The Biblical Offer of the Gospel

Discussion in 'Preaching' started by AV1611, Nov 19, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior

  2. polemic_turtle

    polemic_turtle Puritan Board Freshman

    This wouldn't be somehow connected to the PRCA, would it? Seems like I've seen a number of Anglicans who appreciate their soteriological stances. Interesting.
     
  3. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior

    No...although they faced a similar battle as the C/PRC although a few decades later.

    The method of presentation will obviously differ from the more free-will emphasis that modern calvinistic preaching has having a higher view of God and his sovereign work.
     
  4. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Puritan Board Doctor

    Could you give an example "offer" in the two methods to highlight how they would differ in your opinion?
     
  5. yeutter

    yeutter Puritan Board Senior


    Hoeksema is much like Augustus Toplady only more systematic.
     
  6. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior

    Do you know where AMT's sermons are available from online (I have hard copies already).
     
  7. JOwen

    JOwen Puritan Board Junior

  8. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior

    To the Silversides-Hanko debate I would add the Mouw-Engelsma debate found here.

    The CG issue is unrelated to the FO issue so perhaps a separate thread?.

    Regarding the terms of 'offer': Did Calvin use it? Yes indeed however the question that must be asked is precisely what did he mean by the term 'offer'? That is why it is rather pointless to find quotes by the reformers and puritans where the term 'offer' was used and shout - there...they believed in the free offer.

    Further...what do we mean by the term 'Free Offer'? How should we define the free offer of the gospel? Do we understand it as refering to the general proclamation of the gospel i.e. heralding it to all nations, all creatures etc? Do we mean that God is gracious to all in having the gospel preached to all? Much of the controversy has arisen because people have not defined their terms of if they have done so they have defined them differently and then talked at cross purposes.

    I would add that far better is it that we use Biblical language. So we preach the gospel, herald the gospel, proclaim the gospel...no where in the Scripture do we find the phrase 'offer the gospel'.

    As for the CG?FO debate...let us not ban debate but discuss and pray that the Holy Ghost leads us into all truth as has been promised. This leads me on to doctrinal development. We must recognise that truth did not end with Calvin...there are times...shock horror that he was wrong...indeed even councils have erred!
     
  9. R. Scott Clark

    R. Scott Clark Puritan Board Senior

    There is an essay on the well-meant/free offer here:

    [​IMG]
     
  10. JOwen

    JOwen Puritan Board Junior


    Mmmmmm, if you listen to the debate you will see that it is also about the free offer.

    Blessings!
     
  11. JOwen

    JOwen Puritan Board Junior

    Here is an interesting Calvin quote. Would you say that Calvin was wrong in this?

    Mark 10:21 ~Jesus beholding him, loved him.~

    The inference which the Papists draw from this, that works morally good — that is, works which are not performed by the impulse of the Spirit, but go before regeneration — have the merit of congruity, is an excessively childish contrivance. For if merit be alleged to be the consequence of the love of God, we must then say that frogs and fleas have merit, because all the creatures of God, without exception, are the objects of his love. To distinguish the degrees of love is, therefore, a matter of importance. As to the present passage, it may be enough to state briefly, that God embraces in fatherly love none but his children, whom he has regenerated with the Spirit of adoption, and that it is in consequence of this love that they are accepted at his tribunal. In this sense, to be loved by God, and to be justified in his sight, are synonymous terms.

    But God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify; for, since the preservation of the human race is agreeable to Him — which consists in justice, uprightness, moderation, prudence, fidelity, and temperance — he is said to love the political virtues; not that they are meritorious of salvation or of grace, but that they have reference to an end of which he approves. In this sense, under various points of view, God loved Aristides and Fabricius, and also hated them; for, in so far as he had bestowed on them outward righteousness, and that for the general advantage, he loved his own work in them; but as their heart was impure, the outward semblance of righteousness was of no avail for obtaining righteousness. For we know that by faith alone hearts are purified, and that the Spirit of uprightness is given to the members of Christ alone. Thus the question is answered, How was it possible that Christ should love a man who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices? For it is not inconsistent, that the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures, shall be loved by Him, and yet that He should reject their persons and works on account of corruption (Calvin's Commentary on the harmony of the Gospel. Vol. 2. p.297).


    I see here in Calvin a discriminating love that is not salvific for the reprobate. It is a lesser love than the love for the elect, and would seem to terminate upon the temporal object of wrath. Calvin indicates that this is not an ardent and eternal love for those who are not elect, but a temporal condescending love found in His own (albeit marred) image in them. It is a love nonetheless.
     
  12. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior

    Yes. God loves his inheritance and them alone.

    Let us look at your quote:

    Here Calvin is speaking of animals.

    He is correct here!

    I think Calvin is confusing here and could have made use of clarifying phrases such as "...in that...". What Calvin seems to be teaching here is that God loves "justice, uprightness, moderation, prudence, fidelity, and temperance" and so those who do them he loves i.e. he loves the outward righteousness he himself has worked in them. But he states that "God loved Aristides and Fabricius, and also hated them".

    However we must remember that as great as Calvin was he was not infaliable and it is our duty to be always reforming our doctrine to the Scriptures. I do not think Calvin is correct for even the 'good works' of the unregenerate are filthy rags and no man can do something good in the eyes of God. The ploughing of the wicked is sinful (Prov 21:4).
     
  13. JOwen

    JOwen Puritan Board Junior

    And what would you say to Calvin here?

    " The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. " 2 Peter 3:9

    But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shews a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent.

    This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time a right, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness. "Not willing that any should perish". So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

    But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. But as the verb chōreō is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance.​

    Admittedly, this is a most difficult passage to interpret if one does not understand Calvin's disposition to God's to two kinds of love toward man (General, nonsalvific benevolence, and electing, saving love). Rev. Hanko, in his debate with Rev. Silversides says the following, "When we are speaking of common grace, we are also speaking of common mercy, common love, common goodness, common long-suffering. They all go together. They can't be separated. I'm not going to argue against just a common grace this evening, but against a common love, common mercy, common benevolence, common goodness, common long-suffering" (Intro to Lecture #2). I think in doing so, he has argued himself right off the pages of Scripture. Agree or disagree, Hanko has out calvined Calvin. He's not taken Calvin in all his context, and realized the dichotomization of his teaching on this subject.

    How then do we reconcile the clear Biblical teaching that God hates the sinner with a passage such as this? We can do one of two things. We can wrest the passage from its true context, or as Calvin does, we can go back to the two ways in which the Bible speaks of God's love. When the Scriptures tell us that God hates the reprobate with an eternal hatred, it speaks of the reprobate in terns of the "hidden purpose of God", to quote Calvin. In this way, there is an eternal and abiding hatred. And when the Word indicates that God is long-suffering to man in the calls to repentance, it is from the general, non-saving love "made known to us in the gospel" (Calvin) that terminates on the creature. This love is not saving, but creaturely, “that the good seed, which God has implanted in some natures, shall be loved by Him” (Calvin). If you disagree with these two loves, argue with Calvin.
     
  14. BertMulder

    BertMulder Puritan Board Junior

    Sloppy dogmatics brings heresy into the church.

    Speaking of Prof. Hanko and the socalled 'offer of the gospel', Prof Hanko has done a thorough job here on the history of the free offer:

    http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/Free Offer/cover.htm

    From his Introduction:



     
  15. JOwen

    JOwen Puritan Board Junior

    Speaking as a Scottish Presbyterian who is now the pastor of a 3 Forms Church, Hanko butchered the Marrow Controversy and displayed a great lack of knowledge on the subject of the Free Offer in that piece. I have yet to see any PRC scholar actually interact with Calvin's own words on the subject besides saying, "Calvin used unfortunate language".
     
  16. BertMulder

    BertMulder Puritan Board Junior

    Sorry Rev. Lewis:

    1. Your link does not figure. What dit Calvin say, and where?

    2. What basis do you have for your allegations regarding Prof. Hanko's lack of understanding?

    If you come with an allegation, you have to back it up.
     
  17. JOwen

    JOwen Puritan Board Junior


    First, click here for an 8 part series on the subject matter of the Free Offer by Calvin (3/4 the way down the page).

    Second, I would not make the allegations if i was not able to back them up. I plan on a full critique on Hanko and the Marrow, as well as H. Hoeksema on the Covenant. This will be posted on my blog.
     
