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
Tom
Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 3,324
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,549
Posts50,772
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,313
Tom 3,324
chestnutmare 2,868
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 28
Pilgrim 21
Recent Posts
Presuppositional Apologetics
by Tom. Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:42 PM
Adam created holy, so how could he fall?
by Pilgrim. Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:40 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 4 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12
#29625 - Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:45 AM Re: Double predestination  
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Joe k Offline
Enthusiast
Joe k  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
New York
Quote


God foreordains all events. God could just as easily save all as some. The blood of Christ is of infinite merit.

Can we therefore conclude that God's purpose in permitting events which appear evil to us is to cause the damnation of the reprobate? No, God's purpose is to cause the salvation of the elect. Thus, the salvation of the elect is taken out of their own hands and placed in the hands of Almigthy God whose purpose can not fail. On the other hand, God does not purpose the damnation of any (choose to pass by). The damned are justly condemned by their own sin.



Everything stems from the purpose of God. Augustine started this "passing by" of which Sproul adheres to also. This is done to take God off the hook for the damnation of individuals.

The problem arises when one concludes, as an ifra does, that God views man as fallen the decrees. This cannot be. God is not bound by anything in man. Sin is not in His mind when the purpose fo God is set forth in eternity. The key is in the phrase "The same lump". Now is this lump fallen or is it not? Scripture confirms that it is not fallen. FOr if it was, then sin would be the cause of reprobation. God will not purpose anything based on what is found in man. I believe this is where the infras error. They call it unconditional, but then view sin as the condition of reprobation. It cannot be both ways. Both election and reprobation find their cause in the free triune God. And neither is believing the reason for election, nor unbelief the reason for repobation. God remains free from all external actions of men when purposing His decree. God is Sovereign in both election and reprobation. IF sin were the cause for reprobation, then all would be reprobated because all have sinned.. THis by no means makes God the cause of sin in individuals. Because the elect also sin. Reprobation MUST be distinguished between condemnation. Men are condemned justly for their sin, men are reprobated is a sovereign act of God.

One MUST remeber God elected/reprobated without viewing men as created or sinful. Reprobation is more than just a passing by of fallen men. IT is a positive determination ordained from eternity only for the Glory of God.

Last edited by Joe k; Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:47 AM.

There never was a sinner half as big as Christ is as a Savior.
#29626 - Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:58 PM Re: Double predestination [Re: Joe k]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
NH, USA
Joe k,

Hopefully, you have read through all the posts of this thread and you noticed the links to at least 3 articles on this subject. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Bavinck rightly finds these objections to the Supralapsarian position:

Quote
1. Supra is correct when it maintains that God's glory is the final goal of all God's works, but the manner in which that goal will be realized is not thereby given; it is incorrect to say that in the eternal perdition of the reprobate God reveals his justice only and that in the eternal salvation of the elect he reveals his mercy exclusively.

2. According to supra the decree of predestination has for its object possible men and a possible Redeemer; but just how are we to conceive of a decree concerning possible men whose actual future existence has not even been determined? 3. Supra makes the damnation of the reprobate the object of the divine will IN THE SAME SENSE as the salvation of the elect. This position is not sustained by Scripture. (from the author's article: Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism)

However, in regard to the topic of THIS thread, both the Supra and Infra views affirm that God did decree the reprobation of men and justly condemns them to eternal damnation.

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#29627 - Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:28 PM Re: Double predestination [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Joe k Offline
Enthusiast
Joe k  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
New York
Pilgrim:

HB does a decent job on the subject, but fails in one instance. He like all infras, do not make the distinction between reprobation and condemnation. God most certainly does have the end in mind,the salvation of the elect in Christ, vs the just damnation of the reprobate dying in infallible unbelief. Scripture most certainly speaks upon this sequence.

1) Election of the people
2) the means of salvation through Christ
3)the purpose=His glory.

I do not understand HB's objections. And could be a mere talking past each other.

His use of possible men/possible redeemer make littel sense as if the council of God were a mere figmnet and not infallibly derterminate. Anyway, that is my take on HB not willing to digress this thread.

The point of my post was to verify that people who claim that reprobation is not active, make sin/ fallen man the cause of reprobation. Just as Messias is not the cause for Election, sin is not the cause for reprobation.

“Therefore they could not believe, because Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them, (John 12:39,40);

There is no such thing as conditional election nor conditional reprobation.

So when one objects, or ends up in the sproul, HB, "passing by" camp, one has not learned rightly that God is not passive in anything. Including the reprobation/condemnation of men.

I would never break fellowship over this, and believe the supra camp comes close to making God the "author of sin" in some writings of men, but because a few people ruin the truth, does not make it less true.

William Twisse has one of the best writings on the subject. Even though the WCF is basically infra, WT, the chairman, was most assuredly supra.

http://members.aol.com/Graceordained/twisse.html

http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/beza.html

http://geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/supralap.html


There never was a sinner half as big as Christ is as a Savior.
#29628 - Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:32 PM Re: Double predestination  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
speratus said:

Again, you are going beyond the scriptures to construct a doctrine that does not exist. Romans 9:21 says God has the authority from one lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. Isolated from other verses, there is nothing here that says that God makes a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor. Romans 9:21 is not a proof text for predestination of election or reprobation. Your other reference texts are proof texts for election not reprobation.


Why would Paul make this teleological defense if God did not reprobate some? He's been arguing exactly that God has reprobated some, leaving them in their sins: Ishmael, Esau, and Pharaoh. Whereas He has elected some to save from their sins: Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. In response to the indignant man who cries out, "Why doth He yet find fault? for who hath resisted His will?" Paul makes clear that it is God's prerogative to do as He pleases, preparing some vessels for destruction and some for glory, all with the purpose of showing forth His own glory. This argument makes no sense if it is a mere hypothetical, especially since Paul goes on to show how this is a fulfillment of prophecy!


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#29629 - Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:22 PM Re: Double predestination [Re: Joe k]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
NH, USA
Quote
Joe k said:
So when one objects, or ends up in the sproul, HB, "passing by" camp, one has not learned rightly that God is not passive in anything. Including the reprobation/condemnation of men.

Joe,

What I can agree with is that the term "passes by" can be easily misconstrued to mean something "passive", i.e., a non-action on the part of God. However, the euphemistic use of the term doesn't negate the actual view held by Infra's. No doubt you already are privy to what I'm about to explain, but I'm doing so for the benefit of those who do not know. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The Infralapsarian position holds to a "positive-negative" predestination. That is, in regard to the elect and salvation, God "positively", i.e., actively intervenes in their lives and actually creates a new disposition which infallibly unites with Christ by faith securing their justification and final glorification. In short, God actively "changes" the elect so that they are reconciled to God through Christ. On the other hand, in regard to the reprobate who will be ultimately damned, God also decrees who those individuals are and their ultimate end. However, in their case, the decree is "negative", i.e., God does not "change" anything in the reprobate in order to make them "fit for destruction". The reprobate are by nature "fit for destruction" and thus God is not "active (aka: positively active) in their case. Thus the term "pass by" has been used specifically to distinguish between the active intervention of God, by His Spirit (regeneration, conversation, sanctification) of the elect and the non-active intervention of God in the damnation of the reprobate.

It is true, that God is indeed "active" in regard to the reprobate, but it is to be found in His providence and not in their just condemnation. In short, God uses the reprobate for the benefit of the elect and even the world in general (common grace) by restraining the outworking of their depravity and for His own glory. But God does not take a good or "neutral" (an impossibility) individual and make them evil and then decree them reprobate.

BTW, Herman Bavinck does not embrace Infralapsarianism. He holds to a tenuous position somewhere in between, which I tend to do also. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#29630 - Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:38 PM Re: Double predestination [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Joe k Offline
Enthusiast
Joe k  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
New York
Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
Joe k said:
So when one objects, or ends up in the sproul, HB, "passing by" camp, one has not learned rightly that God is not passive in anything. Including the reprobation/condemnation of men.

Joe,

What I can agree with is that the term "passes by" can be easily misconstrued to mean something "passive", i.e., a non-action on the part of God. However, the euphemistic use of the term doesn't negate the actual view held by Infra's. No doubt you already are privy to what I'm about to explain, but I'm doing so for the benefit of those who do not know. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The Infralapsarian position holds to a "positive-negative" predestination. That is, in regard to the elect and salvation, God "positively", i.e., actively intervenes in their lives and actually creates a new disposition which infallibly unites with Christ by faith securing their justification and final glorification. In short, God actively "changes" the elect so that they are reconciled to God through Christ. On the other hand, in regard to the reprobate who will be ultimately damned, God also decrees who those individuals are and their ultimate end. However, in their case, the decree is "negative", i.e., God does not "change" anything in the reprobate in order to make them "fit for destruction". The reprobate are by nature "fit for destruction" and thus God is not "active (aka: positively active) in their case. Thus the term "pass by" has been used specifically to distinguish between the active intervention of God, by His Spirit (regeneration, conversation, sanctification) of the elect and the non-active intervention of God in the damnation of the reprobate.

It is true, that God is indeed "active" in regard to the reprobate, but it is to be found in His providence and not in their just condemnation. In short, God uses the reprobate for the benefit of the elect and even the world in general (common grace) by restraining the outworking of their depravity and for His own glory. But God does not take a good or "neutral" (an impossibility) individual and make them evil and then decree them reprobate.



In His grace,


WE must keep in mind that the decree of reprobation does not make one fallen. But God most certainly has the end in view, their just condemnation while forming out of the same lump. God did not just create, then decide who to elect or reprobate. Both Election/reprobation have cause, means,result.

COnfusion aruses when one equates reprobation/election with conduct. Election does not result in lack of sin, and reprobation does not result in more sin. That is why it is only because it seemed good in His sight. God purposely created out of the same lump with salvation for the elect and damnation for the reprobate. But as I mentioned earlier, reprobation is according to His sovereignty, condemnation is His just righteoussness. God actively witholds forgiveness, repentance,faith from the reprobate.

The reason the infra thinking fails is becuase once man is fallen, what would God have to d to make them more fallen? It is circular reasoning. That is why the decree took place without the fall/sin in the picture. How can one reprobate a fallen creature? There is no need to. But this makes man responsible for his reprobation. By God actively, positively/negatively decreeing reprobation prior to the fall, Man is thereby left in his sin, and condemned justly for it. AS proverbs 16:4 states.

Prov 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose,Even the wicked for the day of evil"

Thanks pilgrim for the dialogue.

The reprobate are not created unredeemable as some may suggest, they are created for a purpose, and not covered by the Atonement.

It appears the fellow here has a hard time, with a hard concept. AS soon as man says "I dont understand... or Why would God..." We must concede right then and there.


There never was a sinner half as big as Christ is as a Savior.
#29631 - Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:10 PM Re: Double predestination [Re: knoxandcalvin]  
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
gnarley Offline
Member
gnarley  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 156
Western Oregon
The alternative flower is "he loves me, he loves me not, etc


gil
#29632 - Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:57 AM Re: Double predestination [Re: J_Edwards]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
Speratus syas

Romans 9:21 says God has the authority from one lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. Isolated from other verses, there is nothing here that says that God makes a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor.

These verses are not isolated. What of Esau (Rom 9:11, 13)? Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God! Proverbs 16:4 states,“The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” and Peter concurs, saying "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed" (1 Peter 2:8) and again, "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption" (2 Peter 2:12). Jude sums up this decree of reprobation saying, "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4). All these men were made from the same lump, and thus, if as you say the reprobabte had a "will" in what happened to themsleves, then so would the elect, but this does away with (1) election, (2) the sovereignty of God, (3) salvation by grace alone,... i.e. the whole Gospel.


1. Romans 9:10-13 refers to events post-fall. The righteousness of Christ is not imputed in the womb to sinful Esau but it is to Jacob by faith in the coming Savior.
2, Prov. 16:4 says God made all things according to His plan. It does not say God caused the wickedness of any thing. God pronounces His creation "very good" in Gen. 1:31. The wicked remain under His government for the day of evil.
3. In 1 Peter 2:8, we see God foreordained their disobedience but the verse does not say God caused their sin of stumbling at the word.
4. 2 Peter 2:12 does not say that God caused the corruption of the false teachers wherein they were beasts to be taken and destroyed.
5. No one has argued against the foreordination of events described in Jude 4.
6. Fallen men from the same lump have no free will to do good or to do evil. Thus, (1) election, (2) the sovereignty of God, (3) salvation by grace alone are preserved.

#29633 - Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:41 AM Re: Double predestination [Re: CovenantInBlood]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
CovenantInBlood said:
Quote
speratus said:

Again, you are going beyond the scriptures to construct a doctrine that does not exist. Romans 9:21 says God has the authority from one lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. Isolated from other verses, there is nothing here that says that God makes a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor. Romans 9:21 is not a proof text for predestination of election or reprobation. Your other reference texts are proof texts for election not reprobation.


Why would Paul make this teleological defense if God did not reprobate some? He's been arguing exactly that God has reprobated some, leaving them in their sins: Ishmael, Esau, and Pharaoh. Whereas He has elected some to save from their sins: Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. In response to the indignant man who cries out, "Why doth He yet find fault? for who hath resisted His will?" Paul makes clear that it is God's prerogative to do as He pleases, preparing some vessels for destruction and some for glory, all with the purpose of showing forth His own glory. This argument makes no sense if it is a mere hypothetical, especially since Paul goes on to show how this is a fulfillment of prophecy!


I agree that Paul's argument is not merely hypothetical; however, Paul does not say God made any vessels of dishonor. Adam, at the instigation of the devil, made himself and all his seed vessels of dishonor. In the preceding verses, Paul says nothing about God creating fresh evil in Ishmael, Esau, or Pharaoh. In the following verses, Paul speaks about God making vessels of honor not vessels of dishonor.

#29634 - Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:53 AM Re: Double predestination  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
speratus said:

I agree that Paul's argument is not merely hypothetical; however, Paul does not say God made any vessels of dishonor.


"Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Rom. 9:21).

Looks to me like Paul is saying that God makes another vessel for dishonor.

Quote
Adam, at the instigation of the devil, made himself and all his seed vessels of dishonor.


I don't disagree that Adam sinned and, as a result, all men are condemned. Yet this condemnation was imposed by God Himself. It's not as though the condemnation is some bare natural consequence.

Quote
In the preceding verses, Paul says nothing about God creating fresh evil in Ishmael, Esau, or Pharaoh. In the following verses, Paul speaks about God making vessels of honor not vessels of dishonor.


What do you make of God hardening Pharaoh's heart? For this God most certainly did, and not unjustly since Pharaoh was a sinner deserving only condemnation. Furthermore, it has already been shown to you multiple times that God does make vessels of dishonor. The only way to deny that is to ignore what the text says.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#29635 - Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:56 AM Re: Double predestination  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
6. Fallen men from the same lump have no free will to do good or to do evil.


Do fallen men have any will to do evil? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#29636 - Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:06 AM Re: Double predestination  
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Joe k Offline
Enthusiast
Joe k  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
New York
Quote
speratus said:
Quote
CovenantInBlood said:
Quote
speratus said:

Again, you are going beyond the scriptures to construct a doctrine that does not exist. Romans 9:21 says God has the authority from one lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. Isolated from other verses, there is nothing here that says that God makes a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor. Romans 9:21 is not a proof text for predestination of election or reprobation. Your other reference texts are proof texts for election not reprobation.


Why would Paul make this teleological defense if God did not reprobate some? He's been arguing exactly that God has reprobated some, leaving them in their sins: Ishmael, Esau, and Pharaoh. Whereas He has elected some to save from their sins: Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. In response to the indignant man who cries out, "Why doth He yet find fault? for who hath resisted His will?" Paul makes clear that it is God's prerogative to do as He pleases, preparing some vessels for destruction and some for glory, all with the purpose of showing forth His own glory. This argument makes no sense if it is a mere hypothetical, especially since Paul goes on to show how this is a fulfillment of prophecy!


I agree that Paul's argument is not merely hypothetical; however, Paul does not say God made any vessels of dishonor. Adam, at the instigation of the devil, made himself and all his seed vessels of dishonor. In the preceding verses, Paul says nothing about God creating fresh evil in Ishmael, Esau, or Pharaoh. In the following verses, Paul speaks about God making vessels of honor not vessels of dishonor.


Speratus, are we reading the same verse? It is the whole of Romans 9. Not one verse in isolation. You are confused about what reprobation actually means, and it is common. One thing it does not mean is that God makes people EVIL or Sinners. Just look at those elected, Moses was a muderer, Noah was a drunk, Abraham a polygamist, David an adulterer and murderer, etc etc etc. The irony is compare these people to those in MAtt 7 whom the Lord condemns as He never KNEW them. These people appeared "good". You must stop thinking that those who espouse an active, postitive action by God to reprobate, does not at all mean he created them with some extreme evil. But He does create them with their damnation in view. Hence their continued unbelief, continued disobedience, continued sin that is not redeemed by the blood of Christ. Plus I keep harping on this point, Reprobation is His Sovereignty, Condemnation is His justice. Just like Election is His Sovereignty and Salvation in His Mercy.


There never was a sinner half as big as Christ is as a Savior.
#29637 - Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:13 AM Re: Double predestination [Re: Joe k]  
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
Joe k Offline
Enthusiast
Joe k  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 251
New York
This is one of THE BEST articles on the Supra Position. Found here on this site: I will no longer discuss this issue, when GH far outweighs my understanding and abilities.


Click here to read the article: http://www.the-highway.com/Election_Kersten.html

Last edited by Pilgrim; Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:33 PM.
#29638 - Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 PM Re: Posting long articles here [Re: Joe k]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,313
NH, USA
PLEASE do not copy/paste long articles, especially when they can be found on another website to which you can simply supply a link. Server space a commodity and bandwidth is costly and those still using dialup often suffer from longer page loading times when such long messages are posted. If there is no current link to an article you would like for others to read, you can then add the article as an attachment.

So, if you have a link to the article by Kersten, please supply it and I will remove the contents of it from your post above.

[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#29639 - Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 PM Re: Double predestination  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
speratus said:
I agree that Paul's argument is not merely hypothetical; however, Paul does not say God made any vessels of dishonor. Adam, at the instigation of the devil, made himself and all his seed vessels of dishonor. In the preceding verses, Paul says nothing about God creating fresh evil in Ishmael, Esau, or Pharaoh. In the following verses, Paul speaks about God making vessels of honor not vessels of dishonor.


So in one case the Potter is God and the devil is also the potter? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/broke.gif" alt="" />

Page 4 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 16 guests, and 121 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)
666,285 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.055s Queries: 16 (0.003s) Memory: 2.7339 MB (Peak: 3.0445 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-16 07:23:22 UTC