I have stood agains Pelagianism and Arminiansism for the last 40 years of my adult life and more.

If you want to see me argue openly against their favorite arguments you need look no farther than the preceeding post. But you are apparently too blinded by your mean spirited soul to even look beyond your nose.

If you are offended by my having rejected so called limited atonement as usually taught in 5-point Calvinism in favor of the teachings of John Calvin himself - then you are offended because you have been unable to refute my logic or present scripture to the contrary. You also apprear to lack the Berean spirit which God so values in His people and you refuse to consider these things in depth.

Well said. Great points.

How can it be well said and great points when it was all inaccurate and slanderous?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

How can it be well said and great points when it was all inaccurate and slanderous?

I retract my thumbs up. I'm very, very tired (traveling), and I only saw the first part of his post. After looking at some other points, I agree that it's inaccurate. Apologies.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I retract my thumbs up. I'm very, very tired (traveling), and I only saw the first part of his post. After looking at some other points, I agree that it's inaccurate. Apologies.

 

[MDC]

Wrong - and you didn't hear me say anywhere that all those things are correct doctrine. Nor do I believe that they are - as I have clearly said numerous times.

You have never heard me say those things in a presentation of the gospel to the world and I never have.

I have not compromised the gospel in any way.

If you haven't seen me do that you haven't been paying attention.

I have debated against Pelagian doctrine and Arminian methods for 4 decades or more. In this forum alone I have done it for at least 3 years and constantly suffer slings and arrows because of my Reformed stance on the doctrines of grace.

You have never heard me deny election unto salvation. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You have never heard me deny depravity and inability. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You have never heard me deny God's elective love and mercy in Christ. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You have never heard me deny the substitutionary atoning work and righteousness of Christ. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You have never heard my deny hat Christ secures salvation for them that believe. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You see what your obviously mean spirited soul causes you to see.

I believe in the Reformed doctrines of grace exactly as did John Calvin before me.

You are right that I do not believe that all 5 points represent John Calvin in particualar or even Reformed doctrine in general. Which is why limited atonement is not mentioned in Westminster Confession of Faith the most thorough and primary confession accepted by Reformed Christians throughout history and in most quarters today.

Limited atonement is not the gospel nor does it form any part of it.

I have stood agains Pelagianism and Arminiansism for the last 40 years of my adult life and more.

If you want to see me argue openly against their favorite arguments you need look no farther than the preceeding post. But you are apparently too blinded by your mean spirited soul to even look beyond your nose.

If you are offended by my having rejected so called limited atonement as usually taught in 5-point Calvinism in favor of the teachings of John Calvin himself - then you are offended because you have been unable to refute my logic or present scripture to the contrary. You also apprear to lack the Berean spirit which God so values in His people and you refuse to consider these things in depth.

How can it be well said and great points when it was all inaccurate and slanderous?

Wrong - and you didn't hear me say anywhere that all those things are correct doctrine. Nor do I believe that they are - as I have clearly said numerous times.

You have never heard me say those things in a presentation of the gospel to the world and I never have.

I have not compromised the gospel in any way.

If you haven't seen me do that you haven't been paying attention.

I have debated against Pelagian doctrine and Arminian methods for 4 decades or more. In this forum alone I have done it for at least 3 years and constantly suffer slings and arrows because of my Reformed stance on the doctrines of grace.

You have never heard me deny election unto salvation. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You have never heard me deny depravity and inability. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You have never heard me deny God's elective love and mercy in Christ. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You have never heard me deny the substitutionary atoning work and righteousness of Christ. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You have never heard my deny hat Christ secures salvation for them that believe. Neither has anyone else in this forum or in my entire life.

You see what your obviously mean spirited soul causes you to see.

I believe in the Reformed doctrines of grace exactly as did John Calvin before me.

You are right that I do not believe that all 5 points represent John Calvin in particualar or even Reformed doctrine in general. Which is why limited atonement is not mentioned in Westminster Confession of Faith the most thorough and primary confession accepted by Reformed Christians throughout history and in most quarters today.

Limited atonement is not the gospel nor does it form any part of it.

I have stood agains Pelagianism and Arminiansism for the last 40 years of my adult life and more.

If you want to see me argue openly against their favorite arguments you need look no farther than the preceeding post. But you are apparently too blinded by your mean spirited soul to even look beyond your nose.

If you are offended by my having rejected so called limited atonement as usually taught in 5-point Calvinism in favor of the teachings of John Calvin himself - then you are offended because you have been unable to refute my logic or present scripture to the contrary. You also apprear to lack the Berean spirit which God so values in His people and you refuse to consider these things in depth.

How can it be well said and great points when it was all inaccurate and slanderous?

Then please explain what you meant by saying "we should all be able to present the gospel in a way which the Lord can honor without our believing and teaching that the gospel must be full 5 OT Calvinism"? So I gave an example how arminians, interwoven with their perversion, present theirs. And is why I said what is wrong with presenting the gospel in a way that glorifies Gods Sovereignty in His electing love and so on. I never said you denied those teachings, besides limited atonement, but sounds like you are comprising them to save face with the pelagians and arminians. Blinded by my mean spirit? Lol yea ok! Like you call folks trolls? Come on quit your crying and just take it for what it is. And it is you who is illogical in your view of the atonement

 

[EmSw]

How do you deal with Paul's teaching on the elect?

"He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, the He also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30)

Here are my thoughts on it. What does 'called' mean? It appear that there are two types, external and internal. An example of an external call is the preaching of the gospel. When the gospel is preached people are called externally or summoned to know and love Christ. Yet not all respond positively, not all who hears externally becomes a believer, because sometimes it falls on deaf ears. We can conclude that not all that are called outwardly are justified.

Then there is the internal call to consider. No human being has to power to work inwardly on another, but we know that God can. God can call someone inwardly, thus affecting the deepest depths of a persons soul, and even radically change the human heart. The inward call of God is so great on the soul, that all who are called inwardly respond positively. We can conclude that all that are called inwardly are justified. Those that are called externally must also be called internally, in order that they would be reborn of the Spirit.

Since there are some that are justified (believers) and some that are not (unbelievers), it is clear that God internally calls some and some are not. As Paul says; God knows from eternity whom He will inwardly call, and those whom He calls are justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified.

Doug, why do you separate the calling? It is just a theory on your part just as evolution is just a theory. You see with your external eyes and make assumptions, with nothing from the word to back up your theory.

Oh, it sounds good and some men will follow this assumption. God knows and judges every man's heart and thus deals with everyone internally.

 

[EmSw]

Then please explain what you meant by saying "we should all be able to present the gospel in a way which the Lord can honor without our believing and teaching that the gospel must be full 5 OT Calvinism"? So I gave an example how arminians, interwoven with their perversion, present theirs. And is why I said what is wrong with presenting the gospel in a way that glorifies Gods Sovereignty in His electing love and so on. I never said you denied those teachings, besides limited atonement, but sounds like you are comprising them to save face with the pelagians and arminians. Blinded by my mean spirit? Lol yea ok! Like you call folks trolls? Come on quit your crying and just take it for what it is. And it is you who is illogical in your view of the atonement

What was the message Jesus told the disciples to give to the world? Is anything else needed? Did Jesus get it wrong?

Luke 24
46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem...

Repentance and remission of sins SHOULD be preached in His name TO ALL NATIONS. I hope you don't have a problem with this MDC.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Then please explain what you meant by saying "we should all be able to present the gospel in a way which the Lord can honor without our believing and teaching that the gospel must be full 5 OT Calvinism"? So I gave an example how arminians, interwoven with their perversion, present theirs. And is why I said what is wrong with presenting the gospel in a way that glorifies Gods Sovereignty in His electing love and so on. I never said you denied those teachings, besides limited atonement, but sounds like you are comprising them to save face with the pelagians and arminians. Blinded by my mean spirit? Lol yea ok! Like you call folks trolls? Come on quit your crying and just take it for what it is. And it is you who is illogical in your view of the atonement

You say that 5-point Calvinism is the gospel and anything other than that is not the gospel. You are wrong.

If I am illogical in my view of the atonement - show me where I am illogical.

Show me where the scriptures tell us that a person for whom Christ died 2000 years ago can go for 99 years until his deathbed conversion existing as a "child of wrath - even as the rest" and someone can not possibly go for eternity in that same condtion.

Show me either from scripture or logic that the premise on which limited atonement is founded is scriptural or at least logical.

If you have ever done it here, I have yet to notice it.

All I have seen is scriptures which bear on the other 4 points put forth - along with the usual comments about Christ spilling His blood for no reason and other such Calvinist cliches.

Why don't you (in a simple and straight forward manner with no misrepresentation of what I believe or have done in my life or any slander of me) - give me a scripture or two which teach limited atonement and then refute my logic concerning the "children of wrath" both elect and otherwise?

That should be a simple task for you if you have thought it all through enough to be so dug in about your beliefs.

Let's start over again right there shall we?

If you can't or won't then we have nothing more to talk about.

Your choice - make your choice in the next post please.

By the way - calling a troll a troll is not not necessarily mean spirited - any more than calling a Pharasee a viper is mean spirited.

I have followed him or her in this forum for some time. I have debated him or her as well - contrary to your saying that I am ashamed to take non-Reformed to task.

That person denies the incarnation and the atoning shedding of Christ's blood for salvation. He or she is not a believer Calvinist, Arminian or otherwise. He or she is a Christian Forums troll and many others will vouch for that.