  18. BertMulder

    BertMulder Puritan Board Junior

    I am no scholar, although I am Protestant Reformed. I would not say Calvin used unfortunate language. And remember, Calving did not speak English, but this is from the Latin. What does offere mean in Latin? I stand wholeheartedly here on the position that Calvin, in any of these citations, did not teach the Well meant offer.


    Sorry, Pastor Lewis, but you are being just slightly ingeneous. Was reading your blog, and a certain part of Calvin's commentary has been deleted:

    on Rom 1:16

    Noting here, that a savor of death to the ungodly is hardly to them the sweet savor of an offer of grace. Also, considering offer, from the Latin root, is meant in the sense of 'displaying'.

    This is how my commentary readson Rom 5:18:

    Inst 3:3:21:

    21.

    Dont see any offer in this, just proclamation of the Gospel.

    Your own words:

    How is a savour of death an offer of grace? Grace is only in the special call, as you yourself here state.

    Mercy is offered to all who desire it? Offer of grace to all hearers?

    The Gospel preached to everyone, which cannot be received except for the quickening by the Holy Spirit, who works it in our hearts.

    Do we need more arguments that Calvin did not preach a "universal offer of grace to all hearers"?

    Grace is not offered. Grace is worked, through the Word and Spirit, in the hearts of all the elect. All of God, nothing of us.

    Sola Gratia!
     
  19. turmeric

    turmeric Megerator

    Dr. Clark, your link is missing! Sorry about the pun.
     
  20. BertMulder

    BertMulder Puritan Board Junior

    So the allegation can be made here, but the (delayed) explanation we will have to hunt up on your blog? Come on, Pastor, sure you can do better than that? Be a man and back up your words, or else offer a retraction.

    Here is what Prof. Hanko wrote on the Marrow (beg your forebearance on the lengthy quote, moderators):

    Pastor, where was Prof. Hanko less than honest?

     
  21. BertMulder

    BertMulder Puritan Board Junior

    Further to the Marrow men, and heresy, this is a heretical statement from Ebenezer Erskine in this sermon. Because God never lets go of His justice. His justice must be satisfied. And Christ died for our sins to make full and complete satisfaction on the cross for the sins of those given to Him by the Father:

    http://www.puritansermons.com/erskine/eerskin06.htm

     
  22. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Puritan Board Doctor


    What is heretical about Erskine's statement?
     
  23. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior

    God does in deed invite/command/call all to repent.



    I do not think he is correct here. Turretin nor Owen would either.

    In the gospel God declares what? Canon 3/4, viii: "For seriously and most genuinely God makes known in his Word what is pleasing to him: that those who are called should come to him." So if here Calvin taught that his not willing that any should perish was in fact his willing they should heed the call as God's will of command then there is no problem. But he should have worded himself better.

    When was Calvin the test of orthodoxy? We ought to develop his doctrines systematically and conform them closer to the Scriptures. The Puritans built upon Calvin developing his doctrine, so like wise we ought do the same.
     
  24. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior

    :agree:
     
  25. JOwen

    JOwen Puritan Board Junior

    If you will recall, the posts were to display that Calvin did teach a universal offer. If I was doing what you are inferring by the charge of being ingeneous (sp?- you could be calling me 3 things by this "ingenuous", "ingenious" or even disingenuous), why on earth would I quote Calvin in Institutes 3:3:21? "God indeed declares, that he would have all men to repent, and addresses exhortations in common to all; their efficacy, however, depends on the Spirit of regeneration." The fact that I omitted certain parts was for simple brevity, and took nothing away from the force of Calvin's words. You are dancing here:banana:, nothing more.



    Do you think Bert, that by your insisting that the Latin word for "offer" means "display" is new to me? The word "offer" takes nothing away from the thrust of Calvin's own words but enhances them! Calvin interchanges the word "offer" with the word "invites", ("Since then the gospel invites all to partake of salvation without any difference"- from your translation!), he is proclaiming that very thing that you are decrying. How do you deal with that brother? Calvin is too clear on these points. You can squabble over Latin words if you like but the truth of the matter is Calvin taught a universal offer and a general love.



    There are a few translation that we could use, but for the sake of argument, and because I have no bone to pick with which translation is used, lets quote from your source and examine the contrents...

    "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."

    In the PRC, is this common favour taught? Is this favour really "propounded to all" Bert? Is Calvin right when he says that salvation is "offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."?


    What?! Do you think that by drowning out the actual words with the whole quote from 3:3:21 will take away the fact that John Calvin states "Indeed, God declares that he wills the conversion of all, and he directs exhortations to all in common. Yet the efficacy of this depends upon the Spirit of regeneration."

    Look Bert, argue with Calvin, not me these are his words not mine, "Therefore, since God’s mercy is offered to both sorts of men through the gospel, it is faith—the illumination of God—that distinguishes between pious and impious, so that the former feel the working of the gospel, while the latter derive no profit from it. 3:24:17"

    Further, Calvin on the same passage,

    "For however universal the promises of salvation may be, they are still in no respect inconsistent with the predestination of the reprobate, provided we pay attention to their effect. When we receive the promises in faith, we know that then and only then do they become effective in us. On the contrary, when faith is snuffed out, the promise is abolished at the same time. If this is their nature, let us see whether they disagree with one another. God is said to have ordained from eternity those whom he wills to embrace in love, and those upon whom he wills to vent his wrath. Yet he announces salvation to all men indiscriminately. I maintain that these statements agree perfectly with each other."

    You say there is no universal offer in Calvin? I say you read Calvin through 1924 and H. Hoeksema.

    I have not seen one argument yet brother.

    I'd very much like your thoughts on Calvin here.

    " The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. " 2 Peter 3:9

    But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shews a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent.

    This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time a right, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness. "Not willing that any should perish". So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

    But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. But as the verb chōreō is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance.
     
  26. BertMulder

    BertMulder Puritan Board Junior

    Very easy to do, is it not? Insisting Calvin taught a general well meant offer? I maintain that Calvin did nothing of the sort. Glasses of Rev. Hoeksema and 1924? Not at all. Namely, I grew up, not in the PRC, but in the Reformed Congregations. As a child was introduced there to the same dogmatic gymnastics. The split between the Reformed Congregations and the Netherlands Reformed in 1953.

    And the preaching of grace, not some inpotent offer, is the line of the churchfathers. Of Augustine, of Luther and Calvin, although they did not specifically address the issue. Of the fathers of Dordt.

    You would have a sovereign Lord offer salvation to dead sinners? Can we resist God's will?

    But God does not offer. He proclaims, through the means of the preaching, his free and complete Gospel of salvation to His people. Nothing of us, all of Christ. Because if we had to depend on an offer, we would still be in our sins.
     
  27. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior

    :amen: brother :amen:
     
  28. JOwen

    JOwen Puritan Board Junior

    It is easy brother, because he did teach it as 2 Peter 3:9 indicates (among many others). Agree or disagree with Calvin on this fact is not my point (I happen to think Calvin missed the point of context myself on 2 Peter 3:9). My point IS that the PRC in no place deals with the plain facts of Calvin. This is all I'm saying. The sieve of their brand of Supralapsarianism has left a biblical-theological chasm for many texts that are filled with word-play and inherent propensity to rationalism. Let the text speak! I say wherever we find these texts they need to be understood in their anthropromorphic sense in relation to the whole counsel of Scripture, not simply to Romans 9. We do not believe that there is some great contradiction in God's will. God does not desire the salvation of those that are forever lost. However, to leave men without excuse the LORD comes to all hearers with the universal call. Don't confuse me with the Murray/Stonehouse group that say that God desires the salvation of those he has left in their sins. This is the general broad brush that all opponents of the well meant offer are painted with. What I am saying is the language of the Word, and subsequently of Calvin, is that God has a general love for the human race that will terminate on the reprobate. It is a non-calvific love according to the decree that differs from the salvific love for the elect.

    This is where I believe you are missing the point. I see here in Calvin a nondiscriminating love that is not salvific for the reprobate. It is a lesser love than the love for the elect, and would seem to terminate upon the temporal object of wrath. Calvin indicates that this is not an ardent and eternal love for those who are not elect, but a temporal condescending love found in His own (albeit marred) image in them. It is a love nonetheless.

    Says you and the PRC. The Word and history say different. This is why the PRC is deemed hyper in so many eyes; a denial of the well meant offer, EVEN, though God has not decreed the salvation to all, desperately afraid of some eternal contradiction in God. The PRC needs to stop looking at everything through the disaffected glasses of the CRC tumult.
    Calvin taught the free offer, he taught a general non saving love, so did the Puritans, and the Westminster Divines, and all sound and orthodox Christians.

    You err on Turretin like you err on Calvin brother. How much have you read on either I would ask? Here is Turretin on the Offer as well as the will of God, election and reprobation.

    "He, who by calling men shows that he wills their salvation and yet does not will it, acts deceitfully, if it is understood of the same will (i.e., if he shows that he wills that by the will of decree and yet does not will it; or by the will of precept and yet does not will it). But if it refers to diverse wills, the reasoning does not equally hold good. For example, if he shows that he wills a thing by the will of precept and yet does not will it by the will of decree, there is no simulation or hypocrisy here (as in prescribing the law to men, he shows that he wills they should fulfill it as to approbation and command, but not immediately as to decree). Now in calling God indeed shows that he wills the salvation of the called by the will of precept and good pleasure (euarestias), but not by the will of decree. For calling shows what God wills man should do, but not what he himself had decreed to do. It teaches what is pleasing and acceptable to God and in accordance with his own nature (namely, that the called should come to him); but not what he himself has determined to do concerning man. It signifies what God is prepared to give believers and penitents, but not what he has actually decreed to give to this or that person.

    XVI. It is one thing to will reprobates to come (i.e., to command them to come and to desire it); another to will they should not come (i.e., to nill the giving them the power to come). God can in calling them will the former and yet not the latter without any contrariety because the former respects only the will of precept, while the latter respects the will of decree. Although these are diverse (because they propose diverse objects to themselves, the former the commanding of duty, but the latter the execution of the thing itself), still they are not opposite and contrary, but are in the highest degree consistent with each other in various respects. He does not seriously call who does not will the called to come (i.e., who does not command nor is pleased with his coming). But not he who does not will him to come whither he calls (i.e., did not intend and decree to come). For a serious call does not require that there should be an intention and purpose of drawing him, but only that there should be a constant will of commanding duty and bestowing the blessing upon him who performs it (which God most seriously wills). But if he seriously makes known what he enjoins upon the man and what is the way of salvation and what is agreeable to himself, God does not forthwith make known what he himself intended and decreed to do. Nor, if among men, a prince or a legislator commands nothing which he does not will (i.e., does not intend should also be done by his subjects because he has not the power of effecting this in them), does it follow that such is the case with God, upon whom alone it depends not only to command but also to effect this in man. But if such a legislator could be granted among men, he would rightly be said to will that which he approves and commands, although he does not intend to effect it.

    XXI. The invitation to the wedding proposed in the parable (Mt. 22:1-14) teaches that the king wills (i.e., commands and desires) the invited to come and that this is their duty; but not that the king intends or has decreed that they should really come. Otherwise he would have given them the ability to come and would have turned their hearts. Since he did not do this, it is the surest sign that he did not will they should come in this way. When it is said “all things are ready” (Luke 14:17), it is not straightway intimated an intention of God to give salvation to them, but only the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. For he was prepared by God and offered on the cross as a victim of infinite merit to expiate the sins of men and to acquire salvation for all clothed in the wedding garment and flying to him (i.e., to the truly believing and repenting) that no place for doubting about the truth and perfection of his satisfaction might remain.”

    Turretin is smack on!
     
  29. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Puritan Board Doctor

    Jerrold, your comments are extremely helpful to me. Have you written any more on this?

    And I think the Marrow Men are also wrongly misread and falsely accused in the above article by Hanko. First of all, one has only to read the book to understand that the accusations of the GA in that time were in the very least misinformed. It's impossible to call that book antinomian when over half the book was an exposition of the 10 commandments. Also, there teaching of the free offer was the same as quoted in Calvin and Turretin above. Even that phrase "Christ is dead for you" is careful explained by Boston in the notes to show that no Amyraldian meaning was intended.
     
  30. JOwen

    JOwen Puritan Board Junior

    Hello Patrick,

    I am planning on critiquing Hoeksema on the Covenant (I'm reading through his Reformed Dogmatics right now), as well as Hanko's treatment of the Marrow Controversy. I would imagine some of this will be ready in the next few months on my blog.
    You are bang on when you say that the MM used the language of Calvin. The book(which is heavily criticized by the PRC) is a monument to Biblical Calvinism.

    Blessings!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page