Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I am a Calvinist
http://www.apuritansmind.com/TULIP/WhyIAmACalvinist.htm ^ | 7/27/02 | C. Matthew McMahon

Posted on 07/27/2002 8:46:57 PM PDT by RnMomof7

Why I am a Calvinist

by C. Matthew McMahon

    There are a variety of theological persuasions in the world. One might say there are too many of them. We may go through denomination after denomination and find a great variety of beliefs and doctrines concerning things about God, things about Christ, things about man and so on. Yet these ideologies are but ripples from the great stone of the Gospel which was plunged into the lake of humanity.

    All theological persuasions are not perfect. It is impossible that any theological system of doctrine be perfect for if it was perfect it would be the Scriptures themselves; for only the Word of God is inerrant, or without error. Man has undertaken the task, as commanded by God (2 Tim. 2:15), to understand God’s Word in spite of his lack of ability to understand it perfectly. He strives to apprehend what he can because a good theologian knows he cannot comprehend (or understand totally) everything about the Scriptures. But that gives us no excuse not to try.

    In the endeavor to ascertain right doctrine, various systems have come up throughout church history. There have been the Arians, the Socinians, the Gnostics, the Roman Catholics, the Epicureans, the Docetics, the Pelagians, the Mormons, the Arminians, the Manicheans and so on. These though, should not be considered to be a true systems of right doctrine since each of them denies a major tenant of the Christian religion. One denies the deity of Christ, where another denies the humanity. One says heaven is attained by knowledge alone, another denies that people are sinners. One says God is not sovereign, and another says man is the measure of all things. One says man is God, and another says God is not all powerful. These systems of doctrines are clearly false. They remove or exalt a particular essential attribute, or many essential attributes of Christianity, not to mention adding many things which the Scriptures never teach. So it would rightly be said that they are systems, but it would also be equally fair to say that they are wrong systems.   

  So what is the right system of doctrine? From study, contemplation, and meditation and upon the Word of God, from assessing church history and the movements contained therein, from hearing hundred of speakers on varying subjects, and listening to a plethora of viewpoints on every aspect of the Bible, I rest upon the system of doctrine called "Calvinism."     It is unfortunate for Calvinism that it is called Calvinism. Charles Spurgeon rightly stated that "Calvinism is nothing more than a nickname for Biblical Christianity." He was right. The name is often a warrant for despisement though. People say because we follow a man named Calvin, we are not following God. Does not Paul say in 1 Cor. 1:12, "Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or I am of Christ." is Christ divided?" Paul is right. We are not to follow after men. We are to follow after God for sectarianism is a sin rebuked by the 1st chapter of 1 Corinthians. But do Calvinists really follow Calvin? No. It is actually wrong to call Calvinists "Calvinist" because they are doing nothing other than using the same body of doctrine that Calvin used, who in turn copied Augustine, who in turn copied the church fathers and they, who in turn, followed Christ and the Apostles. The early church fathers, who lived between 95 AD and 200 AD are just as much Calvinists, for understanding grace, as Augustine was a Calvinist, and as John Calvin was a Calvinist. Calvinism is nothing more than a label to show what view one holds upon the Scriptures, not upon a certain man. Someone may say, "That is not true. If you are a Calvinist, then you follow the teachings of Calvin and his interpretation of the Bible." Let us see if this is a worthy set of propositions. Because at the outset, they prove of necessity, nothing of the kind.

    When I was 21, I had finished 2 years of Bible college. I went to an Arminian School, learned Arminian doctrine, and read Arminian books. I had no previous learning in religion until I attended that school, so I was indoctrinated in that theology without ever knowing whether it was true or false. In my naïveté I believed what I was taught (Surely not to question doctrine was my own mistake, but being indoctrinated in that way helped me to understand more about what I believe now. So it was the providence of God which kept me in my sin of false doctrine for a time.) Not too long after my second year, a friend of mine, who believed the doctrines of grace Calvinist began to challenge me on many of my "biblical" doctrines. I had a well rounded handle on the doctrine I possessed and propagated it thoroughly among my friends at school. But when this young man challenged me as he did, I was not able to refute him. The reason I was not able to refute his arguments had nothing to do with not understanding my own doctrine, for I did. But he came at me with something I did not expect; the Bible. He proposed a whole new system of doctrine which ran completely contrary to my own beliefs. My understanding of sin was so unbiblical that when he told me to read Romans 3:10-18, I was taken back by Paul’s poignant words. I was challenged by the very book I thought I understood. My views of man, Christ, God, salvation, sin, sovereignty, the will, and others were so warped and twisted that my young friend didn’t even need to rebuke me, for the Scriptures were doing it quite well. I had understood doctrine, it was just not the doctrine of the Bible.

