Irresistable grace and limited atonement?

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Calvininsms is a system developed by a lawyer John Calvin, but I think the logical system trying to answer every questions that even the bible didn't addressed. While Luther is fine leaving the gap, he say it's a mystery.

Lutheran would agree that we are justify by faith, unconditionally, but it's fine with the grace is possible to be rejected by the unbelievers.

Can calvinist show me which verses or passage about irresistable grace and limited atonement?
 

Of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2018
571
445
Atlanta, Georgia
✟48,162.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When Jesus was on the cross, I envision Him as seeing the individual sin of each person who would ultimately be saved, and consciously accepting it. If He thought at all of a sinner who would never be saved, He knew that that sin would not be atoned for. After that, atonement was limited to those whose sins Jesus accepted.

Mankind's condemnation is irresistible -- save only that God can intervene with a miracle. The Holy Spirit does reach out with a miraculous offer of salvation -- to who? some? all? For those whose sins Jesus had individually accepted and atoned for, this call is irresistible.

These points are not established unconditionally within scripture. It is in our best interest to consider both sides of the issue, and be thankful that God has the situation under control. How limited and how irresistible His calls are, is entirely up to Him. And He has it right.
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,607.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
When Jesus was on the cross, I envision Him as seeing the individual sin of each person who would ultimately be saved, and consciously accepting it. If He thought at all of a sinner who would never be saved, He knew that that sin would not be atoned for. After that, atonement was limited to those whose sins Jesus accepted.

Mankind's condemnation is irresistible -- save only that God can intervene with a miracle. The Holy Spirit does reach out with a miraculous offer of salvation -- to who? some? all? For those whose sins Jesus had individually accepted and atoned for, this call is irresistible.

These points are not established unconditionally within scripture. It is in our best interest to consider both sides of the issue, and be thankful that God has the situation under control. How limited and how irresistible His calls are, is entirely up to Him. And He has it right.

Limited atonement don't simply means Jesus save those who believe in his, but stating Christ did not die for all. That's why Lutheran isn't 5 points Calvinist. You mentioned irresistable, to me irresistable grace is a doctrine where calvinist would say if one is truly a God's elect he will never able to walk away from the faith, but in reality is it really so? If a Christian walked a way from faith, then calvinist will say ah this guy never truly a Christian in the beginning.
 
Upvote 0

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Matthew 1:21

And she (mary) will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

That does not say all people, it does not say the sins of all the world. Just his people.
Ya, he saved his people, but did he die for all or for some?
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,607.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Limited atonement don't simply means Jesus save those who believe in his, but stating Christ did not die for all. That's why Lutheran isn't 5 points Calvinist. You mentioned irresistable, to me irresistable grace is a doctrine where calvinist would say if one is truly a God's elect he will never able to walk away from the faith, but in reality is it really so? If a Christian walked a way from faith, then calvinist will say ah this guy never truly a Christian in the beginning.

Yes, Jesus only paid for the sins of the elect (the people that believe) and if someone dies in their sin, they weren't a believer.

The problem with "universal atonement":

1. If Jesus paid for my sin and I end up in the Lake of Fire to pay for my own sin; that's two people paying for the sin of one and that is not justice.

2. Universal atonement would mean God couldn't hold anyone accountable for their sin because it's all been paid for.

3. Universal atonement means a portion of Christ's death was in vain because not all become believers.

4. Universal atonement leaves man in charge of his own salvation; thus robbing God of His sovereign will to act.

5. Universal atonement violates all kinds of Scripture that says because of total depravity; no one will come to God. No one wants the Redeemer because they don't see their need.
 
Upvote 0

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
1. If Jesus paid for my sin and I end up in the Lake of Fire to pay for my own sin; that's two people paying for the sin of one and that is not justice.
You didn't repent means you reject the offer. God is just to put u in hell.

2. Universal atonement would mean God couldn't hold anyone accountable for their sin because it's all been paid for.
There are ppl who Christ died for but unsaved
Bible Gateway passage: John 17:12, 2 Peter 2:1, Jude 4 - English Standard Version

3. Universal atonement means a portion of Christ's death was in vain because not all become believers.
vain? God offer grace but some rejected it.

4. Universal atonement leaves man in charge of his own salvation; thus robbing God of His sovereign will to act.
No, one have to be believed in order to be saved. universal atonement doesn't deny predestination.

5. Universal atonement violates all kinds of Scripture that says because of total depravity; no one will come to God. No one wants the Redeemer because they don't see their need.

Lutheran hold universal atomenet yet believe in the original sin and God's monergistic salvation.
 
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

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,607.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
You didn't repent means you reject the offer. God is just to put u in hell.

So again, you make salvation based on your action, not God's sovereign will.

Also, you still didn't address the issue of two people paying for one person's sin as that relates to Divine justice. You make God the Father unjust to the Son, because Jesus suffered in vain for people He atoned for who don't become redeemed.

There are ppl who Christ died for but unsaved

Look closely at the verse you quoted. (Also note the difference between the wording of the ESV and the KJV. King Jimmy is a little clearer in conveying the meaning.)

ESV
12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

".... which You have given me..." What did the Father give Christ? Both Christ and the Father (and Sprit) are eternally existent, so the Father didn't give Christ "His name" (Christ's or the Father's name). None had been lost (that the Father had "given" Christ to redeem); "but the son of perdition that Scripture might be fulfilled."

Now look at the King James. The order of the wording certainly makes it clear that Judas was not atoned for.

KJV
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gave me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Those that You gave me I've kept and none of them is lost. but (on the other hand) the son of perdition (is lost) that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

This passage doesn't imply; (as you wish it did) that the son of perdition was actually atoned for. He wasn't. Jesus did not pay for Judas's sin.

Next; notice when Jesus actually says this. This is the night before Passover. This is before Judas had died. How did Jesus "know" Judas "wasn't going to repent"?

Yet, when you look at it in the human aspect of the event; Judas did "repent". He brought the money back and said he'd betrayed an innocent man. Judas had legitimately felt bad about what he'd done. (Bad enough to hang himself for it.) Also his behavior changed; he did bring the money back.

But that's not God's definition of repentance. "Godly sorrow works repentance unto salvation; but the sorrow of this world works death." 2 Corinthians 7:10

Judas is the perfect example here of "worldly sorrow". His behavior did demonstrate legitimate feelings of guilt; but that didn't work "repentance unto salvation".

Which this forces anyone who's serious about redemption to consider what exactly is "repentance unto salvation". Obviously it means the type of repentance that produces salvation. Well, what type of repentance is that? I'm sure there is a lot that can be said in what that constitutes; but I'm pretty sure it involves a certain understanding that God doesn't owe you anything; even if you are sorry for the wrong that you've done. You don't deserve grace. None of us do.

God offer grace but some rejected it.

And if it weren't for God's intervention upon the lives of some; all would reject it. That's what Roman's 3 is talking about. No one wants grace and unless God wakes a person up; they don't even know what it really is! And if they are truly woke; of course they want it, because they know they don't deserve it and are thoroughly convinced of what will happen to them if they don't get grace.

Being on the receiving end of grace produces a type of trepidation within the awareness of the believer, because they full-well know and understand what they do deserve. Of course they are joyful for receiving grace; yet that joy is tempered by an understanding that not only do they not deserve to be atoned for; their personal redemption cost Jesus an awful lot.

No, one have to be believed in order to be saved. universal atonement doesn't deny predestination.

Universal atonement is unjust and particularly to Christ; because that's to say Christ still suffered for those who don't become saved. No matter how you slice it; that still makes God unjust.

Which if God is unjust; why would you believe anyone is redeemed? If God can condemn His own Son (the only person who never sinned) and arbitrarily determine that one person's form of repentance is sufficient when another's is not; how do you know that your repentance is sufficient?

Look at Judas; according to all worldly standards he repented; yet it wasn't "repentance unto salvation". So... how do you know who has "repentance unto salvation" and who doesn't? (My answer to that question is: "He who has repentance unto salvation, is the one God elected from before time even began, atoned for their sin and brought about both their ability to believe, as well as to produce repentance unto salvation." In other words; salvation is all of God and none of us. We only rightly respond to it; (which is made manifest by both what we do, as well as what we believe about redemption).

Lutheran hold universal atomenet yet believe in the original sin and God's monergistic salvation.

LOL - Then how do Lutherans reconcile Monergism with universal atonement?

I agree that regeneration initiates without human cooperation. The spiritual awakening incites the human will to cooperation for recognition, as well as conviction of the need for redemption.

Yet if universal atonement were true; you'd have to explain why either (or both) that regeneration doesn't produce faith and repentance in some people; or why there are those Christ has atoned for, that the Holy Ghost doesn't regenerate?

If you don't have electricity; you're either not connected to the network, or there's a break somewhere in the network. To say human beings can "blow a transformer" in the Redemption network; is to say either God isn't sovereign (can't fix it) or He just doesn't care (won't fix it).

Predestination on the other hand; declares that simply not everyone is "connected to the network". Matter of fact; most aren't.

Matthew 7:
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
 
Upvote 0

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So again, you make salvation based on your action, not God's sovereign will.

So you're an elect without repentance to accept Jesus?

Also, you still didn't address the issue of two people paying for one person's sin as that relates to Divine justice. You make God the Father unjust to the Son, because Jesus suffered in vain for people He atoned for who don't become redeemed.

The Father predestinate, He's gracious, He choose us, we have to response, no need to put in a logical box of an finite being

Look closely at the verse you quoted. (Also note the difference between the wording of the ESV and the KJV. King Jimmy is a little clearer in conveying the meaning.)

ESV
12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

".... which You have given me..." What did the Father give Christ? Both Christ and the Father (and Sprit) are eternally existent, so the Father didn't give Christ "His name" (Christ's or the Father's name). None had been lost (that the Father had "given" Christ to redeem); "but the son of perdition that Scripture might be fulfilled."

Now look at the King James. The order of the wording certainly makes it clear that Judas was not atoned for.

KJV
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gave me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Those that You gave me I've kept and none of them is lost. but (on the other hand) the son of perdition (is lost) that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

This passage doesn't imply; (as you wish it did) that the son of perdition was actually atoned for. He wasn't. Jesus did not pay for Judas's sin.

The passage above merely means the Father predestinated, and through salvation of Christ the people will be saved and not lost.

Next; notice when Jesus actually says this. This is the night before Passover. This is before Judas had died. How did Jesus "know" Judas "wasn't going to repent"?

Yet, when you look at it in the human aspect of the event; Judas did "repent". He brought the money back and said he'd betrayed an innocent man. Judas had legitimately felt bad about what he'd done. (Bad enough to hang himself for it.) Also his behavior changed; he did bring the money back.

But that's not God's definition of repentance. "Godly sorrow works repentance unto salvation; but the sorrow of this world works death." 2 Corinthians 7:10

Judas is the perfect example here of "worldly sorrow". His behavior did demonstrate legitimate feelings of guilt; but that didn't work "repentance unto salvation".

Which this forces anyone who's serious about redemption to consider what exactly is "repentance unto salvation". Obviously it means the type of repentance that produces salvation. Well, what type of repentance is that? I'm sure there is a lot that can be said in what that constitutes; but I'm pretty sure it involves a certain understanding that God doesn't owe you anything; even if you are sorry for the wrong that you've done. You don't deserve grace. None of us do.



And if it weren't for God's intervention upon the lives of some; all would reject it. That's what Roman's 3 is talking about. No one wants grace and unless God wakes a person up; they don't even know what it really is! And if they are truly woke; of course they want it, because they know they don't deserve it and are thoroughly convinced of what will happen to them if they don't get grace.

Being on the receiving end of grace produces a type of trepidation within the awareness of the believer, because they full-well know and understand what they do deserve. Of course they are joyful for receiving grace; yet that joy is tempered by an understanding that not only do they not deserve to be atoned for; their personal redemption cost Jesus an awful lot.



Universal atonement is unjust and particularly to Christ; because that's to say Christ still suffered for those who don't become saved. No matter how you slice it; that still makes God unjust.

Which if God is unjust; why would you believe anyone is redeemed? If God can condemn His own Son (the only person who never sinned) and arbitrarily determine that one person's form of repentance is sufficient when another's is not; how do you know that your repentance is sufficient?

Look at Judas; according to all worldly standards he repented; yet it wasn't "repentance unto salvation". So... how do you know who has "repentance unto salvation" and who doesn't? (My answer to that question is: "He who has repentance unto salvation, is the one God elected from before time even began, atoned for their sin and brought about both their ability to believe, as well as to produce repentance unto salvation." In other words; salvation is all of God and none of us. We only rightly respond to it; (which is made manifest by both what we do, as well as what we believe about redemption).



LOL - Then how do Lutherans reconcile Monergism with universal atonement?
No need LOL, you need to know what the Lutheran view on tulip. are you willing to explore more other than stuck in the calvinist camp?
 
Upvote 0

5thKingdom

Newbie
Mar 23, 2015
3,698
219
✟35,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Calvininsms is a system developed by a lawyer John Calvin, but I think the logical system trying to answer every questions that even the bible didn't addressed. While Luther is fine leaving the gap, he say it's a mystery.

Lutheran would agree that we are justify by faith, unconditionally, but it's fine with the grace is possible to be rejected by the unbelievers.

Can calvinist show me which verses or passage about irresistable grace and limited atonement?


What is today known as "Calvinism" is actually the result of
the Canons of Dort (after Calvin died) to refute the five points
of Arminians.

As to your question about irresistible grace and limited atonement,
while I am not a "Calvinist" I think the verses often used are in
John 6 when Christ said:

NO MAN can come to me unless the Father "draws" them [v44]
And ALL MEN the Father gives "shall come" to Him [v37] and that
the WILL OF GOD is that Jesus saves ALL of "His sheep" [v39]

Of course there are many other passages teaching the same...
as well as passages teaching that some men were NEVER MEANT
to be saved (they were NOT part of His sheep).

.
 
Upvote 0

5thKingdom

Newbie
Mar 23, 2015
3,698
219
✟35,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Matthew 7:
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.


I think we see a contrast here between CHRISTIANS (unsaved tares)
who follow a synergistic gospel [v13 and 15] and CHRISTIANS
(saved wheat) who follow a monergistic Gospel [v14].

I think v15 shows the previous two verses are talking about those
in the Christian church. So you have synergism in v13 and
monergism in v14... the BROAD WAY and narrow way
of the traditional Christian gospel(s) through time.

Historically, this is confirmed as the vast majority of Christians
(and especially modern Christians) follow a synergistic "gospel"...
the BROAD WAY.

.
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,607.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I think we see a contrast here between CHRISTIANS (unsaved tares)
who follow a synergistic gospel [v13 and 15] and CHRISTIANS
(saved wheat) who follow a monergistic Gospel [v14].

I think v15 shows the previous two verses are talking about those
in the Christian church. So you have synergism in v13 and
monergism in v14... the BROAD WAY and narrow way
of the traditional Christian gospel(s) through time.

Historically, this is confirmed as the vast majority of Christians
(and especially modern Christians) follow a synergistic "gospel"...
the BROAD WAY.

.

I think what you say here is generally true; although I've run into people who (would I say they) don't have enough "education", understanding are young in the faith, or maybe facing many other socially obstructive factors so to speak, that they are genuinely quite confused about what the Bible really does say. Even though they do demonstrate genuine trust in God.

So even among the synergism of today there operates monergism.

Conversely, from the Reformation, up until about the beginning of the 19th century, there certainly was a fair share of "called but not chosen". And maybe this is just my ignorance of Medieval Europe; but it doesn't seem to me that much in the realm of theological meat came between about the 3rd century and the Reformation. (God only knows what's buried in the Vatican archives though.)

Personally I wonder if that has any connection to the completion of the Babylonian Talmud and the rise of Islam, as it affected the "eastern orthodox" (church) denominations? There is certainly historical connections between the Talmud, the Quran and its subsequent hadiths; but that's a whole other subject!

Despite this, it's rather a remarkable testament to God's sovereign faithfulness that Jerome and subsequent translators produced reasonably accurate translations of the Scripture. Yet another "side effect" of synergism today is what we see of most modern Bible translations, despite the incredible access to information we have in this age.
 
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

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,607.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
No need LOL, you need to know what the Lutheran view on tulip. are you willing to explore more other than stuck in the calvinist camp?

Despite your assumptions about my knowledge; I am familiar with the Lutheran take on TULIP and basically Lutherans are "Arminian" in theological doctrine.

Lutherans are also much like Roman Catholics in that they believe the "means of grace" only comes through their denominational understanding of baptism and communion. I'd gone to a Lutheran church for the deaf for a while and they wouldn't give me communion because I wasn't Lutheran; despite the fact that the preacher believed my faith was genuine. I'd pointed out a lot of things to the preacher and though he couldn't refute what I was saying from the Scripture; he (vehemently of will) stuck to his tradition.

Yet I've run into this in Orthodox Presbyterian churches too; (where the traditions of men end up taking precedence over the command of Scripture). (Mark 7:7-16) I'd gone to an OPC for 10 years and as it ended up; they would not baptize my son because he would not get up in front of everyone and formally join the church. (He has autism and epilepsy.) Yet they believe in "covenant theology"; where as I as the "head of the household" (due to the severity of his disability) he will remain under my parental supervision for the remainder of either his or my life; whom ever lives longer. Right there they don't even obey their own traditions!

So, he ended up being baptized by an evangelical baptist preacher at a Christian music festival in the hotel swimming pool of an amusement park. He even received a baptismal certificate. And even though this OPC church recognized his baptism as "valid" and stated that they believed he demonstrated genuine faith; they still would not give him communion.

What do you think is of a greater offense to Christ: allowing one who shouldn't partake to do so, or forbidding one who should from participating? "For as you've done this unto the least of my brethren, you've done it unto Me!"

Still, the Lutherans got "limited atonement" (and irroestiable grace) wrong for the same reason's I'd previously pointed out to you; in the previous post you tried to refute using the YouTube video. (I've seen that one already actually.)

So to answer your question? Yes, I've already "explored more" than "stuck in the Calvinist camp" and I've come to the conclusion that TULIP is doctrinally sound according to Scripture.

 
Upvote 0

5thKingdom

Newbie
Mar 23, 2015
3,698
219
✟35,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yet another "side effect" of synergism today is what we see of most modern Bible translations, despite the incredible access to information we have in this age.


What I find most amazing is that VERY FEW Gospels today are not synergistic.
It certainly is the BROAD WAY that MOST Christians follow. A monergistic Gospel
is such a narrow way and so FEW people find it... that it's practically non-existent
in the churches today.

.
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,607.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
What I find most amazing is that VERY FEW Gospels today are not synergistic.
It certainly is the BROAD WAY that MOST Christians follow. A monergistic Gospel
is such a narrow way and so FEW people find it... that it's practically non-existent
in the churches today.

.

I don't wonder if it's been that way mostly throughout time though? We do have times like the Reformation and the Great Awakening of the latter half of the 18th century; whereas I'm sure there were other pockets of revival. (There was one after WWII. There was one in Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. There's one going on in the Middle-East right now. So, it's not like "church growth" is unheard of. LOL)

Does seem like the last 150 years have been pretty bad though; as far as people actually understanding what redemption really is. We'll know when ever it is time actually ends.
 
Upvote 0

5thKingdom

Newbie
Mar 23, 2015
3,698
219
✟35,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't wonder if it's been that way mostly throughout time though? We do have times like the Reformation and the Great Awakening of the latter half of the 18th century; whereas I'm sure there were other pockets of revival. (There was one after WWII. There was one in Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. There's one going on in the Middle-East right now. So, it's not like "church growth" is unheard of. LOL)

Does seem like the last 150 years have been pretty bad though; as far as people actually understanding what redemption really is. We'll know when ever it is time actually ends.


I agree there have been times where God has blessed men with better understanding
of the Gospel.

Unfortunately "church growth" means LESS than nothing if they are following a false gospel.
I suspect that is the case with the Middle-East now.

.
 
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

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,607.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I agree there have been times where God has blessed men with better understanding
of the Gospel.

Unfortunately "church growth" means LESS than nothing if they are following a false gospel.
I suspect that is the case with the Middle-East now.

.

Agreed that "church growth" means less than nothing if it's a false gospel. What exactly is going on in the Middle East is kind of hard to pinpoint; because all of the "churches" are underground.

I do know one thing though; during Desert Storm (1991) Saudi Arabian military people would ask all us foreign personnel for two things: current events magazines and Bibles. Allied forces left 500,000 Bibles in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm and that is the single reason the Saudi Arabian government will not allow foreign armies back on their soil.

God works in mysterious ways. If that was the only eternal purpose that war had; it was worth all the consequences I now suffer from because of it!
 
Upvote 0