Exegesis of Letter to the Romans on Predestination

trulytheone

Active Member
Mar 8, 2019
181
43
Luzon
✟21,368.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Apparently the Eastern Orthodox doctrine that is against predestination prior to foreknowledge is contradicted by Romans 9:11 which was about the election of Jacob over Esau:

"For the children not being yet born, neither having done any good nor evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand; not of works, but of him that calls..."

And it seems the continuing passage answers the emotional objection as to why God will do that:

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

Romans 9:14-15
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dave L

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,490
9,001
Florida
✟324,460.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Apparently the Eastern Orthodox doctrine that is against predestination prior to foreknowledge is contradicted by Roman 9:11 which was about the election of Jacob over Esau:

"For the children not being yet born, neither having done any good nor evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand; not of works, but of him that calls..."

And it seems the continuing passage answers the emotional objection as to why God will do that:

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have commpassion on whom I will have compassion."

Romans 9:14-15

This is from the Confession of Dositheus, Synod of Jerusalem 1672:

"We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth {1 Timothy 2:4}. But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and co-operate with it, in what it requires as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace. This grace co-operates with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation."
 
  • Like
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

trulytheone

Active Member
Mar 8, 2019
181
43
Luzon
✟21,368.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
This is from the Confession of Dositheus, Synod of Jerusalem 1672:

"We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth {1 Timothy 2:4}. But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and co-operate with it, in what it requires as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace. This grace co-operates with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation."

Yes I know Eastern Orthodoxy condemns predestination prior to merits, but the passage from Romans seems to contradict this. Do you have an explanation for this?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

trulytheone

Active Member
Mar 8, 2019
181
43
Luzon
✟21,368.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
we don't deny predestination. God knew which of the brothers would follow Him, and worked out His plan. it doesn't contradict us at all.
Then what is the explanation of St. Paul's response to the anticipated response of his readers: "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have commpassion on whom I will have compassion"?
 
Upvote 0

Silverback

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2019
1,306
854
61
South East
✟66,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Apparently the Eastern Orthodox doctrine that is against predestination prior to foreknowledge is contradicted by Roman 9:11 which was about the election of Jacob over Esau:

"For the children not being yet born, neither having done any good nor evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand; not of works, but of him that calls..."

And it seems the continuing passage answers the emotional objection as to why God will do that:

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have commpassion on whom I will have compassion."

Romans 9:14-15

Well, I fully believe in unconditional election, however, the foreknowledge twist is not just an Orthodox belief, many traditions, and denominations teach this as well. I think scripture is very clear on the issue.

Be prepared for a backlash.
 
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,490
9,001
Florida
✟324,460.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Yes I know Eastern Orthodoxy condemns predestination prior to merits, but the passage from Romans seem to contradict this. Do you have an explanation for this?

There is no single explanation for it. The explanation is multitudinal. We cannot take a single verse, or a single chapter, or a single book from the bible and say this is the answer. It has to be taken as a whole, and that whole contains hints at the plan of God but only God knows what that plan is, and how it is carried out.

There is a false dichotomy that forces us to choose between the strictest predestination and open theism. I do not believe in either. I believe in both. If God, according to His will, decided that He would have two men to carry out His plan, one He would love, one He would hate, then He might predestine those two men. If God decided that He would have one man to build the descendants of into His holy people, He might predestine Abraham, or He might make the same offer as He made to Abraham with any number of men before He found one that would accept it.

I Maccabees 2:52 Remember how Abraham put his trust in the Lord when he was tested and how the Lord was pleased with him and accepted him.

If there were in fact several offers made, God would still want two men, one to hate and one to love, but they would simply have been descendants of someone else. When Abraham was tested, he passed the test. We do not know how many, or if any, failed that test before Abraham.

In support of that, I offer the Israelites in the desert. They were the descendants of Abraham, God had promised Abraham that his descendants would be a nation, yet when the Israelites rebelled and bult the golden calf, God swore to destroy them and build His nation from the descendants of Moses instead. Since Moses was a descendant of Abraham, God's promise to Abraham would still have been kept, only with an entirely different group of people. In the end, God relented in destroying the Israelites and destroyed only those who worshipped the golden calf.

So are we to say that the Israelites were predestined before, during, or after the incident with the golden calf. Or do we conclude that God predestined a group to be a nation but who those individuals would be is left up to Him?

Now add to that a saying of the ancient Essenes: All things are best ascribed to God. That saying, or idea, or philosophy, is the reason for discrepancy in the bible as to who moved David to conduct the census of the Israelites:

1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

Now, was it Satan that moved David to number the men of Israel, or was it God? Or did David decide to number the men of Israel and while one writer believed it was Satan that caused it the other writer thought "all things are best ascribed to God"?

As Paul was giving his account of the two children is he making a definite theological statement or did he also think "all things are best ascribed to God"?

No one knows the answer to your your question. We only know what the answers are not. The answer is not predestination, and the answer is not open theism. The answer is somewhere in the middle.
 
Upvote 0

AvgJoe

Member since 2005
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2005
2,748
1,099
Texas
✟332,816.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Apparently the Eastern Orthodox doctrine that is against predestination prior to foreknowledge is contradicted by Romans 9:11 which was about the election of Jacob over Esau:

"For the children not being yet born, neither having done any good nor evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand; not of works, but of him that calls..."

And it seems the continuing passage answers the emotional objection as to why God will do that:

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have commpassion on whom I will have compassion."

Romans 9:14-15

I'm not Eastern Orthodox, so my answer may differ from theirs.

Understanding Paul’s purpose will help us to see that Romans 9–11 is not a treatise on predestination or individual election, as some have supposed. It is not saying that some people have not and never will have an opportunity to be saved. Rather, it is saying that God has the power and prerogative to choose the servants He will use to point the world to a salvation that comes not from works but from grace alone.

For the last 2,000 years, God has been using believers in Christ to do what He originally chose Israel to do. In the first century, this willingness of God to use Gentile believers raised many questions. Had God broken His promise to use Israel as His chosen servant? How could He set aside the nation He had set apart for Himself?

In response to these questions, the apostle Paul wrote Romans 9–11 to Jewish countrymen, undoubtedly believers in Jesus, who were having a hard time with the idea that God had set Israel aside. After expressing his deep love for his Jewish brothers, Paul developed the theme of 9:6, “It is not as though God’s Word had failed.” He wanted his readers to know that God still had a future plan for the people through whom He had chosen to bless the whole world. Romans 9:6-13 expresses that God has the right to choose the line of promise.

For more detail~~~> https://d3uet6ae1sqvww.cloudfront.n...ds-choice-or-ours-predestination-election.pdf
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is from the Confession of Dositheus, Synod of Jerusalem 1672:

"We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth {1 Timothy 2:4}. But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and co-operate with it, in what it requires as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace. This grace co-operates with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation."
I believe the use of "without cause" paints the remainder of the statement. I believe St Paul makes it quite clear in Romans chapters 1 through 3 that 'the cause' already exists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
we don't deny predestination. God knew which of the brothers would follow Him, and worked out His plan. it doesn't contradict us at all.
Therefore it is incumbent upon Foreknowledge?
 
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

trulytheone

Active Member
Mar 8, 2019
181
43
Luzon
✟21,368.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Wait! Now that I think about it, it seems that this passage from St. Paul was comparing what God did to both sinful twin brothers, one who had sinned by selling his birthright for a small meal and the other by deceiving his older twin brother twice. Despite the fact that both had sinned and had not initially responded to God's call, He still chose Jacob over his older twin brother, not because he did anything great initially, but because it is God's prerogative either to elect one over the other, to elect both, or to elect none of them (in other words, when both were foreknown to not initially respond to the Divine call, it is God's choice what to do with them). I am not saying though that Jacob didn't have to do anything; I believe this meant that He gave Jacob more chances to freely respond to His Grace than the number He gave Esau. Hence, Jacob obtained the election. Similar to the case of Jacob and Esau are those people who freely reject God's call to salvation; God will either continue to pester them until His call is to be freely received or He will leave them alone. But this is different in the case of people who are foreknown to initially and freely participate with the Grace of God (with few occassional stumblings) and are foreknown to endure until the end of their lives; God predestines them to election to eternal life because of their foreseen free lifetime responses to His call. But now my question is: is this interpretation acceptable with Eastern Orthodoxy or is this in need of modification?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,550
20,063
41
Earth
✟1,464,127.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Then what is the explanation of St. Paul's response to the anticipated response of his readers: "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have commpassion on whom I will have compassion"?

mercy and compassion must be accepted to take positive effect. Esau, being carnally minded, rejected God's mercy. which leaves you with judgment and wrath.

plus, God is not constrained by His mercy.
 
Upvote 0

AMM

A Beggar
Site Supporter
May 2, 2017
1,725
1,269
Virginia
✟329,845.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Out of curiosity, and in order to better understand this matter myself, which parts of this would Orthodoxy agree with and which parts would Orthodoxy disagree with?

Epitome of the Formula of Concord said:
XI. Election.
1] Concerning this article no public dissension has occurred among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession. But since it is a consolatory article, if treated properly, and lest offensive disputations concerning the same be instituted in the future, it is also explained in this writing.

Affirmative Theses.
The Pure and True Doctrine concerning This Article.


2] 1. To begin with [First of all], the distinction between praescientia et praedestinatio, that is, between God's foreknowledge and His eternal election, ought to be accurately observed.

3] 2. For the foreknowledge of God is nothing else than that God knows all things before they happen, as it is written Dan. 2:28: There is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.

4] 3. This foreknowledge extends alike over the godly and the wicked, but it is not the cause of evil, neither of sin, namely, of doing what is wrong (which originally arises from the devil and the wicked, perverse will of man), nor of their ruin [that men perish], for which they themselves are responsible [which they must ascribe to themselves]; but it only regulates it, and fixes a limit to it [how far it should progress and] how long it should last, and all this to the end that it should serve His elect for their salvation, notwithstanding that it is evil in itself.

5] 4. The predestination or eternal election of God, however, extends only over the godly, beloved children of God, being a cause of their salvation, which He also provides, as well as disposes what belongs thereto. Upon this [predestination of God] our salvation is founded so firmly that the gates of hell cannot overcome it. John 10:28; Matt. 16:18.

6] 5. This [predestination of God] is not to be investigated in the secret counsel of God, but to be sought in the Word of God, where it is also revealed.

7] 6. But the Word of God leads us to Christ, who is the Book of Life, in whom all are written and elected that are to be saved in eternity, as it is written Eph. 1:4: He hath chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world.

8] 7. This Christ calls to Himself all sinners and promises them rest, and He is in earnest [seriously wills] that all men should come to Him and suffer themselves to be helped, to whom He offers Himself in His Word, and wishes them to hear it and not to stop their ears or [neglect and] despise the Word. Moreover, He promises the power and working of the Holy Ghost, and divine assistance for perseverance and eternal salvation [that we may remain steadfast in the faith and attain eternal salvation].

9] 8. Therefore we should judge concerning this our election to eternal life neither from reason nor from the Law of God, which lead us either into a reckless, dissolute, Epicurean life or into despair, and excite pernicious thoughts in the hearts of men, for they cannot, as long as they follow their reason, successfully refrain from thinking: If God has elected me to salvation, I cannot be condemned, no matter what I do; and again: If I am not elected to eternal life, it is of no avail what good I do; it is all [all my efforts are] in vain anyway.

10] 9. But it [the true judgment concerning predestination] must be learned alone from the holy Gospel concerning Christ, in which it is clearly testified that God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all, and that He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and believe in the Lord Christ. Rom. 11:32; Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:2.

11] 10. Whoever, now, is thus concerned about the revealed will of God, and proceeds according to the order which St. Paul has observed in the Epistle to the Romans, who first directs men to repentance, to knowledge of sins, to faith in Christ, to divine obedience, before he speaks of the mystery of the eternal election of God, to him this doctrine [concerning God's predestination] is useful and consolatory.

12] 11. However, that many are called and few chosen, Matt. 22:14, does not mean that God is not willing to save everybody; but the reason is that they either do not at all hear God's Word, but wilfully despise it, stop their ears and harden their hearts, and in this manner foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost, so that He cannot perform His work in them, or, when they have heard it, make light of it again and do not heed it, for which [that they perish] not God or His election, but their wickedness, is responsible. [2 Pet. 2:1ff ; Luke 11:49. 52; Heb. 12:25f.]

13] 12. Thus far a Christian should occupy himself [in meditation] with the article concerning the eternal election of God, as it has been revealed in God's Word, which presents to us Christ as the Book of Life, which He opens and reveals to us by the preaching of the holy Gospel, as it is written Rom. 8:30: Whom He did predestinate, them He also called. In Him we are to seek the eternal election of the Father, who has determined in His eternal divine counsel that He would save no one except those who know His Son Christ and truly believe on Him. Other thoughts are to be [entirely] banished [from the minds of the godly], as they proceed not from God, but from the suggestion of the Evil Foe, whereby he attempts to weaken or entirely to remove from us the glorious consolation which we have in this salutary doctrine, namely, that we know [assuredly] that out of pure grace, without any merit of our own, we have been elected in Christ to eternal life, and that no one can pluck us out of His hand; as He has not only promised this gracious election with mere words, but has also certified it with an oath and sealed it with the holy Sacraments, which we can [ought to] call to mind in our most severe temptations, and take comfort in them, and therewith quench the fiery darts of the devil.

14] 13. Besides, we should use the greatest diligence to live according to the will of God, and, as St. Peter admonishes, 2 Pet. 1:10, make our calling sure, and especially adhere to [not recede a finger's breadth from] the revealed Word: that can and will not fail us.

15] 14. By this brief explanation of the eternal election of God His glory is entirely and fully given to God, that out of pure mercy alone, without all merit of ours, He saves us according to the purpose of His will; besides, also, no cause is given any one for despondency or a vulgar, wild life [no opportunity is afforded either for those more severe agitations of mind and faintheartedness or for Epicureanism].

Negative Theses
False Doctrine concerning This Article.


16] Accordingly, we believe and hold: When any teach the doctrine concerning the gracious election of God to eternal life in such a manner that troubled Christians cannot comfort themselves therewith, but are thereby led to despondency or despair, or the impenitent are strengthened in their wantonness, that such doctrine is treated [wickedly and erroneously] not according to the Word and will of God, but according to reason and the instigation of the cursed Satan. For, as the apostle testifies, Rom. 15:4, whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope. Therefore we reject the following errors:

17] 1. As when it is taught that God is unwilling that all men repent and believe the Gospel.

18] 2. Also, that when God calls us to Himself, He is not in earnest that all men should come to Him.

19] 3. Also, that God is unwilling that every one should be saved, but that some, without regard to their sins, from the mere counsel, purpose, and will of God, are ordained to condemnation so that they cannot be saved.

20] 4. Also, that not only the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but also in us there is a cause of God's election, on account of which God has elected us to everlasting life.

21] All these are blasphemous and dreadful erroneous doctrines, whereby all the comfort which they have in the holy Gospel and the use of the holy Sacraments is taken from Christians, and therefore should not be tolerated in the Church of God.
 
Upvote 0

trulytheone

Active Member
Mar 8, 2019
181
43
Luzon
✟21,368.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Out of curiosity, and in order to better understand this matter myself, which parts of this would Orthodoxy agree with and which parts would Orthodoxy disagree with?
I would like to know too if the formula from Concord contradicts Eastern Orthodoxy.
 
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

Silverback

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2019
1,306
854
61
South East
✟66,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Out of curiosity, and in order to better understand this matter myself, which parts of this would Orthodoxy agree with and which parts would Orthodoxy disagree with?

You are quoting from the epitome, the Solid Declaration does a better job of explaining this.
 
Upvote 0

trulytheone

Active Member
Mar 8, 2019
181
43
Luzon
✟21,368.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
This is the second time I refined my opinions on this passage:

It seems that when St. Paul says, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand; not of works, but of him that calls...", he was explaining that salvation is God's gift; man must then either freely accept or reject it. But when St. Paul asked, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he says to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion", he was responding to the anticipated questions such as, "If God foreknows that Esau will reject His call on this specific time and place, why didn't He do this or do that so that Esau would respond freely by accepting His call and finally attain His election?"

In other words, it is God's prerogative as to what to do with a creature who refuses the Divine call; either He will have mercy on Him or He will punish him or He will do both. Is this explanation compatible or acceptable in the Eastern Orthodox system?
 
Upvote 0

AMM

A Beggar
Site Supporter
May 2, 2017
1,725
1,269
Virginia
✟329,845.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
You are quoting from the epitome, the Solid Declaration does a better job of explaining this.
Fair enough, but the SD is also really dense and can be hard to follow, whereas the Epitome just presents the positions affirmed and condemned without diving (as much) into the arguments.

I grew up Confessional Lutheran and only recently converted to Orthodoxy, so that's why I'm rather familiar with Lutheran doctrine and writings.
 
Upvote 0

Silverback

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2019
1,306
854
61
South East
✟66,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Fair enough, but the SD is also really dense and can be hard to follow, whereas the Epitome just presents the positions affirmed and condemned without diving (as much) into the arguments.

I grew up Confessional Lutheran and only recently converted to Orthodoxy, so that's why I'm rather familiar with Lutheran doctrine and writings.

I 'm curious, why did you convert to Orthodoxy?
 
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

AMM

A Beggar
Site Supporter
May 2, 2017
1,725
1,269
Virginia
✟329,845.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
I 'm curious, why did you convert to Orthodoxy?
Biggest thing was infant communion. Other things involve the role of Tradition in interpreting Scripture, invocation of the saints, the filioque, and ecclesiology. If you PM me with specific questions I'd be happy to explain more
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Silverback
Upvote 0