    So over the next summer, because of that day and that particular challenge of my friend, I devoted my time to reading through the entire Bible and endeavor to take it as it stood rather than what I wanted to read into it. My prayer was that the Lord would teach me His word by the power of the Holy Spirit so that I would know what it said rather than what I wanted it to say. After three months my views on man, Christ, God, sin, salvation and the like were radically transformed. (you would be amazed at what the Spirit of God will do with such a prayer and a simple reading of the Bible.) The point is this, my theology came out Calvinist without ever knowing what Calvinism was. I had not known what Calvin taught or that he was even a person. But my theology reflected nonetheless. The study of the Word of God transformed me. The Scriptures taught me, instead of me trying to teach it. So we see that being a Calvinist is not following after one man, but submitting under the authority of the Bible.

    Why would someone want to be a Calvinist? Calvinism is not adherence to a person, but to a set of beliefs which are rightly in accord with the Bible. People who want to be right in their understanding of the doctrines of the Bible, adhere to Calvinism. Calvinism is not perfect. It is a system of doctrine worked over and over by countless men since the time of Christ. It will never be perfect because it is not inspired by God. So why should we believe Calvinism over and above other systems of doctrines? Because if we were to determine what system of doctrine hits closest to the bulls-eye of the Scriptures, Calvinism would be the first outer ring. Any system of doctrine which does serious damage to the doctrines of man, Christ, God, sin and salvation, cannot be considered worthy of our attention as Christians. And there is no system of doctrine which covers all these so Biblically as Calvinism.

    What does Calvinism teach? Calvinism can be divided up into hundreds of points. There are a variety of propositions and ideas which are woven into the fabric of Calvinism. But if we were to concisely describe the simplistic form of Calvinism, we would look at the acronym T.U.L.I.P.: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

    The first doctrine of grace is Total Depravity.  Total depravity keeps us humble. It states that man is totally and completely a sinner; heart, soul, mind and body, who can do no righteous deed. The image of God is so marred and twisted by the fall of Adam that every person who is conceived is at that point at enmity with God. They are enemies of God, they hate God, and they would even kill God if he showed up in their living room. As a matter of fact, when the Lord Jesus Christ came down to earth, they killed him.

Total Depravity is proven by both the Old and New Testaments: Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-18. After one understands that he is a sinner who cannot by his own power come to faith, and that he has lost everything which would enable him to come to Christ because of the Fall and of his sin, then he comes to see Unconditional Election (Second doctrine). Man, being sinful cannot choose to follow God because he hates God. So God must remove the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh. God chooses man. He unconditionally, not based upon anything a man can do which is good or evil, elects people to everlasting life. Its God’s job to save, and our job to praise Him for saving us. The Scriptures shows this doctrine emphatically: Malachi 1:2; Romans 8:29; Romans 9:1ff; Ephesians 1:3ff.

    How does God save us? Yes, He elects us, but what is the basis for our election? It is not our work, but Christ’s work. God sends His Son to die for everyone whom He elects. The Son pays the price, and the debt is removed. When Jesus dies on the cross He secures salvation for everyone He dies for. And the work of Christ’s death and resurrection is transferred at that time to the account of all those who will be saved through Him. Jesus comes to die for God’s chosen people, His treasured possession. In this way the atonement is limited in scope but not in power (Third Doctrine).   The Scriptures teach us this doctrine as well; Isaiah 53:1ff; Matthew 1:21; John 10:1ff; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25.

    The fourth doctrine of grace, or Calvinistic doctrine, is Irresistible Grace. If Jesus dies for the elect, and God unconditionally elects all those depraved people whom He calls His own, the regenerating power of the Spirit of God will not fail. Regeneration is where the Spirit changes the old heart of stone to a beating heart of flesh. And He does this prior to our faith. We believe on Christ after our sinful depraved souls are given the new capability to believe through the renewing power of God’s Spirit. His grace is then called irresistible, not because we believe against our will kicking and screaming, but our hearts are inclined to believe, so we love to believe and we go to Christ willingly. The Scriptures show us this in Psalms 51:10; 110:3; Jer. 31:33ff; John 3:2ff; Romans 2:29; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 1:29; and 2:13.

