Donations for the month of March


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
John_C
John_C
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,865
Joined: September 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,780
Posts54,875
Members974
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,447
Tom 4,516
chestnutmare 3,320
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,864
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 4
John_C 1
Recent Posts
Is the church in crisis
by John_C - Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:52 AM
Jordan Peterson ordered to take sensitivity training
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:00 PM
Should Creeds be read in Church?
by Pilgrim - Mon Mar 25, 2024 6:30 AM
1 Cor. 6:9-11
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:34 AM
Do Christians have Dual Personalities: Peace & Wretchedness?
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:15 PM
The When and How of Justification
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:13 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#21154 Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:31 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Quote
"Take eat; this is my body" does not mean "This is not my body". Nor does it mean "This bread has become my body." Nor does it mean "This is my body but only in a spiritual sense." "Take eat; this is my body" means that Christ gives us His natural body to be eaten.
With all due respect to Christ, do you really believe Jesus is a cannibalistic vampire eating His own body and drinking His own blood?

Quote
Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:20
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Do you agree with Oral Roberts spoting a 900 foot Jesus straddling a hospital complex he was building next to his university. If not, just how big is Jesus' body? How many pints of blood does He really have? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

Jesus is also called a "vine,", "the door," the "morning star," (may only be eaten for breakfast) the "cornerstone," the "lamb," the "fountain," the "rock," etc. Are we to take these "literally" too?


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#21155 Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:36 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
Quote
speratus said:
You are mistaken. Christ did not say the bread was His body.
Yes he did. He said, of the bread, "This is my body." In the past tense, he said the bread was his body. That's simple grammar.

Quote
Nor does it mean "This is my body but only in a spiritual sense." "Take eat; this is my body" means that Christ gives us His natural body to be eaten.
You'll have to clarify yourself here. What do you mean by "natural body?" This sounds an awful lot like the Catholic doctrine. Surely you don'e embrace transubstantiation? Because it sounds an awful lot like it.

Also, in an above post, you seemed to imply you reject consubstantiation. Perhaps you could explain to us in detail what you do believe?


(Latin phrase goes here.)
CovenantInBlood #21156 Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:49 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
CovenantInBlood saidThis site gives a helpful overview.

This site gives a better overview.

Quote
Calvinists do not separate Christ from His humanity, and you have persisted in willful misrepresentation. We say that Christ is one person with two natures, and that these natures, while joined in one person, remain distinct and unmixed. Thus the humanity of Christ is not divine, and the divinity of Christ is not humane. The communicatio idiomatum means that the attributes of both human and divine natures can be ascribed to the PERSON of Christ, as He consists of two natures; it does not mean that the each nature can be said to possess the attributes of the other.

The attributes of the one nature are never mingled and never become the attributes of the other nature. However, in the unity of person, what is attributed to the one nature can be attributed to the other nature.

The implications of the erroneous Calvinist hypostatic doctrine extend beyond the meaning the sacrament. For example, their doctrine of atonement is also faulty. If a mere man dies for us, we remain lost. But, in the communication of the attributes, God suffered, God died, God's blood saves us.

Quote
Sophistry, Speratus, mere sophistry!

To the contrary doctrinal error occurs when the papist/zwinglian/calvinist sophistry enters in. Christ's words are plain and self-evident.

Henry #21157 Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:16 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Henry said: You'll have to clarify yourself here. What do you mean by "natural body?" This sounds an awful lot like the Catholic doctrine. Surely you don'e embrace transubstantiation? Because it sounds an aswful lot like it.

Also, in an above post, you seemed to inply you jecect consubstantiation. Perhaps you could explain to us in detail what you do believe?

Yes, I will respond in detail to these baseless charges of transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and cannibalism!

