Some questions

markjohn777 · Sep 19, 2006

Hi there,

The concept of calvinism and arminianism is one that I am only just beginning to learn about. I've not been a Christian for a great deal of time, but the Churches that I have been attending would no doubt be classed as 'arminian' in thier viewpoint.

I would have to admit in my studies, of the two viewpoints, Reformed theology is the most scriptural. Especially that Salvation is not a work of Man, but the grace of God. I do however have many nagging doubts that I cannot wrap my head around. Whilst I know that there are things that can not be understood by us mere mortals, I can't forsake arminianism totally because it seems to reflect the loving nature of God and the fact that we do appear to have free will.

Greatful for insights and suggestions on the following:

1. God predestined Adam and Eve to sin and rebel against him. Is this true, and if so, why?

2. If I am 'elect' and God has predestined me to live to 82 years old, that means I can try and shoot myself in the head (no I'm not going to, don't worry!) and not be killed.

3. Cain killed Abel. Was this not against God's will or plan? Why did he seem not to know that Abel had been killed?

4. Why create Man only to wipe them out at the flood? God was grieved that he made man - surely he made them so that they would rebel?

5. Why do we need instruction on how to live a Christian lifestyle if God has predestined us to live exactly how he programmed us.

Someone told me that God predestines us to Salvation but we have free will in the 'smaller things' of life. But if my free will is to run over one of God's elect before they come to Christ....

Thanks in advance for your time in responding.

In Christ
M.

UMP · Sep 19, 2006

markjohn777 said:
Hi there,

The concept of calvinism and arminianism is one that I am only just beginning to learn about. I've not been a Christian for a great deal of time, but the Churches that I have been attending would no doubt be classed as 'arminian' in thier viewpoint.

I would have to admit in my studies, of the two viewpoints, Reformed theology is the most scriptural. Especially that Salvation is not a work of Man, but the grace of God. I do however have many nagging doubts that I cannot wrap my head around. Whilst I know that there are things that can not be understood by us mere mortals, I can't forsake arminianism totally because it seems to reflect the loving nature of God and the fact that we do appear to have free will.

Greatful for insights and suggestions on the following:

1. God predestined Adam and Eve to sin and rebel against him. Is this true, and if so, why?

2. If I am 'elect' and God has predestined me to live to 82 years old, that means I can try and shoot myself in the head (no I'm not going to, don't worry!) and not be killed.

3. Cain killed Abel. Was this not against God's will or plan? Why did he seem not to know that Abel had been killed?

4. Why create Man only to wipe them out at the flood? God was grieved that he made man - surely he made them so that they would rebel?

5. Why do we need instruction on how to live a Christian lifestyle if God has predestined us to live exactly how he programmed us.

Someone told me that God predestines us to Salvation but we have free will in the 'smaller things' of life. But if my free will is to run over one of God's elect before they come to Christ....

Thanks in advance for your time in responding.

In Christ
M.

Why don't you ask some hard questions
Well, for starters, this might be a great read for you:
http://www.sovereign-grace.com/pink/appendix-b.htm

On a side note, your questions are very normal, in fact, the Holy Spirit anticipated similar questions being asked as recorded by Paul in Romans 9: [19] "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"
The reply is humbling to say the least:
Romans 9:[20] "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
[21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
[22] What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:"

marvin · Sep 21, 2006

May I add a question?

What is the purpose of Calvinism? IOWs, what difference does it make in evangelism (and later in Christian growth) if a certain number of people were chosen by God for salvation before the foundation of the world OR if salvation is available to all people?

UMP · Sep 21, 2006

marvin said:
May I add a question?

What is the purpose of Calvinism? IOWs, what difference does it make in evangelism (and later in Christian growth) if a certain number of people were chosen by God for salvation before the foundation of the world OR if salvation is available to all people?

Did the work of Christ, God in the flesh, make salvation a mere possibility or a reality? In other words, was Christ successful in His mission or not?
Forget "Calvinism", that's just a word. What does the Bible say?

Elderone · Sep 21, 2006

A person saying they are a Calvinist is a "shorthand" declarative statement of a few things.

1. They agree with John Calvin as to what the Bible teaches.
2. They do NOT worship John Calvin.
3. In relation to evangelism, simply what the Bible directs:

Matt 28:19-20 -
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

4. In relation to future growth. If you have understood the Scriptures to the point that Calvinism, or the TULIP, makes sense, the rest of the Bible falls into place like a jigsaw puzzle, no twisting, pulling or shoving the text around to fit. We have also learned that God is in charge of everything and that John 15:5 applies

"I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."

5. The Bible teaches predestination as stated in the following:

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, Of Gods Eternal Decree:

Paragraph III

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.b
a. 1 Tim. 5:21; Matt. 25:41. b. Rom. 9:2223;Eph. 1:56; Prov. 16:4.

Paragraph IV

These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.a
a. 2 Tim. 2:19; John 13:18

Paragraph V

Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,a out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto:b and all to the praise of His glorious grace.c
a. Eph. 1:4, 9, 11; Rom 8:30; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Thess. 5:9.
b. Rom. 9:11, 13, 16; Eph. 1:4,9
c. Eph. 1:6, 12.

Paragraph VI

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.a Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,b are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,c and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.d Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.e
a. 1 Pet. 1:2; Eph. 1:45; 2:10; 2 Thess. 2:13
b. 1 Thess. 5:910; ***. 2:14
c. Rom. 8:30; Eph. 1:5; 2 Thess. 2:13.
d. 1 Pet. 1:5.
e. John 17:9; Rom. 8:2839; John 6:6465; 10:26; 8:47; 1 John 2:19.

Paragraph VII

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.a
a. Matt. 11:2526; Rom. 9:1718, 2122; 2 Tim. 2:1920; Jude 4; 1 Pet. 2:8.

marvin · Sep 21, 2006

UMP said:
Did the work of Christ, God in the flesh, make salvation a mere possibility or a reality? In other words, was Christ successful in His mission or not?
Forget "Calvinism", that's just a word. What does the Bible say?

Thank you for your response, UMP, but it doesn't answer my question (perhaps I've not worded it well).

I understand what you're saying but what I want to know is, practically speaking, what difference does it make when evangelizing whether unconditional election is true or not? If it isn't, you preach the gospel to all creatures and some may be saved, some may not. If it is, those who are elect will (eventually) respond, the non-elect won't.

UMP · Sep 21, 2006

marvin said:
Thank you for your response, UMP, but it doesn't answer my question (perhaps I've not worded it well).

I understand what you're saying but what I want to know is, practically speaking, what difference does it make when evangelizing whether unconditional election is true or not? If it isn't, you preach the gospel to all creatures and some may be saved, some may not. If it is, those who are elect will (eventually) respond, the non-elect won't.

Who said Calvinists don't preach to all? We do, or at least we should, for only God knows His "elect" not me.
Now, "practically speaking" I think it makes a big difference, for I believe it is the truth. In other words, will one "evangelize" saying that Christ made salvation a possibility "IF" (insert a work of your choice here) or a reality to all His elect children? We should evangelize preaching the REAL Gospel, not an imitation.

marvin · Sep 21, 2006

Who said Calvinists don't preach to all? We do, or at least we should, for only God knows His "elect" not me.

I didn't say that Calvinists don't preach to all. But your next sentence is the point that I'm trying to clarify. Since you don't know who the elect are, you preach to all men. How do you preach to them? What do you say? Do you, while evangelizing, say that for some who are listening it may be impossible for them to be saved because they are non-elect? Or what? You say, "We should evangelize preaching the REAL Gospel, not an imitation." I'm asking, what do you say?

UMP · Sep 21, 2006

marvin said:
Since you don't know who the elect are, you preach to all men. How do you preach to them?

I would preach the Sovereignty of God. I would preach how great the only true and living God IS and that He upholds ALL things by the word of His power and that none can say unto Him, "what doest thou". I would preach that ALL things were created for Him and by Him and through Him. I would preach the Holiness of God and His hatred for sin and that He is angry with the "wicked every day". I would preach the sinfulness and utter depravity of mankind before a thrice Holy God. I would preach that God purposed to love a people (who were in and of themselves unlovable) before the foundation of the world and that through a convenant relationship with His beloved son, He accomplished that work on the cross, in the person of Jesus Christ, the God-man. I would preach that Jesus Christ came to save His people from their sins and HE DID IT !!
All Glory to God !!!

marvin · Sep 21, 2006

I would preach the Sovereignty of God. I would preach how great the only true and living God IS and that He upholds ALL things by the word of His power and that none can say unto Him, "what doest thou". I would preach that ALL things were created for Him and by Him and through Him. I would preach the Holiness of God and His hatred for sin and that He is angry with the "wicked every day". I would preach the sinfulness and utter depravity of mankind before a thrice Holy God. I would preach that God purposed to love a people (who were in and of themselves unlovable) before the foundation of the world and that through a convenant relationship with His beloved son, He accomplished that work on the cross, in the person of Jesus Christ, the God-man. I would preach that Jesus Christ came to save His people from their sins and HE DID IT !!

Thanks, UMP. That was helpful.

A couple thoughts. I, as an Arminian, would preach nearly the same thing (maybe a little tweak in there). I don't outright see the doctrines that you and I would disagree over (unconditional election--although I'm sure that's what you meant when you said "God purposed to love a people"--and limited atonement--although I see a reference to it). Okay, I know what I just wrote was confusing. Sorry. What I mean is that you obliquely mention them but don't come right out and say them in a way that would make the hearer think that maybe, just maybe this salvation thing doesn't apply to him.

Was that any better? I hope so.

UMP · Sep 21, 2006

marvin said:
Thanks, UMP. That was helpful.

A couple thoughts. I, as an Arminian, would preach nearly the same thing (maybe a little tweak in there). I don't outright see the doctrines that you and I would disagree over (unconditional election--although I'm sure that's what you meant when you said "God purposed to love a people"--and limited atonement--although I see a reference to it). Okay, I know what I just wrote was confusing. Sorry. What I mean is that you obliquely mention them but don't come right out and say them in a way that would make the hearer think that maybe, just maybe this salvation thing doesn't apply to him.

Was that any better? I hope so.

BTW, If you're interested, this book, next to the Bible, has helped me understand more than any other.
God Bless you !

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sovereignty.htm

UMP · Sep 22, 2006

marvin said:
Thanks, UMP. That was helpful.

A couple thoughts. I, as an Arminian, would preach nearly the same thing (maybe a little tweak in there). I don't outright see the doctrines that you and I would disagree over (unconditional election--although I'm sure that's what you meant when you said "God purposed to love a people"--and limited atonement--although I see a reference to it). Okay, I know what I just wrote was confusing. Sorry. What I mean is that you obliquely mention them but don't come right out and say them in a way that would make the hearer think that maybe, just maybe this salvation thing doesn't apply to him.

Was that any better? I hope so.

Another thought:
You must remember that natural man wants nothing to do with the true and living God. The natural man does not want God and certainly does not think he "needs" God. If one thinks he has no hope and needs to be saved, that's a good indication He came for you

Mark 2:
[17] When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

marvin · Sep 26, 2006

UMP said:
Another thought:
You must remember that natural man wants nothing to do with the true and living God. The natural man does not want God and certainly does not think he "needs" God. If one thinks he has no hope and needs to be saved, that's a good indication He came for you

Mark 2:
[17] When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Again, I understand all that you're saying, UMP. I am strictly interested in the difference in sharing the gospel from a Calvinist viewpoint vs an Arminian viewpoint. I'm not looking for doctrine or theology, just how evangelism is different for the two. Thanks.

GrinningDwarf · Sep 27, 2006

marvin said:
Again, I understand all that you're saying, UMP. I am strictly interested in the difference in sharing the gospel from a Calvinist viewpoint vs an Arminian viewpoint. I'm not looking for doctrine or theology, just how evangelism is different for the two. Thanks.

Check this out:

http://www.founders.org/FJ33/article1_fr.html

Here are some quotes:

Following the theological lead of Jonathan Edwards, who stressed human responsibility within a Calvinistic world view, Asahel Nettleton represented the quintessential New England Calvinist of his day. While he held firmly to each of the tenets of the Synod of Dort (also known as the Five Points of Calvinism) as understood by his New England theological predecessors (Edwards, Joseph Bellamy, and Timothy Dwight), he first and foremost believed his doctrinal system to be true to biblical revelation...

The methodology of Nettleton matched his theology. He used preaching as a means of bringing sinners to conviction of their sinfulness. He bathed all evangelistic efforts in fervent, humble prayer to the God who alone can effect the regeneration of a lost person. For those who responded to a call for the awakened to meet outside stated services, Nettleton offered inquiry meetings, which were essentially group evangelistic counseling sessions. At these meetings, individuals could receive personal assistance without public pressure to respond.

Few men have approached the level of expertise Nettleton demonstrated in personal evangelism. He was a skillful surgeon of the soul. He urged those who had been awakened to settle the matter of salvation privately before God. Multitudes came to saving faith in Christ as a result of his ministry in "waste places" and churches of all sizes and types. Few of his converts ever abandoned their profession to return to the world.

Charles G. Finney determined from his earliest days as a young Christian to counteract what he believed to be the evangelism-crippling effects of the Calvinism espoused by men such as Nettleton. Believing himself to be a corrective for an overemphasis on divine sovereignty, Finney stressed the responsibility of human beings as free moral agents...

Finney's theology caused him to perceive that only one enemy, a stubborn will, hindered the salvation of all persons. Each method Finney used was evaluated on the basis of its effectiveness in "breaking" the obstinate will of sinners. This pragmatism dominated Finney's ministry. Wielding an amalgamation of methods already being used, Finney revolutionized evangelism and birthed modern revivalism. He popularized a more dramatic form of preaching, used public prayer as a tool for applying pressure to sinners, allowed women to pray in mixed public meetings, denounced opponents, changed the accepted tradition in inquiry meetings, organized small group prayer meetings and home visitation teams, gave rise to the protracted evangelistic campaign, and paved the way for what later became the public invitation system. These new measures caused great controversy, but they also reportedly brought as many as five hundred thousand persons "to renewal."

Finney became a major catalyst in changing the theology that undergirds evangelism. As Arminianism supplanted Calvinism, man replaced God as the center of the theology of evangelism. Robert H. Lescelius correctly asserts that "it has remained so predominantly ever since in American evangelicalism."

Finney's theology and ministry were built on the false premise that Calvinism harms evangelism. Sixty-five persons had been converted in the church into which Finney was baptized in the two years before his conversion.Finney came to faith in Christ in the midst of a regional revival during a period when Calvinism dominated the theological landscape.

The premise remains as false today as it was in Finney's day. Finney's contemporary in Britain, the Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, built a great church and was committed to a Reformed soteriology. The phenomenally popular witness training program Evangelism Explosion came from a Presbyterian pastor, D. James Kennedy, whose church continues to grow upon a Reformed theological base. Radio preacher and author John MacArthur, Jr., pastors a thriving church and holds Reformed views.One cannot successfully defend the premise that to take an Arminian soteriological stand is to become more evangelistic than a church with Reformed theology. Such a simplistic ploy did not prove plausible in Finney's day, and it will not today.

Finney's legacy must be regarded as perilous because of the anthropocentric nature of his theology and the methods resulting from that theology. In his effort to counter what he saw as an extreme form of Calvinism, Finney shifted the balance inordinately away from God and toward human agency in salvation. His evangelism missed the primary point of the gospel, a supernatural divine transformation of human beings from sinners to saints. His revivalism left behind churches which were arguably in worse condition because they split over the new measures or fired a godly minister who did not have the pulpit flair of the evangelist. Each of Finney's methods should be reevaluated with a critical view to its underlying theological foundation. For the future health of evangelism, the helpful must be separated from the harmful with regard to the ministry of Charles Finney.

On the other hand, Asahel Nettleton demonstrated the healthy potential of evangelism based on sound theology. The ministry of Nettleton did not harm churches; it built them up. Ministers who worked alongside him felt as if they had been blessed with an assistant pastor. Nettleton understood that the church existed before revival came and would continue to minister to the people of the community after the evangelist had moved to another venue. He believed it of utmost importance to guard the health of the church.

Compared to Finney's high rate of recidivism, Nettleton had a remarkable retention of converts from his meetings. Pastors commonly testified that after more than twenty-five years, nearly all professed converts continued as faithful followers of Christ.

McWilliams · Sep 27, 2006

When an arminian shares the gospel they tell that God has a wonderful plan for their life and what God can do for them by saving them.

When a calvinist evangelizes they tell what God has done by creation and how He is the ruler of the world, sovereign and that we are sinners condemned before a holy and just God! One must acknowledge their sin and be aware of their need of a Savior before God will gift them with repentance and faith for believing in HIm and searching for Him. Unless and until someone acknowledges they're a sinner, salvation cannot result! 1 John 1:8.

The difference in the approach is that the calvinists focus is on God and what He has done..

The arminian mostly focuses on the person being witnessed to and what they will gain and how their life will benefit.

marvin · Sep 27, 2006

1. "When an arminian shares the gospel they tell that God has a wonderful plan for their life and what God can do for them by saving them." That is true of some Arminians, but not all... especially not those who could be classified as classical or Reformation Arminians.
2. Out of the five points of Calvinism, what you said really only stresses one, total depravity, which is itself believed by many Arminians. Let me further refine my question to this: is there a place in evangelism, from a Calvinist viewpoint, for speaking of unconditional election or limited atonement?

McWilliams · Sep 27, 2006

NO, as far as I can see. This would only confuse a person and isnt what they need to hear at this moment. First things first, that will come later. First and foremost, have they ever considered themself to be a sinner? Until then, nothing can happen to contribute to their salvation. If God has in fact done a work of regeneration in their heart they will respond to the irristable grace, display in interest in knowing of spiritual things and come to repentance and faith. In that case the 'election' has occured as has the limited atonement but they must acknowledge their sin and repent, asking for mercy first of all!
That's my view. Many here may have much more to offer!

GrinningDwarf · Sep 27, 2006

marvin said:
2. Out of the five points of Calvinism, what you said really only stresses one, total depravity, which is itself believed by many Arminians.

I have never met an Arminian who believed in total depravity. How would you define total depravity? If we agree on the definition...you can't be an Arminian! This is the very definition of Armninan as presented by the Remonstrants:

Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man's freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner's gift to God; it is man's contribution to salvation.

And this was the rebuttal in the Canon of Dort:

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ - it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation - it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God.

http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html

bradfordl · Sep 27, 2006

What I mean is that you obliquely mention them but don't come right out and say them in a way that would make the hearer think that maybe, just maybe this salvation thing doesn't apply to him.

Why wouldn't I? God said it, not me, whywould I want to hide it? Jesus said many times "let him who hath an ear hear". He knew that not all would listen, but He preached anyway. We're to do the same.

We don't have to be winsome or convincing, we just have to proclaim the truth. The arminian presumes so much authority to himself that if he doesn't say it just right the hearer might not make it to heaven, because he thinks he can cajole the sinner into repentence. Poppycock! Jesus said His own hear His voice and follow.

The main difference in evangelism is that evangelism to a biblical Christian (call him a calvinist if you want) is proclaiming the truth of the sovereignty of God, the grace of the Cross, and the coming judgement. It is a PROCLAMATION that first glorifies God, explains and expresses gratitude for salvation through His Son, and warns of judgement to those who reject Him.

An arminian tries to convince with emotional and winsome appeals. One god cajoling another, since they both have the capacity to make Christ's work effectual or a failure. But the Christian says;

Act 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
Act 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Ain't no manipulative sweet talk there, just plain Gospel fact, and your option is to repent or perish.

McWilliams · Sep 27, 2006

bradford:
Why wouldn't I? God said it, not me, whywould I want to hide it? Jesus said many times "let him who hath an ear hear". He knew that not all would listen, but He preached anyway. We're to do the same

Well, its not a matter of hiding anything but just to give the necessary information and scripture needed for the person to see their need of a Savior!
None of us learn the whole picture of the doctrines of grace at one sitting! It took me a whole study class of many sessions covering Steele's Five Points of Calvinism to come to a real understanding after having been arminian for 60 yrs! Overwhelming doesnt begin to describe it! I was overjoyed but still just could not comprehend much of it concerning the atonement and irresistable grace! Heavy to consider and just giving the necessary points of salvation at first when witnessing seems ever so much more beneficial to the hearer!

Some questions

New Member

Well-Known Member

Why do Christians argue?

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Why do Christians argue?

Well-Known Member

Why do Christians argue?

Well-Known Member

Why do Christians argue?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Why do Christians argue?

Just a humble servant

Senior Veteran

Why do Christians argue?

Senior Veteran

Just a humble servant

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency