Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Readin
Readin
Colorado, USA
Posts: 23
Joined: August 2008
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,294
Posts53,241
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,042
Tom 4,043
chestnutmare 3,086
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,818
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 21
Tom 8
Robin 4
Johan 3
Readin 2
Ruben 1
Recent Posts
Your opinion please
by Johan - Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:03 AM
True of False
by NetChaplain - Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:26 PM
Natural Theology 2
by Pilgrim - Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:41 PM
Natural Theology
by Pilgrim - Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:10 AM
Mandatory Vaccines
by Robin - Sun Oct 17, 2021 5:21 AM
Progressive Christianity
by Readin - Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:39 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Pilgrim #15591 Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:41 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,043
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,043
Likes: 1
Pilgrim

The view that Mohler teaches on the subject is what many Reformed Baptists teach. Even CH Spurgeon himself believed that way.
However like you, this is one topic that I don't agree with them on.

Tom

Tom #15592 Fri Jul 02, 2004 5:58 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
Look at this from a person that has not grown up with a Reformed background and is relatively a newbie to the doctrine.

If this be true, then why do we need Scripture and Faith in the first place? This reminds me of the statement that William Carey's professor gave him when Carey asked why we don't have missions or attempt to spread the Gospel to the "heathen nations." Carey's professor is reported to have said, "If God so chooses to convert the heathen nations, He will do it without your or my help!"

Now, I am not saying that God can not save who He chooses. He is sovereign! Also, I am not saying that God does not send infants to Hell. I don't know. What purpose does it serve is, I suppose, my question.

#15593 Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:48 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 13
Quote
Reformed SB writes and asks:
If this be true, then why do we need Scripture and Faith in the first place? This reminds me of the statement that William Carey's professor gave him when Carey asked why we don't have missions or attempt to spread the Gospel to the "heathen nations." Carey's professor is reported to have said, "If God so chooses to convert the heathen nations, He will do it without your or my help!"

Now, I am not saying that God can not save who He chooses. He is sovereign! Also, I am not saying that God does not send infants to Hell. I don't know. What purpose does it serve is, I suppose, my question.
Methinks you are confusing this statement in the WCF, which deals with a very narrow and specific situation; an exception to God's normal way of saving individuals. The Reformed Faith is very adamant that no one is saved without believing upon Christ and Him alone. This is man's responsibility, even though the ability to do so is made possible by God's sovereign working of regeneration in the soul. That all the elect will be infallibly saved is due to God's immutable decree is only one part of the whole. For the Lord has within that decree also determined the means to the end; i.e., that man will be regenerated, that repentance and faith will be exercised, that Christ's atonement will then be applied and that the Holy Spirit will infallibly preserve the person to final glorification. They hyper-Calvinists of Carey's day put all the emphasis upon the sovereignty of God and ignored or denied the means and responsibility of man to repent and believe on Christ.

In this particular portion of the WCF, it is dealing with those individuals who are physically incapable of participating in the regular/normal ordained means by which they are saved, e.g., the hearing of the Gospel. What is stating is that such individuals are not necessarily doomed to perdition, but rather God in His mercy calls even such individuals to Himself, albeit it secretly and unknown to us and redeems them. In short, God has predestinated even some unborn and physically disabled people to salvation. And thus ALL those who are of the elect, without exception will be infallibly saved to the glory of God.

I hope that clears that much up for you. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #15594 Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:19 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,043
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,043
Likes: 1
Pilgrim

You probably know this already, but in the London Confession of the Baptist Faith, it reads III. Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;[10] who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth;[11] so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

As you can see, it omitts the word "Elect" as it shows in the WCF. Basically my point in mentioning this is because what Mohler says is in keeping with what the London Confession of The Baptist Faith teaches. Also as what I said in my other post Spurgeon also taught that. (At least that is my understanding of what he taught)

This is one of the reasons why I like to check these kind of things with Scripture. This is one issue that I agree with the WCF over our Baptist confession.
I however am not the only Baptist that feels this way however.