    The last main point of God’s grace seen so vividly in the doctrines of Calvinism is Perseverance of the Saints. All who are redeemed from their depraved states, all whom Christ came to ransom from death and pay the price to redeem from God’s wrath, all whom the Spirit irresistible touches with His grace, and all those who are unconditionally elected to eternal life will persevere to the end. They will sin, yes. But they will never fall away from grace. This does not give us a license to sin, for those who are truly changed are changed and have a new desire and new nature which releases them from the that the old depraved nature had on them. These saints persevere because God continually upholds them through the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. They are God’s temples, His residing place. God dwells in the spirit of a man’s renewed heart. This, in and of itself, is an amazing thing!! And does the Scripture show us this doctrine? More than we could imagine: Phil. 1:6; Romans 8:30; John 10:28-29; John 17:2, 6, 9, 24; 1 Thess. 5:23.

    What doctrines am I rejecting as a Calvinist? I am rejecting everything that "changes the truth of God for a lie, and denies Jesus Christ as our only Sovereign and Lord (Jude 4)." I am rejecting anything which would rise up and call itself a Gospel which is no gospel at all. I reject anything which exalts man to a place and position where he ought not to be, and decreases the grace of Christ. I reject anything which makes God a cosmic bell-hop tending to the commands and demands of sinful men as another gospel.

I reject anything which removes God’s sovereignty to place man as the Sovereign as another gospel. I reject anything which denies the sovereign decrees of God and His electing grace to put salvation into the hands of sinful men as another gospel. I reject anything which denies man’s total depravity and exalts his fictitious free will as another gospel. I reject anything which places the perseverance of man to glory in the incapable hands of a sinful man as another gospel.

I reject anything which endeavors to treat God as the great Grandfather in the sky beckoning and pleading with man to be saved as changing the true God into a pitiable wimp. This is another Gospel. I reject anything which denies the atonement of Christ for what it is; a substitutionary atonement on behalf of the elect. If we deny this, we deny the Gospel. I reject anything which makes the cross less than definite salvation for the elect, as another Gospel. I reject anything which is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is preached by Christ in His Word. It is to these Calvinistic doctrines and teachings which all Biblical Christians hold. It is these Calvinistic doctrines of grace which wild horses could in no way drag from me. Especially the wonderful doctrine of Christ’s atonement for His people. And what does Paul say about those who preach, teach, and believe another Gospel? Galatians 1:8 is emphatic, "If we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you any other Gospel than what we have preached, let him be anathema, (or accursed.)" They are not slapped on the wrist and sent to their heavenly rooms. They are cast into the deepest, darkest, hottest section of hell for perverting the truth of God’s Word. We see that the Gospel is something to contend about, and is something we need to be right about.

    When I was 21, I had a form of godliness but I denied its power. I had a system of doctrine which denied Jesus as the only Sovereign and Lord. Yet, God in His mercy forgave that heinous sin of wrong belief. He allowed the scales to fall from my eyes. He allowed me, if you will, to be "born again, again." My mind has been renewed and my life transformed by these doctrines of grace. It is absolutely true what Spurgeon said, that Calvinism is nothing other than a nickname for Biblical Christianity. And until a person understands these doctrines, his walk with God will be a superficial walk. The doctrines of God’s grace, which are the doctrines of Calvinism, plunge us deep within the fountain of God’s mercy and power. Without understanding God’s election of depraved people, how can anyone understand what grace is really about?—they can’t.

Why am I a Calvinist? Because God will not allow me to be anything else. He has opened my eyes to depth beyond my wildest aspirations. He continues to humble me, the rebellious sinner, before His awesome majesty and power. May it be that all of God’s people would be humbled by His grace.

 


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: calvin; godsglory; grace; sounddoctrine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-244 next last
To: Polycarp; RnMomof7; Wrigley; Jean Chauvin; drstevej; George W. Bush; Don'tMessWithTexas
The Calvinists on this forum view RnMom's spiritual growth as proof that God's plan cannot be thwarted by man's fumbling through incorrect doctrine.

Those whom He wills to open their eyes will do so, saying "Thank you, Jesus. Thy will be done."

I think you just miss her.

141 posted on 07/28/2002 11:49:51 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Well I read the article but don't really have much to say. He was a Protestant. Maybe a little milder and saner than Luther and Calvin. I think both of them were sort of insane. Well not insane but screwed up.
142 posted on 07/29/2002 12:01:50 AM PDT by Theresa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; RnMomof7; Wrigley; drstevej; George W. Bush; Don'tMessWithTexas
All man-centered religions are feminized religions and as such, fall into the Arminian catagory.

So true.

I attended a memorial service for an acquaintance today in a local Methodist church.

