Sin and the Crucifixion were all predestined

A Devil's Advocate · Wednesday at 7:33 PM

Disclaimer: This post is intended for those who follow the True God of the bible and not the lesser form of God commonly associated with Christianity (sarcasm intended).

There is this popular belief that mankind messed up. We were given a test. Should we choose correctly, we would remain in a relationship with God, completely dependent on Him. But if we choose wrong, we would end up cast out from a relationship with Him and left to eventually die, unless God were to intervene. This test was made known through the two trees in the midst of the Garden; the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Of course, as we've all been made to understand, mankind messed up and made the wrong choice. This is absolutely ridiculous!

Let's start with the fact that God is the creator of the very reality in which we exist. All existence comes from God. The very idea that God would create a life form, from the infinite possibilities of what He could create, that would be capable of messing up, if He did not want them to mess up, is absolute fantasy. If God did not want man to sin, man never would've sinned. When the serpent told Eve she would become like God, the serpent was speaking in reference to knowledge, not some form of godly power capable of messing up God's plan.

Also, the idea that God was testing man to see if he would remain loyal is just as ridiculous. In everything that God created, He said that it 'was all very good.' There was nothing God created that could possibly tempt man away from God. By introducing the tree of knowledge, with the commandment not to eat from it, creates the very condition where disloyalty becomes possible. Meaning, God creates the very thing to cause disloyalty. This is illogical. If He did not want man to be tempted, He would not have created the potential for it.

So why the tree of knowledge then?

A relationship requires the freedom to either accept or to refuse. For such a choice to be realized requires what we understand as freewill. Freewill, at it's very essence, is the freedom to deny God, to deny our very creator. It is what enables our moral agency, the capacity to discern between good and evil, right and wrong, and to act accordingly. So naturally, in order to have freewill, one must posses the knowledge of good and evil. This is knowledge that neither Adam or Eve had prior to the fall, Gen 3:5, Gen 3:22.

For God to establish the possibility of a relationship means allowing man freewill. To allow man freewill means allowing man the knowledge of good and evil. However, this comes at a cost. God is Just by nature and cannot act contrary to His nature. This means any evil that is committed must be punished. The punishment for evil is spiritual death, separation from God. This, of course, creates a dilemma. How does God allow man freewill while upholding His Divine justice?

Christ Jesus!

God resolves this dilemma through Jesus. God takes upon Himself the punishment for sin in the person of Jesus. Through His sacrifice, mankind is forgiven making it possible to enter into a relationship with God.

It should also be understood that you cannot know the character/nature of God without evil. God Is good, but how are you to know good if you don't know it's opposite? You need it's opposite from which to distinguish what is good. How were Adam and Eve to know God wasn't evil, or that the serpent wasn't good? Surely, had Eve known the serpent wasn't good, she wouldn't have listened to him. Adan and Eve had no way of recognizing the goodness of God until they experienced the absence of God, until they experienced evil.

Sin was no accident. It was necessary so that the goodness of God could be known. Likewise, the crucifixion was also a part of God's divine plan. It was necessary in order to deal with the penalty for the sin that God had to allow. It was all predestined, as captured beautifully by Paul in Eph 1:4-10.

Now, don't misunderstand... God does not will sin! Nor does He take pleasure in it. But in His infinite wisdom, He knew that allowing sin would create the context in which humanity could experience His goodness, grace, and love. The fall wasn't a breakdown in God's plan, it was the very road in which that plan would be fulfilled.

Mark Quayle · Wednesday at 11:12 PM

A Devil's Advocate said:
Disclaimer: This post is intended for those who follow the True God of the bible and not the lesser form of God commonly associated with Christianity (sarcasm intended).

There is this popular belief that mankind messed up. We were given a test. Should we choose correctly, we would remain in a relationship with God, completely dependent on Him. But if we choose wrong, we would end up cast out from a relationship with Him and left to eventually die, unless God were to intervene. This test was made known through the two trees in the midst of the Garden; the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Of course, as we've all been made to understand, mankind messed up and made the wrong choice. This is absolutely ridiculous!

Let's start with the fact that God is the creator of the very reality in which we exist. All existence comes from God. The very idea that God would create a life form, from the infinite possibilities of what He could create, that would be capable of messing up, if He did not want them to mess up, is absolute fantasy. If God did not want man to sin, man never would've sinned. When the serpent told Eve she would become like God, the serpent was speaking in reference to knowledge, not some form of godly power capable of messing up God's plan.

Also, the idea that God was testing man to see if he would remain loyal is just as ridiculous. In everything that God created, He said that it 'was all very good.' There was nothing God created that could possibly tempt man away from God. By introducing the tree of knowledge, with the commandment not to eat from it, creates the very condition where disloyalty becomes possible. Meaning, God creates the very thing to cause disloyalty. This is illogical. If He did not want man to be tempted, He would not have created the potential for it.

So why the tree of knowledge then?

A relationship requires the freedom to either accept or to refuse. For such a choice to be realized requires what we understand as freewill. Freewill, at it's very essence, is the freedom to deny God, to deny our very creator. It is what enables our moral agency, the capacity to discern between good and evil, right and wrong, and to act accordingly. So naturally, in order to have freewill, one must posses the knowledge of good and evil. This is knowledge that neither Adam or Eve had prior to the fall, Gen 3:5, Gen 3:22.

For God to establish the possibility of a relationship means allowing man freewill. To allow man freewill means allowing man the knowledge of good and evil. However, this comes at a cost. God is Just by nature and cannot act contrary to His nature. This means any evil that is committed must be punished. The punishment for evil is spiritual death, separation from God. This, of course, creates a dilemma. How does God allow man freewill while upholding His Divine justice?

Christ Jesus!

God resolves this dilemma through Jesus. God takes upon Himself the punishment for sin in the person of Jesus. Through His sacrifice, mankind is forgiven making it possible to enter into a relationship with God.

It should also be understood that you cannot know the character/nature of God without evil. God Is good, but how are you to know good if you don't know it's opposite? You need it's opposite from which to distinguish what is good. How were Adam and Eve to know God wasn't evil, or that the serpent wasn't good? Surely, had Eve known the serpent wasn't good, she wouldn't have listened to him. Adan and Eve had no way of recognizing the goodness of God until they experienced the absence of God, until they experienced evil.

Sin was no accident. It was necessary so that the goodness of God could be known. Likewise, the crucifixion was also a part of God's divine plan. It was necessary in order to deal with the penalty for the sin that God had to allow. It was all predestined, as captured beautifully by Paul in Eph 1:4-10.

Now, don't misunderstand... God does not will sin! Nor does He take pleasure in it. But in His infinite wisdom, He knew that allowing sin would create the context in which humanity could experience His goodness, grace, and love. The fall wasn't a breakdown in God's plan, it was the very road in which that plan would be fulfilled.

Very good! I'm curious—how do you view T.U.L.I.P. ?

RandyPNW · 2025-11-20T01:43:10-0600

A Devil's Advocate said:
Disclaimer: This post is intended for those who follow the True God of the bible and not the lesser form of God commonly associated with Christianity (sarcasm intended).

Why the Disclaimer? You think the God of the Bible is to be separated from Christianity?

A Devil's Advocate said:
There is this popular belief that mankind messed up. We were given a test. Should we choose correctly, we would remain in a relationship with God, completely dependent on Him. But if we choose wrong, we would end up cast out from a relationship with Him and left to eventually die, unless God were to intervene. This test was made known through the two trees in the midst of the Garden; the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Of course, as we've all been made to understand, mankind messed up and made the wrong choice. This is absolutely ridiculous!

It is hardly ridiculous. Everything about the trees in the Garden was a test of loyalty with consequences. God also tested Israel in the wilderness with consequences.

A Devil's Advocate said:
Let's start with the fact that God is the creator of the very reality in which we exist. All existence comes from God. The very idea that God would create a life form, from the infinite possibilities of what He could create, that would be capable of messing up, if He did not want them to mess up, is absolute fantasy.

Not at all. Yes, God created all existence. And yes, God has infinite possibilities. But he did create the ability for angels and men both to "mess up." He did not want them to mess up due to His holiness. But He wanted them to be able to mess up because He wanted to test their loyalty, preferring their choices based upon free will.

A Devil's Advocate said:
If God did not want man to sin, man never would've sinned. When the serpent told Eve she would become like God, the serpent was speaking in reference to knowledge, not some form of godly power capable of messing up God's plan.

Yes, God allowed the serpent to offer Man the knowledge of disobedience to God's word. That is not "godly power," but rather, "ungodly power."

A Devil's Advocate said:
Also, the idea that God was testing man to see if he would remain loyal is just as ridiculous. In everything that God created, He said that it 'was all very good.' There was nothing God created that could possibly tempt man away from God.

Actually, what God allowed the serpent to offer Man in the Garden was precisely God's creation of circumstances that tested his loyalty. The creation was good. The choice to disobey by Man was not good. Having free will was good. The choice to use free will to rebel against God's word was not good.

A Devil's Advocate said:
By introducing the tree of knowledge, with the commandment not to eat from it, creates the very condition where disloyalty becomes possible. Meaning, God creates the very thing to cause disloyalty. This is illogical. If He did not want man to be tempted, He would not have created the potential for it.

False, God thought it good to give Man free will. He did not wish Man to use his free will to rebel against His word. But God thought it good to allow Man, in his free will, to rebel against His word if he so wished to do so. Who are we to say that this is illogical or absurd? It is precisely what happened!

A Devil's Advocate said:
It should also be understood that you cannot know the character/nature of God without evil.

That does not follow. I can know God as a good God without ever having sinned, just as the good angels who never sinned still know God is holy. They say so in the book of Revelation.

A Devil's Advocate · 2025-11-20T19:17:46-0600

Mark Quayle said:
Very good! I'm curious—how do you view T.U.L.I.P. ?

Being I am not a Calvinist, I am unfamiliar with the acronym T.U.L.I.P. So my reply is based off of what I got from a quick search.

Total Depravity: This assumes that spiritual death is a cessation of the spirit. If this was true, then I would agree with total depravity. However, I do not believe spiritual death to be the cessation of the spirit, but rather the spirit going into a dormant state where it is no longer sensitive to God's presence. But, it is still capable of responding to the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. If our spirit was actually dead, then even the convicting work of the Holy Spirit would be of no use, and we would remain lost.
Also, and I can't say this with absolute certainty, because we are made in the image of God, I believe the cessation of any part of our being: body, soul, or spirit would result in what looks like physical death. God is revealed to us in three persons, but all are still one God. Being in the image of God we too are made up of three parts, as I just described. These three parts are what makes us human. This would explain why in the new age, we receive new physical bodies. Not only to maintain the image of God, but because we cannot exist without all three parts.

Unconditional Election: I heard TD Jakes say once that God choosing to save whomever it is He chooses to save is a great display of His grace because no one deserves salvation. Rather than lose everyone, God chooses to save some. To me this doesn't paint a very attractive picture of God. If God is capable of saving some, then He is clearly capable of saving all, yet chooses not to? This does not sound like the God presented to us in the bible.

Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints: These next three are all based of the premise that it is our sins that separate us from God. That salvation is found in getting our sins forgiven. This same premise applies to almost all forms of Christianity being preached today.

Ours sins are not the problem. They are not what separates us from God. Our sin is a form of behavior. Our sinful behavior is a symptom of our condition, not the cause. Our condition is that of spiritual death. Spiritual death was the punishment Adam and Eve received for their disobedience. Because spiritual death plus spiritual death will always equal spiritual death, we've all come into the world already spiritually dead (separated from God). The symptom of our condition, being separated from God, is that we sin.

Now because it is not our sins that separate us from God, getting our sins forgiven isn't going to save us. We are saved when we place our faith in God for salvation. The forgiveness of sins is what makes salvation possible. Everyone from the cross forward has come into the world already forgiven of their sins (this was made know when God tore the temple curtain). Salvation however (which is found in the resurrection), only occurs once we place our faith in God. So now if God has forgiven all of mankind, then clearly salvation must also be available to all of mankind.

When the Holy Spirit convicts us, it is not of our sin, but of our unbelief. All sin is forgiven, but our unbelief isn't. This we must choose to repent of.

Because the punishment for all sin was forgiven at the cross, there remains no more punishment to be handed out by God. Because there is no more punishment left to be handed out, there is no longer any possibility of spiritual death, separation from God. Because spiritual death is no longer a possibility, there is no way to lose your salvation, or to wilfully lose it by walking away since you can't wilfully choose to spiritually die. That is in God's hands alone.

Having said all this, in the end, I honestly don't think it matters what one believes in terms of salvation, but rather who we believe in for salvation. Anyone who places their faith in God for salvation will be saved, regardless of whatever else they choose to believe.

Now before anyone comes at me with their nickers in a knot claiming that John 14:6 says we must believe in Jesus to be saved... let me be the first to remind you that Jesus is God! Not simply a means too God. He established the fact that He is God in the first part of the verse. Therefore, He is not saying no comes to the Father/God/Me except through the Father/God/Me. This makes absolutely no sense. Why do you need to go through God in order to get too God when going through God means you're already with God?

What Jesus is actually saying is that regardless of how you choose to come to God, you will have come through Him. He is the one that made salvation possible. It is only through His forgiveness of sins that anyone can now come into the presence of God for salvation.

The Liturgist · 2025-11-20T20:14:51-0600

A Devil's Advocate said:
Now before anyone comes at me with their nickers in a knot claiming that John 14:6 says we must believe in Jesus to be saved... let me be the first to remind you that Jesus is God! Not simply a means too God. He established the fact that He is God in the first part of the verse. Therefore, He is not saying no comes to the Father/God/Me except through the Father/God/Me. This makes absolutely no sense. Why do you need to go through God in order to get too God when going through God means you're already with God?

That’s an incorrect reading, inconsistent with the Patristic understanding shared by all Christians (who apparently you have a disdain for) which is based on a Modalist or Sabellian misinterpretation of the nature of God. We worship one God, in three persons. That said, the persons (the Greek word is prosopon, which could be misinterpreted to mean mask or visage, were it not for the fact that we say each prosopon is hypostatically distinct while sharing the one essence of the Father (homoousios), are distinct, so the Son is not the Father.

In declaring that no one comes to the Father except through Him, Christ is declaring the doctrine of the Incarnation - that through Him, the Father, who is invisible, has made Himself visible, in the Prosopon of His only begotten Son and Word, who, in putting on our human form, remade us in His image on the Cross, and demonstrated God’s willingness to die to save humanity.

The problem with your approach is a confusion of the persons; yes, the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit are one God, the Holy, Life Giving and Undivided Trinity, but undivided does not mean indistinct; your argument implies God as being one Person, when He is one God abiding in Three persons, a union of infinite and eternal love, that we are called to make ourselves holy icons of, in our relationship with our family, with our neighbor, with the fellow members of the Church (the Ekklesia spoken of by St. Paul and by the Nicene Creed, however you define it ecclesiologically speaking), and with humanity as a whole.

What i love about Eastern Christianity in its various forms (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Eastern Catholic) is the extreme emphasis we place on love for one another, which one also seeks echoed in some Lutheran thought, for example Soren Kierkegaard sounded very Orthodox when he famously wrote “I need you in order to be me.”

Certainly my life has been enriched not just by my Orthodox coreligionists like @prodromos @dzheremi @jas3 @FenderTL5 @Chesterton and others on but also by my dear Lutheran friends @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis and @Ain't Zwinglian and my dear Roman Catholic friends @chevyontheriver @RileyG and @Xeno.of.athens and by my dear Anglican friends @Jipsah and @Shane R among others. It is this component of love in the Holy Trinity that attests to the identity of God in three persons and not the functionally unipersonal God you seem to be describing; you might consider yourself a Trinitarian, but I would respectfully submit that if you think that Christ saying “no one can come to the Father except through Me” is anything other than an attestation of the doctrine of the Incarnation you need to study the Trinitarian concept more carefully, ideally by studying in greater detail rather than simply dismissing outright the doctrines of Christianity, particularly as expressed by the traditional liturgical churches.

A Devil's Advocate · 2025-11-20T20:34:07-0600

RandyPNW said:
Why the Disclaimer? You think the God of the Bible is to be separated from Christianity?

I think you missed the whole concept of that being sarcasm. The point I was getting at is that many Christians tend to place God in a box. He is only capable of so much. Even to the point that you have to wonder if they believe sin itself has more power than God.

RandyPNW said:
It is hardly ridiculous. Everything about the trees in the Garden was a test of loyalty with consequences. God also tested Israel in the wilderness with consequences.

Okay. But why? Why test for loyalty? God wants a relationship, not just a bunch of loyal servants. What does loyalty have to do with anything? A relationship assumes loyalty. Loyalty is the natural fruit of a loving relationship, not the other way around.

RandyPNW said:
False, God thought it good to give Man free will. He did not wish Man to use his free will to rebel against His word. But God thought it good to allow Man, in his free will, to rebel against His word if he so wished to do so. Who are we to say that this is illogical or absurd? It is precisely what happened!

When did man have freewill? I'm talking about the ability to choose... real choice, meaningful choice, choice that carries weight and consequence. Before the fall, when the knowledge of good and evil was first gained by Adam and Eve, where was their freewill?

The potential for freewill was there, yes. This was established by the commandment. But freewill was not realized until they had knowledge from which their moral agency could operate and they could understand the consequences. Choice, and the exercise of that choice had to come before freewill could be fully realized. The choice to eat from the tree or not would not be considered freewill because at that point, they would have had no moral understanding of the consequences of their behavior.

RandyPNW said:
That does not follow. I can know God as a good God without ever having sinned, just as the good angels who never sinned still know God is holy. They say so in the book of Revelation.

How is it you're able to know that light exists? It's because the absence of light is darkness. It is because of darkness that we are able to recognize light. The same is true for God. The absence of good (God) is evil. Because of evil, we are then able to recognize the goodness of God. If there was no evil, no absence of good, then how would you know that God is good? What are you using as a reference point from which to distinguish good? What are you measuring good against to know if it is good?

Your statement overlooks an important concept. God's angels know sin like a doctor, for example, knows cancer. Whereas, we know sin like a cancer patient knows cancer. His angels know it through knowledge, we know it through experience. So yes, an angel can know the Holiness of God because they have an intellectual understanding of sin.
Before the fall, man had neither intellectual or experiential understanding of sin. Because the fall was a physical act, man gained the understanding of sin through experience.

A Devil's Advocate · 2025-11-20T21:04:49-0600

The Liturgist said:
your argument implies God as being one Person, when He is one God abiding in Three persons,

A Devil's Advocate said:
God is revealed to us in three persons, but all are still one God.

This is from earlier in that same post. I do not believe God to be one person. That makes no sense. I believe God to be one God revealed to us in three persons. I think you may have miss read.

If I believe in the Holy Spirit, do I not also believe in God? Same with Jesus. If I believe in Jesus, am I not also believing in God?

The Liturgist said:
In declaring that no one comes to the Father except through Him, Christ is declaring the doctrine of the Incarnation - that through Him, the Father, who is invisible, has made Himself visible, in the Prosopon of His only begotten Son and Word, who, in putting on our human form, remade us in His image on the Cross, and demonstrated God’s willingness to die to save humanity.

Maybe I am miss reading this, but this statement tells me that Christ, putting on our human form, was still God dying to save humanity.

Mark Quayle · 2025-11-21T00:08:31-0600

A Devil's Advocate said:
Being I am not a Calvinist, I am unfamiliar with the acronym T.U.L.I.P. So my reply is based off of what I got from a quick search.

Total Depravity: This assumes that spiritual death is a cessation of the spirit. If this was true, then I would agree with total depravity. However, I do not believe spiritual death to be the cessation of the spirit, but rather the spirit going into a dormant state where it is no longer sensitive to God's presence. But, it is still capable of responding to the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. If our spirit was actually dead, then even the convicting work of the Holy Spirit would be of no use, and we would remain lost.
Also, and I can't say this with absolute certainty, because we are made in the image of God, I believe the cessation of any part of our being: body, soul, or spirit would result in what looks like physical death. God is revealed to us in three persons, but all are still one God. Being in the image of God we too are made up of three parts, as I just described. These three parts are what makes us human. This would explain why in the new age, we receive new physical bodies. Not only to maintain the image of God, but because we cannot exist without all three parts.

Unconditional Election: I heard TD Jakes say once that God choosing to save whomever it is He chooses to save is a great display of His grace because no one deserves salvation. Rather than lose everyone, God chooses to save some. To me this doesn't paint a very attractive picture of God. If God is capable of saving some, then He is clearly capable of saving all, yet chooses not to? This does not sound like the God presented to us in the bible.

Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints: These next three are all based of the premise that it is our sins that separate us from God. That salvation is found in getting our sins forgiven. This same premise applies to almost all forms of Christianity being preached today.

Ours sins are not the problem. They are not what separates us from God. Our sin is a form of behavior. Our sinful behavior is a symptom of our condition, not the cause. Our condition is that of spiritual death. Spiritual death was the punishment Adam and Eve received for their disobedience. Because spiritual death plus spiritual death will always equal spiritual death, we've all come into the world already spiritually dead (separated from God). The symptom of our condition, being separated from God, is that we sin.

Now because it is not our sins that separate us from God, getting our sins forgiven isn't going to save us. We are saved when we place our faith in God for salvation. The forgiveness of sins is what makes salvation possible. Everyone from the cross forward has come into the world already forgiven of their sins (this was made know when God tore the temple curtain). Salvation however (which is found in the resurrection), only occurs once we place our faith in God. So now if God has forgiven all of mankind, then clearly salvation must also be available to all of mankind.

When the Holy Spirit convicts us, it is not of our sin, but of our unbelief. All sin is forgiven, but our unbelief isn't. This we must choose to repent of.

Because the punishment for all sin was forgiven at the cross, there remains no more punishment to be handed out by God. Because there is no more punishment left to be handed out, there is no longer any possibility of spiritual death, separation from God. Because spiritual death is no longer a possibility, there is no way to lose your salvation, or to wilfully lose it by walking away since you can't wilfully choose to spiritually die. That is in God's hands alone.

Having said all this, in the end, I honestly don't think it matters what one believes in terms of salvation, but rather who we believe in for salvation. Anyone who places their faith in God for salvation will be saved, regardless of whatever else they choose to believe.

Now before anyone comes at me with their nickers in a knot claiming that John 14:6 says we must believe in Jesus to be saved... let me be the first to remind you that Jesus is God! Not simply a means too God. He established the fact that He is God in the first part of the verse. Therefore, He is not saying no comes to the Father/God/Me except through the Father/God/Me. This makes absolutely no sense. Why do you need to go through God in order to get too God when going through God means you're already with God?

What Jesus is actually saying is that regardless of how you choose to come to God, you will have come through Him. He is the one that made salvation possible. It is only through His forgiveness of sins that anyone can now come into the presence of God for salvation.

I would be careful to agree that what the Bible says, is what matters, and not what we have made of it. On the other side of that, is that "no scripture is of private interpretation"—we must be careful not to jump too quickly to our own conclusions.

To avoid too long an answer, you may be surprised how much like Calvinism your notion of spiritual death, our sinfulness and unbelief (though they say it differently) and not simply our sins, are what condemn us. The difference lies in your idea of the will of the believer to repent and believe being the turning point in undoing spiritual death, while the Calvinist believes the will and faith are results, and not causes, of new birth. It is a gift of God. "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do according to his good purpose." Another word you might find interesting is "Monergism", which speaks of the work of God in saving us being by his own motivation and act, and not ours. (But don't take my short definition there alone. —I don't claim to be a Calvinist and I don't want to misrepresent Calvinism).

Some other things you say are accurate and reasonable, such as the fact that entirely forgiven sin can't come back at us, to undo our spiritual regeneration. My reasoning agrees, but is based mainly on the fact that God will indeed accomplish whatever he set out to do, and it cannot be undone. Thus, even if I am not among those to whom he chose to show mercy, he is to be praised for his consuming power of purity and purpose, all of HIS own doing. If I have only fooled myself, thinking my decision of faith to be of some substance, it makes no difference as to who he is and what he has decided to do. And if I am among those to whom he chose to show mercy, I will not be lost.

Search

Search

Sin and the Crucifixion were all predestined

A Devil's Advocate

Active Member

More options

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

More options

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member

More options

A Devil's Advocate

Active Member

More options

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian

More options

A Devil's Advocate

Active Member

More options

A Devil's Advocate

Active Member

More options

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

More options

Similar threads