Tom

Tom #15595 Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:57 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 13
Quote
Tom offers:
Basically my point in mentioning this is because what Mohler says is in keeping with what the London Confession of The Baptist Faith teaches.
That's all well and good Tom, that Mohler and Spurgeon were consistent with their denomination/church's Confession. But need I point out that my reply to Marie and rejection of the statements made by the men quoted by her was based upon Scripture and not upon the WCF. The fact remains, much to the consternation of some, that there is not one shred of biblical evidence to support the notion that "all infants who die in infancy" are saved.

I believe it is no less true for those who would hold to such a position as it is for an Arminian who rejects God's sovereign grace in salvation, that there are times when the emotions unfortunately over ride the propositional revealed inspired Word of God.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #15596 Sat Jul 03, 2004 10:22 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,043
Likes: 1
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,043
Likes: 1
Pilgrim

You said: "But need I point out that my reply to Marie and rejection of the statements made by the men quoted by her was based upon Scripture and not upon the WCF."

I was hoping you would notice the following quote from my post: "This is one of the reasons why I like to check these kind of things with Scripture."

I hope you also noticed that I am in 100% agreement with you on this one. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />

Tom

neicey #15597 Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:34 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Another Scripture passage to consider is Matthew 18:10:

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of My Father who is in heaven.” (NASV)

D. A. Carson, Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, had an interesting interpretation of Matthew 18:10:

“And if ministering angels are sent to help believers, what are the angels in Matthew 18:10 doing around the divine throne, instead of guarding those people to whom they are assigned? [. . .] The most likely explanation is the one Warfield (1:253-66) defends. The ‘angels’ of the ‘little ones’ are their spirits after death, and they always see the heavenly Father’s face. Do not despise these little ones, Jesus says, for their destiny is the unshielded glory of the Father’s presence. The present tense (they ‘always see’) raises no difficulty because Jesus is dealing with a class, not individuals. The same interpretation admirably suits Acts 12:15: what the assembled group thinks is standing outside is Peter’s ‘spirit’ (angel), which accounts for Rhoda’s recognition of his voice. But can the word ‘angel’ be pressed into this interpretation? Certainly Jesus teaches that God’s people in the Resurrection ‘will be like the angels in heaven’ as to marriage (22:30) and immortality (Luke 20:36).”
(From “Matthew,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8, page 401)

Of course, all infants are not elect, because one cannot change from an elect infant into a non-elect teenager. One’s elect status does not change. Still, I think one can make a strong case that all infants dying in infancy are elect. Three key passages make the point that the non-elect are judged for their own deeds, not the deed of Adam:

Revelation 20:13 – “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.” (NASV)

2 Corinthians 5:10 – “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” (NASV)

Matthew 16:27 – “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and WILL THEN RECOMPENSE EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.” (NASV)

Obviously, infants dying in infancy cannot act in a morally significant way that would lead to their condemnation. Arthur Pink commented, “An idiot or an infant is not personally responsible to God, because lacking in natural ability. But the normal man who is endowed with rationality, who is gifted with a conscience that is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, who is able to weigh eternal issues IS a responsible being, and it is because he does possess these very faculties that he will yet have to ‘give account of himself to God’ (Rom. 14:12).” (From The Sovereignty of God, page 154)

#15598 Sun Jul 04, 2004 10:29 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 13
koreahog2005,

Welcome to The Highway Discussion Board! [Linked Image]

Perhaps you haven't read the other posts in this thread? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> I ask because what you are proposing has been dealt with, IMHO, quite adequately, particularly in relation to the doctrine of Original Sin. The dilemma, which I do believe is unsupportable, for those who would like to believe that all infants dying in infancy is that it contradicts and obviates the guilt imputed to all human beings at conception due to Adam's transgression. It is upon this guilt alone that all men are under the wrath of God and liable to judgment. Secondly, the corruption of nature which all human beings inherit from that same Fall determines not only the external acts of sin, but the very predisposition of the soul. This too is enough to warrant God damning an individual.

Another aspect I find rejectionable with this view and which flows from the above truths is that it externalizes sin. Transgressing the law does not make one a sinner, but rather one sins because one IS a sinner and thus one naturally and irresistibly commits sin. Sin originates in the heart/soul of man and thus an embryo or infant is not exempt from its curse. The penalty for sin is "death". And the fact that some infants die in infancy goes to prove that they are sinners and share in the penalty of the Fall.

As for Carson's referencing Warfield's interpretation of Matt. 18:10 I would direct you to what Warfield actually wrote on this text here: Christ's "Little Ones".

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
neicey #15599 Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:04 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Hi Pilgrim. Thanks for the welcome. Carson was referring to Warfield’s view of the “angels” in Matthew 18:10. Notice the following quote from the article you cited by Warfield: “Thus multitudes of Christians seem to be accustomed to read Matt. xviii. 10: ‘See that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven,’ quite simply as a declaration that the ‘angels of little children’ (whatever these ‘angels’ may be) hold a peculiarly exalted place in heaven.”
http://www.the-highway.com/littleones_Warfield.html

I don’t think the article that you cited (“Christ’s ‘Little Ones’) is the one to which Carson was referring. Carson referred to the following work by Warfield: "The Angels of God's 'Little Ones,'" Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, edited by John E. Meeter (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), I:253-66. The article you cited comes from The Bible Student and Teacher, Vol. I (new issue), 1904, pp. 515-525. Most of the article you cited was spent advocating the position that the phrase “little ones” in Matthew 18:10 referred to the disciples, not to children in the sense of chronological age.

Notice the following quote from a web site that referenced Warfield’s “The Angels of God’s ‘Little Ones’ ”:

“Benjamin B. Warfield has argued against the notion that the ‘angels’ in these verses refer to guardian angels, contending that the phrase, ‘these little ones,’ in the Matthew passage speak not of children as such but more properly of his disciples in general and that their ‘angels’ in this context seem more appropriately to refer to these disciples' disembodied souls considered as a class. He declares that the real difficulty of explaining these passages by the aid of the notion of ‘guardian angels’ is that this notion does not in the least fit their requirements. Where should a ‘guardian angel’ be, except with his ward? That is the essential idea of a ‘guardian angel’; he is supposed to be in unbroken attendance upon the saint committed to his charge. But neither in Matt. xviii. 10, nor in Acts xii. 15 are the angels spoken of found with their wards; but distinctly elsewhere. After cogently arguing for the translation of ‘disembodied soul’ for the Greek a[ggelo", angelos, in these two passages, Warfield asserts:

‘What could so enhance the reverence with which "these little ones"...should be treated than the assurance that it is specifically their souls [as a class] which in heaven stand closest to the Father's throne? . . . Surely nothing could so heighten the sense of the real dignity that belongs to these little ones, whether the specially humble or the specially young be intended, than such a declaration.’

And he concludes:

‘There has been suggested no explanation of these two unique phrases—"the angels of these little ones" and "Peter's angel" — which has not difficulties in its way. Possibly it may be found, however, that the interpretation which sees in them designations of disembodied souls, despite the scorn with which this suggestion has ordinarily been treated, has more to say for itself and fewer difficulties to face than any other. It satisfies all the conditions of the passages themselves — which cannot be said of any of its rivals. It is rooted in a natural extension of the common meaning of the term employed. And it presupposes no conceptions which cannot be shown to have existed in circles out of which Christianity arose—which again cannot be said of its rivals. Perhaps that is as much as we should ask before we give it our preference.’ http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/KnoxPulpit/rreymond_angels.html

#15600 Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:16 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 13
koreahog2005,

First of all, just a point of procedure here. It would be greatly appreciated if you would click the "Reply" button within the post you are replying to. It would appear that you did not do that, when looking at the place in the thread that it appears. It makes it very difficult to follow a discussion otherwise. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Now, as to Warfield's quote which Carson was wanting to use.... I fail to see any connection whatsoever as to the issue of the salvation of infants who die in infancy. Secondly, Warfield held tenaciously to the WCF, which clearly holds that only "elect infants dying in infancy" are saved (cf. X:iii "Of Effectual Calling") So, in fact, Warfield was opposed to a general salvation of all infants dying in infancy. Why Carson chose to quote Warfield to try and support his view is beyond me and I see it as rather ironic that he would do so. [Linked Image]

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #15601 Mon Jul 05, 2004 10:45 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Another applicable passage is Romans 5:12-13:

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned – for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law.” (NASV)

A.T. Robertson, Southern Baptists’ foremost Greek authority, commented on Romans 5:13:

“Until the law (acri nomou). Until the Mosaic law. Sin was there before the Mosaic law, for the Jews were like Gentiles who had the law of reason and conscience (Romans 2:12-16), but the coming of the law increased their responsibility and their guilt (Romans 2:9). Sin is not imputed (amartia de ouk ellogeitai). Present passive indicative of late verb ellogaw (-ew) from en and logoß, to put down in the ledger to one's account, examples in inscription and papyri. When there is no law (mh ontoß nomou). Genitive absolute, no law of any kind, he means. There was law before the Mosaic law. But what about infants and idiots in case of death? Do they have responsibility? Surely not. The sinful nature which they inherit is met by Christ's atoning death and grace. No longer do men speak of ‘elect infants.’ ”
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/...=5&verse=13

Millard Erickson, 2002 president of the Evangelical Theological Society, commented on infants dying in infancy:

“The current form of my understanding is as follows: We all were involved in Adam’s sin, and thus receive both the corrupted nature that was his after the fall, and the guilt and condemnation that attach to his sin. With this matter of guilt, however, just as with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, there must be some conscious and voluntary decision on our part. Until this is the case, there is only a conditional imputation of guilt. Thus, there is no condemnation until one reaches the age of responsibility. If a child dies before becoming capable of making genuine moral decisions, the contingent imputation of Adamic sin does not become actual, and the child will experience the same type of future existence with the Lord as will those who have reached the age of moral responsibility and had their sins forgiven as a result of accepting the offer of salvation based upon Christ’s atoning death. The problem of the corrupted nature of such persons is presumably dealt with in the way that the imperfectly sanctified nature of believers will be glorified.”
(From Christian Theology, second edition, page 656)

#15602 Mon Jul 05, 2004 11:01 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Welcome to the board.

Quote
“The current form of my understanding is as follows: We all were involved in Adam’s sin, and thus receive both the corrupted nature that was his after the fall, and the guilt and condemnation that attach to his sin. With this matter of guilt, however, just as with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, there must be some conscious and voluntary decision on our part. Until this is the case, there is only a conditional imputation of guilt. Thus, there is no condemnation until one reaches the age of responsibility. If a child dies before becoming capable of making genuine moral decisions, the contingent imputation of Adamic sin does not become actual, and the child will experience the same type of future existence with the Lord as will those who have reached the age of moral responsibility and had their sins forgiven as a result of accepting the offer of salvation based upon Christ’s atoning death. The problem of the corrupted nature of such persons is presumably dealt with in the way that the imperfectly sanctified nature of believers will be glorified.”
(From Christian Theology, second edition, page 656)

I have two questions;

1) Since no man has the ability within himself, are the unregenerate excused the same way?

2) What is the specified age?


God bless,

william

#15603 Mon Jul 05, 2004 11:25 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 13
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,042
Likes: 13
Golly gee..... haven't you read any of the other replies in this thread? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> Nearly everything you posited to defend this erroneous view, has been dealt with quite thoroughly already. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Quote
Another applicable passage is Romans 5:12-13:

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned – for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed where there is no law.” (NASV)

A.T. Robertson, Southern Baptists’ foremost Greek authority, commented on Romans 5:13:
Again, the very fact that death exists, of which some unborn infants also experience, goes to prove that they too are sinners by nature, and thus liable to judgment. Only sinners experience death, according to the Scriptures. In fact, it is because they are sinners do humans die. If they had no sin, then they would have no need of Christ's atonement applied to them. In fact, I had hinted at this already too, here: One of my replies below. Robertson's comments on verse 13 are irrelevant to the issue of unborn infants dying in infancy.

Secondly, Erickson surely contradicts himself right out of the gate. For he first acknowledges the truth that ALL are partakers of Adam's "guilt" and "corruption of nature" but then goes on to contradict that affirmation when he writes:

<blockquote>
With this matter of guilt, however, just as with the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, there must be some conscious and voluntary decision on our part. Until this is the case, there is only a conditional imputation of guilt. Thus, there is no condemnation until one reaches the age of responsibility.<br>
</blockquote>

Now, pray tell, where did he get THAT bit of information from; the "Devised Standard Version" of the Bible, perhaps? [Linked Image] I see lots of imaginative thinking, but nothing that resembles biblical teaching. The same goes for this novel idea of the "age of responsibility". Sounds more like the teaching of John Locke and his "Tabula Rasa" than the apostle Paul. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#15604 Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:24 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Averagefellar, I love your name. I’ll try to answer your questions:

1. Five-point Calvinists say that non-Christians are unable to repent of their sin and place their faith in Christ because they are spiritually dead. Remember Ephesians 2:1: “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins.” How can a spiritually dead person do anything that is spiritually significant? Total depravity implies total inability. Jesus made it clear, however, that somehow a dead person could hear the gospel and believe in God (John 5:24-25):

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who
sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgement, but has passed
out of death into life. Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now
is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who
hear shall live.”

Some people argue that the dead people mentioned in verse 25 refer to physically dead rather than spiritually dead people, but the proximity to verse 24 and the clear reference to physically dead people in verse 28 seem to rule out that interpretation.

A common analogy used to represent depravity is drunkenness. A drunk
person is unable to drive safely, and a depraved non-Christian is unable to surrender his life to Christ in repentance and faith. Again, total depravity implies total inability. A person inclined to sin cannot truly repent of that sin unless his depravity is somehow counteracted. Is a person sober before he gets drunk and drives? Yes, and that is why society can hold him responsible for driving drunk. If an evil gang forced a person to drink and drive, then society would not hold the drunken man responsible for an accident.

God holds humans responsible for their depravity because they were perfectly represented by Adam when he committed his first sin. If Adam did not have true free will, then he could not be held responsible for his sin, and his descendants also could not be held responsible for the sins they commit while they are in a totally depraved condition. Humans are also held responsible for the ultimate, final choice they make to accept or reject Jesus as their Lord when they are under the special, illuminating conviction of the Holy Spirit. As Adam was held responsible for his free will choice, so his descendants are, also.

The non-Christian’s conscience may be functioning from birth, but every part of him is affected by depravity, including the conscience. The Holy Spirit must activate and calibrate it during the time of special conviction. At that time the effects of depravity are temporarily counteracted so that the non-Christian can self-generate a bias from an unbiased position (equipoise) and surrender to Christ in faith and repentance.

2. The age is not specified chronologically. Some people who are severely mentally handicapped and infants dying in infancy never reach that age.

#15605 Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:41 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
That sounds pelagian, or at least arminian/wesleyan. Here you contradict yourself

Quote
2. The age is not specified chronologically. Some people who are severely mentally handicapped and infants dying in infancy never reach that age.
Emphasis mine.

If your first statement is correct, and it is, your second statement is absurd. You claim there is no age, then claim an AGE that is never met. Maybe we should refer to it as a 'personal point of accountability'? Again, something I do not see in scripture. I also notice that on such an important thing as salvation of children, God is silent of an age, or a point. The Bible also says nothing of those with mental handicaps.

Quote
If Adam did not have true free will,

Could you provide some scripture that says Adams will wasn't bound to his nature?

One more question;

If infants are not held accountable, why do they suffer the consequences of sin?


God bless,

william

Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 90 guests, and 20 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach, Daverogk
964 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
October
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
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,293,331 Gospel truth