Quote
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration

Accordingly, they hold and teach that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, offered, and received. And although they believe in no transubstantiation, that is, an essential transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, nor hold that the body and blood of Christ are included in the bread localiter, that is, locally, or are otherwise permanently united therewith apart from the use of the Sacrament, yet they concede that through the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. [that when the bread is offered, the body of Christ is at the same time present, and is truly tendered]. For apart from the use, when the bread is laid aside and preserved in the sacramental vessel [the pyx], or is carried about in the procession and exhibited, as is done in popery, they do not hold that the body of Christ is present....
For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated; 36] just as the expression, Verbum caro factum est, The Word was made flesh [John 1, 14], is repeated and explained by the equivalent expressions: The Word dwelt among us; likewise [Col. 2, 9]: In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; likewise [Acts 10, 38]: God was with Him; likewise [2 Cor. 5, 19]: God was in Christ, and the like; namely, that the divine essence is not changed into the human nature, but the two natures, unchanged, are personally united. [These phrases repeat and declare the expression of John, above mentioned, namely, that by the incarnation the divine essence is not changed into the human nature, but that the two natures without confusion are personally united.] 37] Even as many eminent ancient teachers, Justin, Cyprian, Augustine, Leo, Gelasius, Chrysostom and others, use this simile concerning the words of Christ's testament: This is My body, that just as in Christ two distinct, unchanged natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth in the appointed administration of the Sacrament. 38] Although this union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine is not a personal union, as that of the two natures in Christ, but as Dr. Luther and our theologians, in the frequently mentioned Articles of Agreement [Formula of Concord] in the year 1536 and in other places call it sacramentatem unionem, that is, a sacramental union, by which they wish to indicate that, although they also employ the formas: in pane, sub pane, cum pane, that is, these distinctive modes of speech: in the bread, under the bread, with the bread, yet they have received the words of Christ properly and as they read, and have understood the proposition, that is, the words of Christ's testament: Hoc est corpus meum, This is My body...
For in view of the circumstances this command evidently cannot be understood otherwise than of oral eating and drinking, however, not in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way; 65] to which afterwards the other command adds still another and spiritual eating, when the Lord Christ says further: This do in remembrance of Me, where He requires faith [which is the spiritual partaking of Christ's body). 66] Therefore all the ancient Christian teachers expressly, and in full accord with the entire holy Christian Church, teach, according to these words of the institution of Christ and the explanation of St. Paul, that the body of Christ is not only received spiritually by faith, which occurs also outside of [the use of] the Sacrament, but also orally, not only by believing and godly, but also by unworthy, unbelieving, false, and wicked Christians.

#21158 Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:38 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
speratus said:

The attributes of the one nature are never mingled and never become the attributes of the other nature. However, in the unity of person, what is attributed to the one nature can be attributed to the other nature.

Will you say then that the divine nature of Christ is therefore finite, physical, and that it needed to grow in wisdom, even as the human nature? What is attributed to one nature can be attributed to the Person of Christ, as He consists of two natures. However, the divine is not human and the human is not divine.

Quote
The implications of the erroneous Calvinist hypostatic doctrine extend beyond the meaning the sacrament. For example, their doctrine of atonement is also faulty. If a mere man dies for us, we remain lost. But, in the communication of the attributes, God suffered, God died, God's blood saves us. If a mere man dies for us, we remain lost. But, in the communication of the attributes, God suffered, God died, God's blood saves us.

Christ did not die in His divinity, but in His humanity. To say that He died in His divinity requires that the nature of the divine be mutable, i.e., subject to change. This is impossible.

Also, a piece explaining why Reformed Christology is not Nestorianism (the belief that Christ is two persons): http://kevin.seattleblogs.org/archives/000042.html.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#21159 Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:04 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516
Likes: 13
speratus

From your posts, it looks like you don't concider Calvinists to be Christians.
If that is the case, I would have to conclude that you are here to set us straight.

Tom

CovenantInBlood #21160 Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:29 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
CovenantInBlood said:
Will you say then that the divine nature of Christ is therefore finite, physical, and that it needed to grow in wisdom, even as the human nature?

The attributes of the one nature never become the attributes of the other nature. The following summary gives the correct doctrine of the hypostatic union.

Quote
Formula of Concord, Epitome,
To explain this controversy, and settle it according to the guidance [analogy] of our Christian faith, our doctrine, faith, and confession is as follows:

5] 1. That the divine and human natures in Christ are personally united, so that there are not two Christs, one the Son of God, the other the Son of man, but that one and the same is the Son of God and Son of man, Luke 1, 35; Rom. 9, 5.

6] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the divine and human natures are not mingled into one substance, nor the one changed into the other, but that each retains its own essential properties, which [can] never become the properties of the other nature.

7] 3. The properties of the divine nature are: to be almighty, eternal, infinite, and to be, according to the property of its nature and its natural essence, of itself, everywhere present, to know everything, etc.; which never become properties of the human nature.

8] 4. The properties of the human nature are: to be a corporeal creature, to be flesh and blood, to be finite and circumscribed, to suffer, to die, to ascend and descend, to move from one place to another, to suffer hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like; which never become properties of the divine nature.

9] 5. As the two natures are united personally, i. e., in one person, we believe, teach, and confess that this union is not such a copulation and connection that neither nature has anything in common with the other personally, i.e . because of the personal union, as when two boards are glued together, where neither gives anything to the other or takes anything from the other. But here is the highest communion, which God truly has with the [assumed] man, from which personal union, and the highest and ineffable communion resulting therefrom, there flows everything human that is said and believed concerning God, and everything divine that is said and believed concerning the man Christ; as the ancient teachers of the Church explained this union and communion of the natures by the illustration of iron glowing with fire, and also by the union of body and soul in man.

10] 6. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that God is man and man is God, which could not be if the divine and human natures had in deed and truth absolutely no communion with one another.

11] For how could the man, the son of Mary, in truth be called or be God, or the Son of God the Most High, if His humanity were not personally united with the Son of God, and He thus had realiter, that is, in deed and truth, nothing in common with Him except only the name of God?

12] 7. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God.

13] 8. Hence we also believe, teach, and confess that it was not a mere man who suffered, died, was buried, descended to hell, arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and was raised to the majesty and almighty power of God for us, but a man whose human nature has such a profound [close], ineffable union and communion with the Son of God that it is [has become] one person with Him.

14] 9. Therefore the Son of God truly suffered for us, however, according to the property of the human nature which He assumed into the unity of His divine person and made His own, so that He might be able to suffer and be our High Priest for our reconciliation with God, as it is written 1 Cor. 2, 8: They have crucfied the Lord of glory. And Acts 20, 28: We are purchased with God's blood.

15] 10. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that the Son of Man is realiter, that is, in deed and truth, exalted according to His human nature to the right hand of the almighty majesty and power of God, because He [that man] was assumed into God when He was conceived of the Holy Ghost in His mother's womb, and His human nature was personally united with the Son of the Highest.

16] 11. This majesty He [Christ] always had according to the personal union, and yet He abstained from it in the state of His humiliation, and on this account truly increased in all wisdom and favor with God and men; therefore He exercised this majesty, not always, but when [as often as] it pleased Him, until after His resurrection He entirely laid aside the form of a servant, but not the [human] nature, and was established in the full use, manifestation, and declaration of the divine majesty, and thus entered into His glory, Phil. 2, 6ff , so that now not only as God, but also as man He knows all things, can do all things, is present with all creatures, and has under His feet and in His hands everything that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth, as He Himself testifies Matt. 28, 18; John 13, 3: All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. And St. Paul says Eph. 4, 10: He ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. And this His power, He, being present, can exercise everywhere, and to Him everything is possible and everything is known.

17] 12. Hence He also is able and it is very easy for Him to impart, as one who is present, His true body and blood in the Holy Supper, not according to the mode or property of the human nature, but according to the mode and property of the right hand of God, as Dr. Luther says in accordance with our Christian faith for children, which presence (of Christ in the Holy Supper] is not [physical or] earthly, nor Capernaitic; nevertheless it is true and substantial, as the words of His testament read: This is, is, is My body, etc.

18] By this our doctrine, faith, and confession the person of Christ is not divided, as it was by Nestorius, who denied the communicatio idiomatum, that is, the true communion of the properties of both natures in Christ, and thus divided the person, as Luther has explained in his book Concerning Councils. Neither are the natures together with their properties confounded with one another [or mingled] into one essence (as Eutyches erred); nor is the human nature in the person of Christ denied or annihilated; nor is either nature changed into the other; but Christ is and remains to all eternity God and man in one undivided person, which, next to the Holy Trinity, is, as the Apostle testifies, 1 Tim. 3, 16, the highest mystery, upon which our only consolation, life, and salvation depends.