When the Lord's Prayer was being recited, the woman sitting behind me intoned the last phrase..."For Thine is the household, the power and the glory forever, blessed be."

Apparently "kingdom" was too male-oriented, and "household" seemed a cozier word choice.

I have no explanation for "blessed be" other than the entire congregation probably loved Harry Potter.

It was very disheartening.

143 posted on 07/29/2002 12:13:12 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"Your slander is incorrect. Luther approved of and admired Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion," and believed the reforms which he set into motion were in good hands with John Calvin in Geneva."

Oh really? They were chums? Are you a Lutheran then? You agree with Luther on everything?

"Calvin called Luther "my much respected father who has denounced the darkness of the papacy" and a "great miracle of God."

Lutherans and Calvinists came to oppose and even hate each other. "Calvin couldn't comprehend why he, of all people, was assaulted by Lutherans, unless it be that "Satan, whose vile slaves they are, so much the more urges them on against me as he sees my labors more useful to the Church than theirs." (112;v.1:335) Whoever blushed at those expressions which Luther's arrogance drew from his pen, will not be less confounded at the excesses of Calvin: his adversaries are always knaves, fools, rogues, drunkards, furies, madmen, beasts, bulls, asses, dogs, swine; and Calvin's fine style is polluted with this filth through every page. Be they Catholics or Lutherans, it is all one to him, he spares none. (112;v.1:335)

144 posted on 07/29/2002 12:17:49 AM PDT by Theresa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Heinrich Bullinger on Luther's Filthy Language>

Fellow Protestant revolutionary Bullinger gives telling testimony:

He sends to the Devil all who do not entirely agree with him. In all his fault-finding there is an immense amount of personal animosity, and very little that is friendly and paternal . . . Too many - are the preachers who have gathered out of Luther's books quite a vocabulary of abuse, which they fire off from their pulpits . . . Through the evil example of such preachers the habit of reviling and slandering is spreading . . . and most clergymen nowadays who wish to appear good 'evangelicals' season their preaching with abuse and calumny. (111;v.3:211)

145 posted on 07/29/2002 12:18:59 AM PDT by Theresa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: polemikos; Jean Chauvin
My dear...?

LOL. Check out "Jean's" home page.

Hint: he's the one with the moustache.

146 posted on 07/29/2002 12:19:03 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Don'tMessWithTexas; RnMomof7
You answer, Because of unbelief. I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be a sin, the Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If he did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!

Could it be that Christ died for 1) all sins of all men (consistent with God's desire for all to be saved, that none should perish), and that those men who are not free (the unelect), are not free due to their final sin of unbelief unto death - an unforgiveable sin?

If they had sincerely believed (because God in his sovereignty would have drew them, given them faith, etc. - but He didn't) then Christ's atonement would cover their sins. But if they don't believe, and die in unbelief, then the sin of unbelief is the sin for which they were not forgiven and for which Christ did not atone.

I.e. 1) All sins of all men, except unbelief unto death?

Pondering here, not arguing...

147 posted on 07/29/2002 12:21:49 AM PDT by Starwind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"When Catholics fail at debating doctrine, they fall back on the inconsequential fact that there's more than one Protestant church. Sola Fide; Sola Gracia; Sola Scriptura."

Inconsequential? Read a history book!! The Reformers NEVER thought their differences were inconsequential!!!

Donald Bloesch

Well-known and respected evangelical theologian Bloesch excoriates the divisions of Protestantism (which are characteristic of its whole history), in a section entitled The Scandal of Disunity:

The disunity of the Christian church today . . . is indeed deplorable. But even more scandalous is the disunity that plagues the evangelical family . . . Christian disunity is a contradiction of Christ's prayer that his people be one (John 17:20-23). It also conflicts with Paul's declaration that there is only one body and one Spirit . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:4-5). Disunity on theological and even sociological grounds betrays an appalling ignorance of the nature of the church. Indeed the classical marks of the church of Jesus Christ are oneness, holiness, apostolicity and catholicity. The last term denotes universal outreach and continuity with the tradition of the whole church. It is incontestable that the church, and especially the evangelical church, has lost much of its credibility on the mission field because of the bitter infighting between missionary boards and churches. (31)

148 posted on 07/29/2002 12:26:01 AM PDT by Theresa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
As I said the Reformation was a DEFORMATION.

Johannes Janssen, thoroughly familiar with this time period, testifies:

The . . . 'modus operandi' of the founders of the new religious system, with their utter absence of respect for all ecclesiastical rights, all church possessions, all freedom of conscience, caused general anarchy and demoralisation among the people . . .

All contemporaries unanimously make the same statements. The writings and letters of the founders of the new Church system overflow with complaints . . . Quite openly they all acknowledge that it was only after the introduction of the new doctrine that this unhallowed change took place, and that the condition of things was nowhere so bad as among those who called themselves evangelical. (111;v.16:1-3)

The German liberal Protestant historian Adolf von Harnack conceded that:

The man in the street is NOT sorry to hear that 'good works' . . . constitute a danger to the soul . . . The inevitable result was that in the reformed Churches in Germany from the very start there were accusations of moral laxity and a want of serious purpose in the sanctification of life . . . But religion is not only a state of the heart; it is a deed as well . . . The Reformation . . . was also incapable of perceiving all the conclusions to which its new ideas led, and of giving them pure effect. (46)

It is useful to ask what the actual conditions in Germany were before the advent of Luther's Revolution. Will Durant informs us:

By and large, religion was flourishing in Germany, and the overwhelming majority of the people were orthodox and . . . pious. The German family was almost a church in itself, where the mother served as a catechist and the father as priest; prayer was frequent, and books of family devotions were in every home. (122:328)

THE PROTESTANT REVOLT: Its Pernicious and Tragic Initial Impact http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ407.HTM

149 posted on 07/29/2002 12:31:15 AM PDT by Theresa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Its a two way street...
150 posted on 07/29/2002 12:45:01 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Theresa; RnMomof7; drstevej; Wrigley; George W. Bush; Don'tMessWithTexas; Matchett-PI
The catholic church spends most of its time rationalizing the irrational.

When confronted with contradiction, you just make things up.

I checked for the references you keep citing and the only thing that comes up on google is some atrocious site by Dave Armstrong, a "catholic who prefers to call the Reformation a revolt."

He then proceeds to slander the next five centuries of Christian thought. And this is your authority?

As Elaine said to the guy who critcized her large head, "That's the best you got?"

151 posted on 07/29/2002 12:47:33 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
The Calvinists on this forum view RnMom's spiritual growth as proof that God's plan cannot be thwarted by man's fumbling through incorrect doctrine.

Call it what you like. Calvinists have been deceived by a new false gospel. See Theresa's posts.

John 6 called it what it is: "This saying is hard. Who can bear it? . . . And they walked with Him no more."

I.e., a small part of the great falling away.

152 posted on 07/29/2002 12:49:52 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
some atrocious site by Dave Armstrong,

LOL!

Dave has one of my articles posted on his site. Thanks for the complement.

153 posted on 07/29/2002 12:51:22 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: xzins; JesseShurun
I hope they appreciate your wordplay and humor. chuckle...

I enjoyed that immensely. I've had carpal tunnel surgeries on both wrists and frequently treat tarsal tunnel syndrome in my practice. I love good alliteration and good puns.

154 posted on 07/29/2002 12:54:32 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Theresa
I've been told it's tedious to debate catholics because they simply cite other catholics as proof.

Discussion about doctrine turns into catechism chapters.

I've read enough "Dave Armstrong" for one night.

155 posted on 07/29/2002 12:54:53 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
I think you just miss her.

Not as much now as I fear I will later...

156 posted on 07/29/2002 12:55:52 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
it's tedious to debate catholics because they simply cite other catholics as proof

Its an authority/humility thing.

We believe Christ granted authority. We don't need to keep reinventing the wheel.

And we're not so prideful to think that every generations reinvented wheel is actually as round as that of the First Wheelmaker. He did it right and entrusted it to the care of the Church He built and to which He granted authority to teach in His name.

157 posted on 07/29/2002 12:59:19 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Thanks for the complement.

It may have been a "complement," but it was no "compliment."

158 posted on 07/29/2002 12:59:25 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Pope Leo X, Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II are all men, fallible and fallen."

Don't you see the problem here? When you read the bible, you are just as prone as anyone else to error. You a fallen, fallible man, read the bible and then you say "Aha! I have found the infallible truth!" How do you KNOW you have not made an error? How?? You are just a fallible man like the rest. So why should I pay a bit of attention to what you say the bible says?

The whole idea of private judgement is irrational. It does not work. It has not worked. It will never work. You say you trust only in Christ, but it is YOU who is doing the trusting, and you are fallible. So how can you know that you are really trusting Christ and not letting your own will interfere? You don't know. If a teaching is not infallible, then I say, the hell with it.

159 posted on 07/29/2002 12:59:32 AM PDT by Theresa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
I'm a doctor. We're known for lousy penmanship as well as spelling.
160 posted on 07/29/2002 1:02:27 AM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 241-244 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson