Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of $140 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 13,314
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,551
Posts50,776
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,314
Tom 3,324
chestnutmare 2,870
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 26
Pilgrim 21
Recent Posts
Adam created holy, so how could he fall?
by Pilgrim. Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:39 AM
Presuppositional Apologetics
by Tom. Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:42 PM
Christmas
by Pilgrim. Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:01 AM
Key teaching of Dispys is Gnostic
by PerpetualLearner. Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:11 PM
Glorious Bach
by goldenoldie. Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:46 AM
Nothing New Under the Sun?
by PerpetualLearner. Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:25 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 7 of 10 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10
#14132 - Sat May 08, 2004 11:06 AM Re: The New Covenant  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
NH, USA
Quote
acts2027 said:
Quote
SemperReformanda replied to Joe,
No, that's hyper-Calvinism. Susan (and the rest of us credobaptists) are not hyper-Calvinists.


Precisely!!!


Thank you, Marie, for pointing that out, it was my thought exactly when I read the statement. God extends grace to all mankind, but saving grace, only to the elect. Phil Johnson has an article on this subject that has appeared on this site several times which lays out this position quite clearly.

In Him,

Gerry

I'm just a little confused here as to how this part of the discussion is going. Joe was responding to what Susan wrote, where she said,

God shows grace only to His elect, so how could an unbeliever even be in that Covenant?


And Joe's reply was,

This is your faulty presupposition that God only shows grace to His elect. The Bible speaks on God revealing His grace to even the non-elect (not effectually of course, but none-the less His grace), as already demonstrated in several posts, including this one.


So, if I still have the ability to comprehend English, it would appear that it was Susan who was espousing what you and Marie have chosen to call "Hyper-Calvinism" and not Joe.

What is even more confusing to me is how anyone can misunderstand what the Scripture says concerning Abraham, the covenant established with him by God, the sign of that covenant given (circumcision), and to whom that sign was to be administered. The facts seem all too clear, IMHO. 1) God established the covenant with Abraham. (Gen 17:1-6), 2) and to his "seed" (Gen 17:7-9), 3) the sign of that covenant was circumcision (Gen 17:10, 11), and 4) the sign of the covenant, circumcision was to be administered to all the male children and those adults living within the broader "household" of Abraham. (Gen 17:12-14)

The proper understanding of this "covenant" is where the divide first appears between the two groups. This covenant has a dual aspect to it, IMHO. There is a "narrow" aspect, where it is salvific in nature (Abraham and his "seed", i.e., first re: Christ Who is the Federal Head of all the elect and secondly all the elect who will believe on Him. And there is a "broad" aspect, where those living amongst those who believe are included and given temporal blessings, shared among the elect and non-elect, e.g., land, providential protection, sustenance, etc.

Now the further issue is whether this dual-fold nature of the covenant established with Abraham was carried over into the church; continuity of the covenant of grace. And this is the second place where the divide appears. If this second (broad) aspect is continuitous, then the paedobaptists are correct in baptizing their children. If it is discontinuitous, then the credobaptists are correct in restricting baptism to adults.

Lastly, and doubtless I could include tomes more, there has been no sufficient answer that has come from the credobaptists re: their adamancy in not baptizing the infants of believers because of their "definition" (significance) of baptism where they maintain that it is "an outward sign of an inward reality". By that definition, EVERYONE who is baptized IS (of necessity MUST BE) saved. Otherwise the definition is senseless. The problem is further compounded as Baptists rightly admit that not everyone who is baptized is saved. Thus baptism CANNOT BE "an outward sign of an inward reality", for there are acknowledged instances where the recipient does not have the "reality" which the "sign" signifies. As "averagefellar" has repeated challenged the Baptists here, if ALL who are in the covenant of grace ARE saved (in the "narrow" sense of the CoG, this is a truism), and if baptism is a sign of membership in that covenant, then everyone who is baptized must be saved. IMHO, it is an indefensible and insurmountable problem.

Suggestion: Baptists should change their definition of baptism. Rather than making it subjective dependent, which is illogical and thus inconsistent and variable, it should be objective dependent and thus consistent and invariable.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#14133 - Sat May 08, 2004 11:13 AM Re: The New Covenant  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
NH, USA
Quote
Susan said:
Quote
Wes wrote:
I see a broader view of covenant being taught in the Scriptures. Your description addresses only those who are the elect of God and denies any covenant which includes others even though it may be temporarily.

So if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that unbelievers can actually be in the eternal covenant temporarily? confused

No.. that is clearly NOT what Wes is saying! hairout He, Joe, averagefellar and myself have consistently said that the "Covenant of Grace" encompasses more than salvation of the elect. See my reply to Gerry below for a further explanation, particularly with the structure and nature of the covenant established with Abraham. With the exception of the "hyper-covenantalists", paedobaptists hold that only believers (elect) are included in the SALVIFIC aspect of the Covenant of Grace, for that relationship is only established on the basis of faith. grin

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#14134 - Sat May 08, 2004 11:19 AM Re: The New Covenant  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
NH, USA
Quote
Gerry wrote with malice:
In the meantime I leave you [Joe] to your Covenant of Grace, "in some sense of the word", and hope your eternal salvation, on which it depends, is real, "in some sense of the word".

This is really disheartening! To address a fellow brother in this manner, implying that his view of the Covenant of Grace is intimately tied to his salvation and unless he should recant his position and become a Baptist, that salvation is jeopardized. rolleyes2

There is absolutely no warrant nor need for this type of rhetoric here. How about taking a cold [Linked Image] and regain some semblance of graciousness. grin

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#14135 - Sat May 08, 2004 11:21 AM Re: The New Covenant [Re: grace2U]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Again, your example is of an adult (18 years). And I still see no reason to accept your forced definition. I am also not taken with Fred Malone.

Quote
1. Joel's prophecy of the New Covenant repeated by Peter (Acts 2:21) that 'Whoever calls on the Name of the Lord shall be saved.'


Yes, soteriology.......I understand this. However, we are dealing with baptism.

Quote
2. The testimony of Jeremiah and Hebrews that only those who know the Lord are in the New Covenant.


So, please list who is in this covenant.


God bless,

william

#14136 - Sat May 08, 2004 11:42 AM Re: The New Covenant [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
Pilgrim said:
I'm just a little confused here as to how this part of the discussion is going. Joe was responding to what Susan wrote, where she said,

Quote
God shows grace only to His elect, so how could an unbeliever even be in that Covenant?


OK, let me clarify what I meant by this. Perhaps I added to this confusion. I was thinking of the strict definition of grace here, not thinking of the unprecise term "common grace" which is really a misnomer according to Arthur Pink. I am not denying God shows goodness and mercy to unbelievers. I was asking the question to show that to have unbelievers in the Covenant of Grace would be inconsistent with the true meaning of grace, since God only exercises it toward the elect.

Quote
Grace is a perfection of the Divine character which is exercised only toward the elect. Neither in the Old Testament nor in the New is the grace of God ever mentioned in connection with mankind generally, still less with the lower orders of His creatures. In this it is distinguished from mercy, for the mercy of God is "over all His works" (Ps. 145-9). Grace is the alone source from which flows the goodwill, love, and salvation of God unto His chosen people. This attribute of the Divine character was defined by Abraham Booth in his helpful book, The Reign of Grace thus, "It is the eternal and absolute free favour of God, manifested in the vouchsafement of spiritual and eternal blessings to the guilty and the unworthy."

Divine grace is the sovereign and saving favour of God exercised in the bestowment of blessings upon those who have no merit in them and for which no compensation is demanded from them. Nay, more; it is the favour of God shown to those who not only have no positive deserts of their own, but who are thoroughly ill-deserving and hell-deserving. It is completely unmerited and unsought, and is altogether unattracted by anything in or from or by the objects upon which it is bestowed. Grace can neither be bought, earned, nor won by the creature. If it could be, it would cease to be grace. When a thing is said to be of grace we mean that the recipient has no claim upon it, that it was in nowise due him. It comes to him as pure charity, and, at first, unasked and undesired...

The third Person in the Godhead is the Communicator of grace, therefore is He denominated "the Spirit of grace" (Zech. 12:10). God the Father is the Fountain of all grace, for He purposed in Himself the everlasting covenant of redemption. God the Son is the only Channel of grace. The Gospel is the Publisher of grace. The Spirit is the Bestower. He is the One who applies the Gospel in saving power to the soul: quickening the elect while spiritually dead, conquering their rebellious wills, melting their hard hearts, opening their blind eyes, cleansing them from the leprosy of sin.
--Arthur Pink


More on Grace here

So could you please help me understand this, are you in agreement then with Joe and Wes that unbelievers can actually be IN the Covenant of Grace and that a person can actually be in this eternal covenant temporarily?

#14137 - Sat May 08, 2004 12:05 PM Re: The New Covenant  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
grace2U Offline
Member
grace2U  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Devon, England
Hi William,
Are you quite sure that 18 year-olds were not under the jurisdiction of their parents in the 1st Century Roman Empire? But if it makes things easier, change his age to 17. And what about the rest of the family?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking in the second part of your post.
I wrote: '...Only those who know the Lord are in the New Covenant.'

You then wrote: 'So please list who is in this Covenant?'

Er.....Only those who know the Lord. He may well have some special arrangements for those dying as infants, or imbeciles; indeed, I'm sure He has ('Will not the Judge of all the Earth do right?'). But for the rest of us, 'unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God' (John 3:5).

Blessings,
Steve

Last edited by grace2U; Sat May 08, 2004 12:10 PM.

Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
#14138 - Sat May 08, 2004 12:07 PM Re: The New Covenant  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
NH, USA
Quote
Susan asked:
So could you please help me understand this, are you in agreement then with Joe and Wes that unbelievers can actually be IN the Covenant of Grace and that a person can actually be in this eternal covenant temporarily?

There are actually 2 questions here:

1) [can] unbelievers can actually be IN the Covenant of Grace?
Again, one's understanding of the "Covenant of Grace" will determine how one answers. IF, as baptists are want to do, define the CofG in strict terms, i.e., it is only salvific, then the answer would have to be, "No!". Only the elect are included in the eternal CofG and will be brought into a living covenantal relationship in time. IF, as paedobaptists are want to do, define the CofG as having a duel nature, i.e., salvific and general, then the answer would be "Yes!" And if you haven't grasped it by now, this issue is one of the reality of the "visible/invisible" church distinction, which many Baptists here deny exists, although they contradict their denial by admitting that not all who are given the sign of the CofG are in the covenant, i.e., there are unbelievers who are members of the church.

2) [can] a person can actually be in this eternal covenant temporarily?
Again, if by "eternal covenant" you mean the "Covenant of Salvation", then obviously the answer must be, "No!" This is what the "hyper-covenantalists", protagonists for the NPP, Shepherdites, Auburnites, and all the myriad other expressions of that heresy hold. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#14139 - Sat May 08, 2004 12:33 PM Re: The New Covenant [Re: grace2U]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
Are you quite sure that 18 year-olds were not under the jurisdiction of their parents in the 1st Century Roman Empire?


No, but I'm not the one forcing the definition. For the baptist definition of OIKOS to be true, every single usage in the NT must mean only believing adults, something that requires the definition be taken solely from the NT alone, is indefensible by Biblical definition, as shown here

OIKOS

The change you prescribe to it is not found in scripture, nor historical understanding. Surely this change in administration would have been mentioned? Especially to the Jewish audience?

Quote
You then wrote: 'So please list who is in this Covenant?'

Er.....Only those who know the Lord.


But this isn't the criteria for baptism, because you cannot judge who is trully elect. We have covered this, and Pilgrim has even seen fit to address it here

Pilgrim's suggestion

Quote
He may well have some special arrangements for those dying as infants, or imbeciles; indeed, I'm sure He has ('Will not the Judge of all the Earth do right?').


Hmmm.......not sure what special arrangements means, but that would seem odd since you keep putting forth that those within the true covenant are the proper subjects. Are there children within this covenant?


Quote
But for the rest of us, 'unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God' (John 3:5).


And again, we see baptism tied to election.


God bless,

william

#14140 - Sat May 08, 2004 12:39 PM Re: The New Covenant [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
grace2U Offline
Member
grace2U  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Devon, England
Hello Pilgrim,
I only want to address the last part of your post where you say
'Thus Baptism CANNOT be an outward sign of an inward reality.'

I feel as if I've answered this point about a million times, so I must be doing it very badly <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />. Baptism is indeed a sign of something that has already happened viz. Baptism of the Spirit. If that something has not happened, then the baptism is null and void. It's as simple as that. Let me try to give a parallel.

When someone wins the marathon at the Olympic Games, he receives a gold medal. This medal is the outward sign of an inward reality, which is that he won the race. But let us suppose that he cheated in some way- perhaps he took drugs- then his medal is null and void. The inward 'reality' is found not to be a reality and therefore the outward sign (the medal)is meaningless. It will be taken away from him by the IOC and the record will show that someone else won the race.

Does that make it clearer? Only those who know the Lord are in the New Covenant and they alone are the proper subjects of baptism. The fact that we don't know exactly who they are is neither here nor there. We make every effort to comply with the Lord's will clearly expressed in Matt 28:19, and where we get it wrong, the celestial IOC (The Lord) will put it right.

AF and yourself seem to have a problem with this, but I really can't see what it is.

Every blessing,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
#14141 - Sat May 08, 2004 1:59 PM Re: The New Covenant  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Wes  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Northwest Indiana, USA
Susan,

I've not had much time available to respond to your important question so I'm thankful Pilgrim has stepped in on my behalf and explained the broader view of the Covenant of Grace which paedobaptist's embrace.

There's an excellent article by Prof. John Murray here on the-highway which sheds more light on the The Covenant of Grace. In this article he addresses the importance of God's covenant with Noah, Moses, Abraham and David. Specifically the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham. He also discusses keeping covenant, breaking covenant, and how the old is fulfilled in the new. This study may answer many questions you may have.

Quote
Murray writes:

When we come to those passages in the New Testament which deal specifically with the new covenant in contrast with the old it is highly significant that the contrast between the new economy and the old is not expressed in terms of difference between covenant and something else not a covenant. The contrast is within the ambit of covenant. This would lead us to expect that the basic idea of covenant which we find in the Old Testament is carried over into the New. We are confirmed in this expectation when we take account of the fact that the new covenant is the fulfilment of the covenant made with Abraham (Lk. i. 72; Gal. iii. 15ff.). The new economy as covenant attaches itself to the Old Testament covenant promise and cannot be contrasted with Old Testament covenant in respect of that which constitutes the essence of covenant grace and promise. We can express the fact that the new covenant is the expansion and fulfilment of the Abrahamic by saying that it was just because the promise to Abraham had the bonded and oath-bound character of a covenant that its realization in the fulness of the time was inviolably certain. The new covenant in respect of its being a covenant does not differ from the Abrahamic as a sovereign administration of grace, divine in its inception, establishment, confirmation, and fulfilment. The most conclusive evidence, however, is derived from a study of the New Testament respecting the nature of the new covenant. We shall find that the features of the covenant are the same as those we found in connection with covenant in the Old Testament.

When our Lord said that His blood was the blood of the covenant that was shed for many for the remission of sins and that the cup of the last supper was the new covenant in His blood (Mt. xxvi. 28; Mk. xiv. 24; Lk. xxii. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 25), we cannot but regard the covenant as a designation of the sum-total of grace, blessing, truth, and relationship comprised in that redemption which His blood has secured. Covenant must refer to the bestowment and the relationship secured by the sacrificial blood which He shed. It is the fulness of grace purchased by His blood and conveyed by it. By way of comparison there is an allusion, no doubt, to the blood by which the old covenant, the Mosaic, had been sealed (Ex. xxiv. 6-8; cf. Heb. ix. 18). And since the new is contrasted with the old it cannot be that the contrast inheres in any retraction or dilution of the grace which we have found to be the essence of covenant under the Old Testament.



Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
#14142 - Sat May 08, 2004 3:09 PM Re: The New Covenant [Re: Pilgrim]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
Lastly, and doubtless I could include tomes more, there has been no sufficient answer that has come from the credobaptists re: their adamancy in not baptizing the infants of believers because of their "definition" (significance) of baptism where they maintain that it is "an outward sign of an inward reality". By that definition, EVERYONE who is baptized IS (of necessity MUST BE) saved. Otherwise the definition is senseless. The problem is further compounded as Baptists rightly admit that not everyone who is baptized is saved.

Pilgrim,
My definition would be that Baptism is symbolic of Christ's sacrificial death for us, and the believer who is baptized is identified with Christ in His burial and resurrection and has resolved to die to self and to live a life as a new Creature in Christ by faith and by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Something always puzzles me about these kinds of discussions. Some might think that the Baptists when they baptize professing believers are doing something strange, but the fact is both the paedos and the credos are baptizing professing believers! So what is your definition for baptism that would allow for the baptizing of adult professing believers as well as infants who may or may not be children of the promise?

#14143 - Sat May 08, 2004 3:29 PM Re: The New Covenant [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
MarieP Offline
Permanent Resident
MarieP  Offline
Permanent Resident

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
Quote
Lastly, and doubtless I could include tomes more, there has been no sufficient answer that has come from the credobaptists re: their adamancy in not baptizing the infants of believers because of their "definition" (significance) of baptism where they maintain that it is "an outward sign of an inward reality". By that definition, EVERYONE who is baptized IS (of necessity MUST BE) saved. Otherwise the definition is senseless. The problem is further compounded as Baptists rightly admit that not everyone who is baptized is saved. Thus baptism CANNOT BE "an outward sign of an inward reality", for there are acknowledged instances where the recipient does not have the "reality" which the "sign" signifies.


Well, can we take a look at the same problem we encounter with Communion? Communion is for believers only, but, no matter how high we fence the table, there will be non-believers partaking of it somewhere. Why is baptism different? Should we open the table to all because a few unregenerate "slip in"? Of course not!

I do believe, by the way, that there is a major problem in the credobaptist church of today. Far too many non-Christians are being baptized and added to the church rolls. So I am not denying that at all.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#14144 - Sat May 08, 2004 4:08 PM Re: The New Covenant  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
acts2027 said:
Quote
No, that's hyper-Calvinism. Susan (and the rest of us credobaptists) are not hyper-Calvinists.


Precisely!!!


Thank you, Marie, for pointing that out, it was my thought exactly when I read the statement. God extends grace to all mankind, but saving grace, only to the elect. Phil Johnson has an article on this subject that has appeared on this site several times which lays out this position quite clearly.

In Him,

Gerry


Gerry and Marie you really need to read the posts more carefully. I was responding to Susan's post. Please re-read it. If what you aspire is true than Susan, not I, is revealing your Hyper-Calvinistic views. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/heavy.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#14145 - Sat May 08, 2004 4:26 PM Re: The New Covenant [Re: J_Edwards]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
If what you aspire is true than Susan, not I, is revealing your Hyper-Calvinistic views.


Don't worry Joe. I have already dealt with this. It was a simple misunderstanding which I explained already to Pilgrim. No one thinks you are a hyper-Calvinist and, hopefully, no one thinks we are either.

My post to Pilgrim

#14146 - Sat May 08, 2004 4:30 PM Re: The New Covenant  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
acts2027 said:
Joe erroneously says:

Quote
Thus, my direct answer will be that I will pray that, "the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints," (Eph 1:18).


That is another INDIRECT answer, for you have failed to reconcile or even address the statements you have both made and quoted that say the covenant of grace is both "inviolable" and violable, thus it is a clear falsehood.

And, for your information, "the eyes of my understanding have been enlightened" and I do "know what is the hope of His Calling" and most wonderfully, something of "the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints".

I just finished reading several of T. Goodwin's sermons on this very verse and find myself in complete agreement with his interpretation, both doctrinally and experientially, and thus, your evaluation, like others I have been a witness too, is lacking sorely in this important matter. Perhaps you would benefit from a reading of him?

In the meantime I leave you to your Covenant of Grace, "in some sense of the word", and hope your eternal salvation, on which it depends, is real, "in some sense of the word".

In Him,

Gerry

Gerry re-read all my posts on Baptism, your questions have already been answered. I do not see any gain at this time in repeating them to you again. Please know we are still praying for you. May God grant you victory over your anger and hostility, which also are a part of the eyes of you understanding being enlightened," "the hope of His Calling," and "the riches of the glory of His inheritance." May God strengthen you.

Page 7 of 10 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 17 guests, and 111 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
December
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
666,923 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.054s Queries: 16 (0.004s) Memory: 2.7321 MB (Peak: 3.0394 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-17 17:48:02 UTC