An examination of Romans 9-11

Status
Not open for further replies.

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
As a person who has seen both sides of Arminianism and Calvinism (and the first person to post on this board, apparently), I thought it may be interesting to begin a discussion on your views of this passage and how it supports your view on salvation, the nature of God, free will, and the God's choice-vs.-man's choice doctrine.

I just wondered if this was something anyone else was interested in! Let me know, because I'm game!!!

SEC
 

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by ScottEmerson

I just wondered if this was something anyone else was interested in! Let me know, because I'm game!!!

Interested, sure, but I haven't exactly formed an opinion yet.

(It turns out that it's useless for me to form an opinion for or against calvinism; either way, the only thing I can reasonably do is try to follow God's will.)
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟54,049.00
Faith
Christian
I've been accused of ascribing to "Arminianism". Although, someone once posted the main tennets (anyone care to do that here? For both Arminianism and Calvinism-tulip?), I do NOT endorse all of them.

In a text I'm writing, intended for publication, on "OSAS", I devote a large paragraph to explanation of the entire chapter of Romans 9, and how it harmonizes with the "OSNAS" view.

I can be talked into posting it here very easily...

;)
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by Ben johnson
I've been accused of ascribing to "Arminianism". Although, someone once posted the main tennets (anyone care to do that here? For both Arminianism and Calvinism-tulip?), I do NOT endorse all of them.

In a text I'm writing, intended for publication, on "OSAS", I devote a large paragraph to explanation of the entire chapter of Romans 9, and how it harmonizes with the "OSNAS" view.

I can be talked into posting it here very easily...

;)

That would be great - I'm at work now and am going to try to get up my beginning of it tonight. My position will be very specific, and will include examining the chapter in the context of Paul's entire argument, arguing that so many of the "chosen" parts of God required man to choose first, that God hardening Pharoah's heart required Pharoah to begin first, and so on... I'm taking the traditional Arminian position, although I'm not Arminian - I AM closer to that side than Calvinism.

So if you post yours we may have some overlap, but we may also be able to add to the other's reading of it. I am interested in getting some Calvinists on board to argue the other side, since their side holds much validity.

Any takers?
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by ScottEmerson

So if you post yours we may have some overlap, but we may also be able to add to the other's reading of it. I am interested in getting some Calvinists on board to argue the other side, since their side holds much validity.

Any takers?

If time allows, I'd be happy to argue the Calvinist position. I think it's wrong, but I can learn the position and the arguments, and I do need to understand the argument from both sides, if I ever want to form an opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟54,049.00
Faith
Christian
From "OSAS":

To understand the Romans 9 passage, let us first come to understanding of the concept of "total depravity". One of the primary posits of "Irresistible Grace" is that man is completely, totally, depraved; so much so, that he cannot ever even consider the possibility of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. But does Scripture support that view? Consider Romans 1:18ff, "For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for GOD MADE IT EVIDENT TO THEM. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE. For even though THEY KNEW GOD, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, AND THEIR FOOLISH HEART WAS DARKENED. Professing to be wise they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity... they exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions... and because they did not acknowledge God any longer, God GAVE THEM OVER to a depraved mind".

In Romans 1 it says very clearly and undeniably that God is revealed to all men. It is then up to each to accept Him or reject Him. Clearly, although "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, there are NONE righteous" (Romans 3), God reveals Himself to each person, in enough measure that the person HAS the ability to choose. Thus the "They are without excuse". It also undeniably says that God, because of their conscious rejection of Him and embracement of "the lie", gives them over to a depraved mind. Does this mean that their hardened hearts are their own fault? Consider Hebrews 3:13, "Lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin". The Greek for "hardened" here is "skleruno", which means "made stubborn or obstinate". The same word as used in Romans 9:18; which, apparently indicates that God does the "hardening and softening", but in context with Romans 1, we gain the deeper understanding that the hardening is a result of their conscious choice (their heart darkened because they chose "the lie"), and the "God hardens whom He desires" is understood to mean that He gives over to a base and depraved mind those who reject Him.

Technically, in Exodus 10:1 it reads "made heavy", and verses 10:20, 27, 11:10 and 14:8 mean "made strong". Was Pharaoh a helpless pawn in the machinations of an absolutely-controlling-God? Or was his "hardening" because of his choice to "embrace the lie"? It is theologically sound to understand the latter. God "hardens" people in the sense that He honors their choice to reject Him and gives them over to a base and depraved mind.

Now, if God does not predestine, then what of the passage in Romans 9 that speaks of "pottery"? It clearly says that some are created "for honor", and some "for common". Let us assume that they are on the potter's wheel because of their choice to submit to Him---they are already saved (as we have already established in this discourse). 1Corinthians 12:4ff tells us that God uses each of us as He chooses, different parts of the body, for the common good, as He chooses. Some for honor, some for common. Perfect harmony, the clay submits to the potter to use as He wills.

Verse Romans 9:23, the "endured with patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction"? What caused them to BE "vessels of wrath", and to BE "prepared for destruction"? Consider the parable of Matthew 13:24ff; the landowner said "Allow the tares (weeds, grass) to grow with the wheat, but in the harvest the wheat will be gathered and the weeds burned." Thus the weeds were "endured with patience", PERFECTLY in harmony with 2Peter3:9! The un-submitted vessels-of-clay, He endures for now, but their rebellious state assures their future destruction (Matt13:30,41-42, 25:32,41; Rom2:5). Is there anything in this passage that indicates God overrides our will to salvation? No. Is there anything in this passage that indicates God honors free will? Consider 9:32 "They did not achieve righteousness, because they pursued it by works rather than faith". Clearly they made the wrong choice. Verse 33 demonstrates that He was a stumbling stone because they did not believe. Continuing in chapter 10, "They have (wrong) zeal for God; not knowing about God's righteousness, seeking to establish their own, they did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Belief is a choice, very clearly written in this passage. It is not predestined.
 
Upvote 0

filosofer

Senior Veteran
Feb 8, 2002
4,752
290
Visit site
✟6,913.00
Faith
Lutheran
Just a note on Romans 9:19-23. There is not an equal relationship between those who are destroyed and those who are saved.

"Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (9:22) - the verb is KATHRTISMENA - middle voice meaning "prepared themselves" for destruction, such as Pharaoh hardening his heart. And note that God "patiently endures."

"Vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand" (9:23) - the verb is PROHTOIMASEV - active verb meaning "God made beforehand."

=======

Sadly the debate is cast in terms of either Calvinist or Arminian. But neither reflects the Biblical position

======
from one who is neither Calvinist nor Arminian
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
It is my understanding in the reading of Romans and the surrounding passages that Paul is speaking of election of specific GROUPS of people and not individuals. It is my belief upon the reading of the passages that God set aside Israel first as his chosen people and then the Church as his chosen people.


To do so requires a close view of the OT passages and allusions Paul uses in this chapter. (As a note, Paul states in Romans 8:32 that Christ died for us all (hamon panton) which kind of throws a hole in the whole Limited Atonement thing... But I digress)

We see from the first 9 verses that Paul specifically speaks of Israelites as a group. He notes that not all Israelites were saved, nor were all Ishmaelites damned. When he states that "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." He refers specifically to a passage in Malachi which specifially uses Jacob to refer to the land of Israel and Esau to refer to the Edomites. (Mal. 1:2-3)

In the same vein, it is clear that since not all of Jacob's seed followed God and not all of Esau's rejected God, that Jacob and Esau are archetypes - considering the next two chapters in his argument that he makes specifically concerning the Jewish people, it follows that God loves them, who seek righteousness, and salvation by faith in Christ, but hates them who seek the same by the works of the law. It follows that they are not embraced in that purpose, who are of the works of the law, but only they who are of the faith of Jesus Christ. God did indeed choose the Jewish nation as his chosen people, but salvation was to them who accepted Him. Comparing this to the passage at the end of Romans 8, it can be seen that "those" in reference to those who were called, is a corporate pronoun, in reference to the Church that God foreknew.

Verse 16, when speaking of God showing mercy on whomever he wants, refers back to Exodus 33:19, and is not speaking about individual salvation.

We see from Exodus 7:13, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, and 34, that Pharoah hardened his own heart. As David Guzik stated, "We should not think that God persuaded an unwilling, kind-hearted Pharaoh to be hard towards God and His people; in hardening the heart of Pharaoh, God simply allowed his heart to pursue its natural inclination."

I will agree with filosofer about the tenses of the clay bit - it seems clear that the vessels for destuction make themselves so.

The remainder of the chapter focuses on specific groups of the Jews and the Gentiles, signifying that God elected groups of people - nowhere in this chapter is personal salvation mentioned.

Now you may be asking - am I an Arminian? Nope. I'm definitely not Calvinist. I believe there is a rapproachment between the two - a means to give responsibility of man to choose to follow Christ while not reducing or diminishing the power and glory of God.

Romans 9 is constantly used as a prooftext defending Calvinism, but if one reads carefully in the context of the following two chapters, it is evident that Paul is explaining how the chosen nation of the Jews has given way (some would say included), the Church of Jesus Christ, and not how God forknew individuals for salvation.
 
Upvote 0

Ben johnson

Legend
Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟54,049.00
Faith
Christian
Excellent post, Scott, thank you. So we agree on the "vessels of honor and common" being ON the POTTER'S WHEEL, because of their OWN CHOICE, and the "vessels prepared for destruction" are by their own unbelief.

In Rom11, I take the "branches", by virtue of being plural, as also applicable to individuals. Thus, "they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in again; for God is able to graft them in again". Regardless of whether it meant "ISRAEL-AS-A-NATION", or "INDIVIDUALS-FROM-ISRAEL-NATION", it seems clear to me as a definite affirmation of their ability to be saved again. Cut off by unbelief, restored when the unbelief ceases. Somehow in the labelling as "It's a NATION, not INDIVIDUALS" the Calvinists, in their own esteems, have removed the indication of "restorability". As if there is a TIME somehow involved, maybe they can't be restored until the "fallen" DIE, thus only their children can be SAVED?

I don't understand how the interpretation of "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that (FAITH!) is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph2:8-9) can persist with, "For grace comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God". If "FAITH-UNTO-SALVATION" comes unilaterally from GOD, how then can it "come from hearing"???
 
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
"If "FAITH-UNTO-SALVATION" comes unilaterally from GOD, how then can it "come from hearing"???"

Is that a retorical quesiton or did you want an answer? I would believe it is because Paul emphasised the hearing power of the word. Faith comes totally from God but through the hearing of the word. Do I know exactly what he ment? Nope, but then again I don't know exactly what he ment when he said In Christ either. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HITR

Hand Crafted
Feb 13, 2002
97
3
53
ME
Visit site
✟7,788.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Great topic, ScottEmerson. :cool: I always love this type of discussion. It's kinda funny thinking about Calvinism and Arminianism. The first time I actually checked out the specifics of these two viewpoints, it was because I had been 'accused of being an Arminian'. **grin** So naturally, I just had to read up on both sides. I found I don't fully subscribe to either, but that's neither here nor there, huh? Anyway...

Originally posted by Julie
Romans chapters (9-11) are national , in the sense that they answer questions as to the relationship of the Gospel to Israel.

Julie

I would love to hear more on that side of this. This is not what I've seen in this text...at least, not solely, anyway. While this does talk about the nation of Israel, it also speaks of the spiritual truths of God's relationship with all men.


Originally posted by ScottEmerson
To do so requires a close view of the OT passages and allusions Paul uses in this chapter. (As a note, Paul states in Romans 8:32 that Christ died for us all (hamon panton) which kind of throws a hole in the whole Limited Atonement thing... But I digress)

We see from the first 9 verses that Paul specifically speaks of Israelites as a group. He notes that not all Israelites were saved, nor were all Ishmaelites damned. When he states that "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." He refers specifically to a passage in Malachi which specifially uses Jacob to refer to the land of Israel and Esau to refer to the Edomites. (Mal. 1:2-3)

I think an examination of the OT scriptures are essential with this also, and I'm just going to expound on this a bit. **grins and nods** The only real discussion I've seen here about the first 13 verses is this reference here, soooo...

In verse 3 Paul speaks of his kinsmen according to the flesh (those of Israel), to whom the kingdom pertains (verses 4 and 5). That is what they (of Israel) believed the scriptures clearly taught. * * Pertaining to the adoption/covenant, there are many references they used to know this, such as Gen. 17:2; Deut. 4:10,13,15; Deut. 4:10,13,15; Deut. 14:1,2 and many others such as these seem to teach that the adoption/covenant is only for the Israelites as a specific chosen people. * * Of course, we know that the scriptures may appear to teach something clearly when in actuality it is teaching something quite different.

Even in the OT, we can see that there were times when "foreigners" were adopted into the Israel covenant. Aside from the history of Ruth and Naomi, we see that the Lord commanded all foreigners who come under the roof (to live) of an Israelite was commanded to be circumcised, them and their children (the physical marking of the covenant). Although scripture clearly taught that the adoption pertained only to the Israelites, we see that in actuality this is not the case - it was a foreshadow of gentiles being included in the promise.

In verse 6 we see that Israel is not quite what they thought. "They are not all Israel, who are of Israel." Just because an Israelite had the proper blood lineage (such as the Jews - Abraham's seed - in John 8:31-47... "Ye are of your father the devil..."), and the promise of the covenant in the scriptures, they were not necessarily "Israel", because they did not all follow after the living God by faith (as did Abraham, Job and others). Hence, not all of the literal seed of Abraham is considered to be a child of Abraham, as was always believed (as seen in John 8:39 "...If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham"). Just because they were the seed of Abraham (to whom the adoption pertained, him and his seed), they were not all his true children. This is clearly taught in the gospels as well as some of the epistles.

Abraham was righteous because of his faith, and he received the promised child, Isaac. In Isaac the seed shall be called, being the children of promise (Romans 9:7, 8). This is a contrast between the child Ishmael, who was born to Abraham according to the flesh (with the handmail Hagar), and of the child of the promise with Sarah (Gal. 4:22-28 as well as here in Romans). Even Isaac and Ishmael were likened to an allegory as compared to Mt. Sinai (the covenant of the law/flesh) and Jerusalem (the covenant of the free/spirit). This is also referenced in the OT (this is getting long and I'm trying to be at least initially somewhat brief, :rolleyes: so if anyone wants any specific verses from the OT here, let me know).

So far, verses 9:1 - 9 clearly show that these references are not strictly referencing only the literal seed (individuals), but is clearly teaching in regards to those who receive the promise by faith versus those who try to inherit the promise by the flesh/law. Up to now, the OT has completely foreshadowed this truth, revealing that what had been "clearly taught" in the scriptures wasn't actually what had been taught.

Thus far, the major focus of importance is not on the literal historic persons, but rather on what they represent (faith vs. works and freedom/spirit vs. flesh/law).

I'll be back with more in just a bit...

Blessings in Christ our Lord, HITR
 
Upvote 0

HITR

Hand Crafted
Feb 13, 2002
97
3
53
ME
Visit site
✟7,788.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Now, we come to Romans 9:10 concerning Rebekah, who conceived twins by Isaac. Verses 11 and 12 say that these children had done nothing and that God chose one over the other for the purpose of His election. Why is it reasonable to shift from faith vs. works and spirit vs. flesh (from the theme of the entire first part of this very chapter) and move to the election of salvation to a literal person, as opposed to taking into consideration what these individuals represent (Abraham = the father of many nations; Isaac = children of the promise)? We see in Gen. 25:22,23 that these two children struggled together even in the womb (akin to the way that flesh struggles against spirit), and that the Lord specifically told Rebekah that they are two nations and two manners of people. Obviously, they represent two nations, and the people of the nations will be vastly different from one another. History shows this to be true. Yet, they are both Isaac's seed, "children of the promise", if you discount what they represent.

Even looking back at Gen. 17:16 we see that the Lord had declared that Sarah would be the mother of nations. This was fulfilled in the birth of the twins (Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom). We also see concerning Isaac (the child of the promise) and Ishmael (the child of the flesh) that the Lord also blessed Ishmael although he was not "elected". Just because Isaac was chosen did not mean that the individual Ishmael was literally despised.

In Gen. 35 we see that Jacob is called Israel; In Gen. 36 we find that Esau is Edom. We also see that Jacob is called Israel after wrestling with the angel, had been faithful to God, and that his name was changed according to his persistent faith in God (as was Abraham's). Then we see that Esau was called Edom accordingly, as he served the flesh, and not the spirit. He sold his birthright to satisfy his flesh (Gen. 25:30-33). We can clearly see even here that one of these children of Isaac's is a child of the promise/spirit, while the other is a child of the law/flesh. Romans verse 13 says, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2,3. But continuing on, we see that it is Esau as the nation of Edom (the manner of people) that this reference is speaking of, and not the literal historical Esau. The entire chapter of Malachi 1 speaks of the Lord being magnified by the border of Israel and being against Edom – He will set Himself against those who have profaned his holy name. There is also a reference to those who serve the flesh (Edom/Esau) and those who serve God in the spirit (Israel/Jacob).