Tom #21161 Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:49 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Tom said:
speratus

From your posts, it looks like you don't concider Calvinists to be Christians.
If that is the case, I would have to conclude that you are here to set us straight.

Tom

I consider Calvinists to be Christians even though their Christology is messed up. Of course, I also consider Arminians and Papists to be Christians even though their confessions deny justification by faith alone in Christ alone.

I am here to learn as much as possible about Calvinism not to teach. The effect of the modern Reform Church on Lutherans is profound and needs to be understood to properly understand modern Lutheranism.

After this thread, I will probably return to reading mode.

#21162 Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:12 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
The attributes of the one nature never become the attributes of the other nature. The following summary gives the correct doctrine of the hypostatic union.

Indeed, they do not! That is exactly why Christ's body is not ubiquitous!

Quote
7] 3. The properties of the divine nature are: to be almighty, eternal, infinite, and to be, according to the property of its nature and its natural essence, of itself, everywhere present, to know everything, etc.; which never become properties of the human nature.

8] 4. The properties of the human nature are: to be a corporeal creature, to be flesh and blood, to be finite and circumscribed, to suffer, to die, to ascend and descend, to move from one place to another, to suffer hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like; which never become properties of the divine nature.

Marvellous! But then they turn around and say that the human nature is no longer finite and circumscribed or located in one place or another!


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
CovenantInBlood #21163 Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:21 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
No, they say He is present, not according to the mode or property of human nature which remains unchanged, but according to mode and property of the right hand of God.

Quote
17] 12. Hence He also is able and it is very easy for Him to impart, as one who is present, His true body and blood in the Holy Supper, not according to the mode or property of the human nature, but according to the mode and property of the right hand of God, as Dr. Luther says in accordance with our Christian faith for children, which presence (of Christ in the Holy Supper] is not [physical or] earthly, nor Capernaitic; nevertheless it is true and substantial, as the words of His testament read: This is, is, is My body, etc.

Are Calvinists really consistent regarding no communication of divine attributes? If so, how can the atonement be of infinite worth? Or, is it just sufficient for a few elect?

#21164 Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:14 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,447
Likes: 57
Quote
speratus said:
Are Calvinists really consistent regarding no communication of divine attributes? If so, how can the atonement be of infinite worth? Or, is it just sufficient for a few elect?
1) Consistency: That would depend upon which Calvinist you talked to. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

2) Sufficiency: Haven't we hashed this topic out previously? even more than once? The sufficiency of the atonement, if it is in fact a vicarious, substitutionary atonement, of necessity only applies to the elect. The atonement of the Lord Christ actually and infallibly secured the salvation of ALL for whom He died; i.e., all those who the Father gave Him. (Jh 6:37-39; 10:11; cf. Ezk 34:12; Heb 13:20) For a defense of the biblical doctrine of the sufficiency of the atonement, also see here:

- The Extent of the Atonement, by Charles W. Bronson
- Sufficient for All, by Jim Ellis

Lastly, IF <---------= you desire to reply/continue the subject of the "sufficiency and/or efficacy" of the atonement, please start a new thread. Otherwise, it will be off-topic for this thread and your reply will be removed. [Linked Image]

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #21165 Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:46 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Bronson has answered all my questions, "God Himself, the Sovereign and the Judge, put Himself in our place on the tree and died for us."

#21166 Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:53 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Quote
No, they say He is present, not according to the mode or property of human nature which remains unchanged, but according to mode and property of the right hand of God.

1) What, exactly, does that mean?
2) Scripture?

Quote
Are Calvinists really consistent regarding no communication of divine attributes? If so, how can the atonement be of infinite worth? Or, is it just sufficient for a few elect?

The atonement applies ONLY to the elect. It does not extend to anyone else.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
CovenantInBlood #21167 Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:24 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
1. There is a difference in mode between His comprehensible, bodily mode according to the property of human nature which we can perceive with our senses and His incomprehensible, spiritual mode according to the property of the right hand of God which is not perceived by human senses. The proof of this is that the disciples could see only bread. Even today, those of us who receive the Lord's body see, feel, and taste only bread. But we know that His body is given and eaten by the disciples and by those who do not change His word because Christ does not lie or deceive.
2. 1 Cor. 11

The sufficiency of the atonement is outside the scope of this thread. I have my answer although my question was wrongly asked (I should have said human attributes not divine attributes). At least one Calvinist (Bronson) believes in the communication of human attributes, "God Himself, the Sovereign and the Judge, put Himself in our place on the tree and died for us." (The Extent of the Atonement)

Last edited by speratus; Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:51 AM.
#21168 Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:10 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Your doctrine DEMANDS the simultaneous presence of Christ’s human body in numerous locations (ubiquity). Martin Luther (ML) formulated the doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ’s human body. According to ML and the Lutheran Church (LC), there is a “real presence” that is consistent with their doctrines of a corporeal bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist elements. Please note, that the RCC and the LC admit that Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist is intangible and invisible, yet they both claim that it is a corporeal bodily presence. The difficulty is that NEITHER church can begin to explain precisely what an intangible corporeal presence is, nor can they explain what an intangible and invisible “body” is and how such a body is distinguishable from the spirit. They cannot explain how an intangible and invisible presence of Christ is distinguishable from a spiritual presence of Christ. They cannot do this because they cannot define body as opposed to spirit, or corporeal as opposed to incorporeal, in a way that is also consistent with their doctrine of bodily presence. If they define corporeal in a way that is distinguishable from incorporeal, that definition is also applicable to their doctrine of corporeal presence. The only way they can maintain their doctrine of a bodily corporeal presence is to define those words in a way that is indistinguishable from their opposites. The result is an utterly confusing and self-contradictory doctrine that renders human language (i.e. please note this is the language that God has chosen to communicate to us in) utterly meaningless. This is what William and other have tried to convey to you.

One of the major faults of the RCC and LC is they fail to see the historical context of the meal itself. During the Passover meal, Jesus took the bread, He blessed it, He then broke it, and then He gave the bread to the disciples (Matt 26). As Jesus gave His disciple the bread He said, “this is my body.” The RCC and others interpret this too literalistically, while others interpret it too symbolically.

However, what is the “context” of the statement given? Normally, the Passover liturgy would include the following words: “This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate when they came from the land of Egypt.” Now of course the Jews did not believe they were actually eating the “very same pieces” of bread that their ancestors ate on the night of the first Passover. The main point of contact is NOT between “this bread” and “that bread,” rather these words point, by a figure of speech, to a “real participation” by the Jews in the act of redemption that their ancestors experienced firsthand. Thus, the words of the Passover liturgy communicated to each generation of Jews that they were partakers of the act of the redemption of God had accomplished when He brought their ancestors out of Egypt—the passage of time did not alter the oneness of the covenant people of God…..

While not a perfect illustration, the next time you show a photograph of yourself to someone you could say something like “this is me.” What would you really mean? Is the photograph literally the person? Are you in, with, and under the photograph? The context of the verses in question do not call for the RCC or LC interpretation of Scripture. The words Jesus spoke did not indicate that the bread in His hand was His very body any more than the words of the Jews spoke indicated that the bread they held was the very bread eaten by their ancestors. In BOTH cases a figure of speech is being used to indicate another connection. Jesus is also called a "vine,", "the door," the "morning star," the "cornerstone," the "lamb," the "fountain," the "rock," etc. Are we to take these "literally" too? Is Jesus "in, with, and under" these?

As Christians we participate in the benefits of Jesus’ act of redemption by virtue of union with Him to the degree that Paul can say that Christians have been crucified and died with Christ (Romans 6:6-8). Have you died and been crucified with Christ? Do you literally have the marks of crucifixion on your body (Jesus still does)? In the Lord’s Supper, Christians partake of the true Passover lamb and the benefits of His great redemptive act on the Cross. We are united to Him and are seen “in Him.”

Please read the book: Given for You, by Keith Mathison. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 77 guests, and 11 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
974 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
March
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)
1,506,390 Gospel truth