Right after the "Jacob have I loved..." it says in verse 14, "...is there unrighteousness with God?" Why would the scriptures have to say this? Well, that would be the first question that the church would ask, naturally. The promise was that Abraham would be the father of many nations, and that the seed would be called in Isaac. Both Jacob and Esau were the seed of Isaac, with Abraham as their father, and the promise of the covenant pertained to them both, not just Jacob. Naturally, that would be unrighteous of God, since He had promised it to Abraham and the seed.

This is why it is important that we do not disregard what scripture has to say about Jacob and Esau (Israel and Edom/ two nations and two manner of people/ those serving the flesh vs. those serving the Spirit). The promise is to those of faith, and not of the flesh. This is exactly what Paul had been teaching in the first portion of his epistle thus far. One cannot choose to refer to the faith references of Abraham in the OT, to the child of promise references to Isaac in the OT, and choose to disregard the significance of the faith/flesh representations (the two manner of people), which are written about Jacob and Esau in the OT. If this happens, the natural flow of the chapter falls apart due to inconsistency. This entire chapter thus far, as well as the preceding chapters of Romans, teach strictly on the aspect of redemption by faith, and that those of the flesh will be judged and rejected. The Lord does not hate Esau any more than He hates anyone who lives for the flesh and does not live unto Him.

Verse 15 discusses who will receive mercy and compassion. We already know that God has mercy and compassion on those who believe by faith. For those who are living unto the flesh, they will not find mercy, but rather a fearful judgment.

Here's the biggest problems with viewing the "...Esau have I hated" as the literal Esau: 1) the scriptures have not, in this entire chapter, viewed either Abraham or Isaac in the light of specific individuals, but on their faith and the promise. Does it also mean that Abraham as a literal person has the promise by faith? Absolutely. But it doesn't end there. How can one view Jacob/Esau as two literal persons (one loved and one hated) and not take the representations of (contained in the OT, such as with Abraham and Isaac) while expecting the chapter to hold up under such inconsistency? 2) I find this one most important. God creates all men. All men are formed by God in the womb. God opens and closes the womb. Especially vital, God creates all men in His own image. If Esau was created in the image of God, and God created Esau for the specific purpose of hating him and sending him to hell, what does that mean about God and God's image? Does God hate His own image? If God created Esau in His own image, to be hated and condemned to hell, what exactly does this say about God's image? That's probably the most interesting of questions.

That's about it for now...the way I figure it, it's probably quite long enough at this point, huh?! :D

Love in Christ Jesus, HITR

btw, just wanted to give a warm 'hello' to Ben johnson...good to see ya! **grins & nods**
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HITR

Hand Crafted
Feb 13, 2002
97
3
53
ME
Visit site
✟7,788.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by LouisBooth
the point of Esau was to show that its God's choice period. :)

Period sounds so final. **grin** Would you share just a bit more than this statement? For instance, specifically which scriptures did you consider when you came to that conclusion (either OT or NT)?

I'd also appreciate feedback on which particular part of what I said you disagreed with. ;)

Blessings, HITR
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
Marvelous post HITR. As you have probably deduced, the reason Romans 9 is so important is because it completes the argument that Paul begins in the previous chapter - specifically, 'For THOSE who God called...chose...predestined...and so on" - (It's late, don't have my Bible open, and am fixing to go to sleep, so forgive the order of things.) If Romans 9-11 is understood in the context of groups, then the "those" is a collective group. (As soon as this one is done, I'd like to take an exegetical examination of a similar passage in Ephesians to show the same thing.)

"Those" seems to refer to "God predestined a church, he foreknew there would be a chosen people, and he did all the other stuff found in those two verses," due to the surrounding texts.

While I will not here nor in the near future say that God does not predestine individuals (although the idea of double predestination is detestable and seems to go against the nature of Christ) I don't believe that Paul makes the argument in Romans 8-12 that God handpicked Christians - Paul makes the argument that he handpicked the church...

Grace and peace all, and thanks to all for your input!

SEC
 
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
"For instance, specifically which scriptures did you consider when you came to that conclusion (either OT or NT)? "?

umm.. 1. I wasn't disagreeing or agreeing with your post. Dont always assume every statement is towards you ;)

2. You can see that God's soveregnty is stressed through out the bible and Paul goes out of his way to stress it in Romans. I looked at the whole of scripture. You want specific verses...try the potter/clay thing just a few short chapters before, just to start.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.