Reply from Allan Turner on August 2, 2006
You make the same old complaints, the same old arguments (which show your Calvinistic bent or allegiance), and the same old mistakes; that is, you fail to address many of my arguments, particularly the one I made based on Colossians 2:11-14. The following is a pertinent quote of my June 30 reply:
For example, in Colossians 2:11-14, Paul wrote: “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to His cross.” Notice how this passage flies in the face of Calvinistic doctrine. These individuals had heard the gospel and had obeyed it, thus they were raised up to walk in “newness of life,” as Romans 6:4b calls it, or “alive,” as it is referred to here. Before being “raised,” these had been “dead in [their] trespasses.” In other words, before being raised and made alive, they were exercising themselves positively to the gospel.
Your doctrine, of course, would have them already raised and made alive when the inspired apostle says they were still dead in their trespasses. In obeying the gospel, these sinners had been able to put off the “body of the sins of the flesh” by the circumcision of Christ which, in the immediate context, is described as being “buried with Him in baptism, in which [they] were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God.” So, if this was the only passage that refutes Calvinism, and I’ve already demonstrated it isn’t, then it would be sufficient to show that your interpretation is contrary with the truths taught in God’s word.
I quoted this once again for you in my July 22 reply, emphasizing that you had made no effort to answer it. So this is the third time now. Will you address it or not? I know why you haven’t, of course, but I just want to make sure the readers know why—you’re avoiding this Scripture and the argument I make on it because they appear to clearly refute your Calvinistic presuppositions. As I told you already, the ball is in your court. If you’re unable to return it, just say so!
Calvinistic Presuppositions And The Charge Of Being Unkind
Chris, you’re a Calvinist, I’m not. Therefore, by the very fact that you’re a Calvinist, you must have a Calvinistic allegiance. I am not trying to be unkind when I say this; I’m just trying to point out the reality of what kind of interpretation you’re putting on Scripture. As I told you from the beginning, I was impressed by your efforts to actually prove what you believe by citing Scripture, which is more than I can say for most Calvinists who take issue with me. Consequently, I am hopeful that you will see that the passages you use to bolster your doctrine, when unencumbered by Calvinistic presuppositions, do not teach what you think they teach and, yes, I do think you believe they teach Calvinism. So please don’t think I’m questioning your integrity, even in connection with Colossians 2:11-14. Sometimes an argument can be made that causes one to reflect on the truthfulness of his position, which needs, then, further study, without thinking it necessary to abandon the whole system. That is not being dishonest. However, if such is the case, then you ought to admit it. If not, answer my arguments. That’s what I have meant when I have pointed out that the ball is in your court, and it clearly is.
Calvinism, Orthodoxy, And The Charge Of Humanism Or “Western Logic”
You Calvinists believe Calvinism is orthodoxy. Therefore, non-Calvinists (who are frequently identified as Arminians in order to make it look like they, too, espouse a man-made doctrine) are heretics and are, according to Calvinists, deluded by “western logical categories,” to use the Schreiner quote you cited. Chris, I’m not so dumb that I can’t figure out when I’m being called a humanist, even when one does so in a quite sophisticated way. No doubt, humanism has affected me, as it has many living in western society, but so has Calvinism and a multitude of other “isms” which are reflected by western culture. But, my worldview is not western. Instead, it is Christian. Consequently, I am called upon to think things out and think things through, i.e., to “reason” (cf. Acts 17:2,17; 18:4,19; 19:8; 24:25; 26:24-25). But reason alone, like faith alone, is not taught in the Scriptures. Therefore, when I turn to the Scriptures, I am required to use my faculties of reasoning to ascertain what it is that the Holy Spirit is teaching, and although I know this is true, I find it rather strange that you, a dyed in the wool Calvinist, would purport to instruct me that we must be willing to let “our reason...be guided by divine revelation,” for if Calvinism is true, as you are arguing, then what choice do I or you have in the matter? If God has, as you Calvinists claim, foreordained and predestinated everything that comes to pass, and this independent of anything in the creature that would cause God to do so, then what in the world does reason have to do with it anyway? I’m not a Calvinist, neither am I a humanist; I’m simply a Christian. If I’m not what I say I am, you can demonstrate why you think I’m not; but for the life of me I can’t figure out why you Calvinists don’t like to be reminded of the consequences of your Calvinism, even on a subject like Bible interpretation.
Charges of Misrepresenting Your Views
Over and over again, you Calvinists accuse us non-Calvinists of misrepresenting what you teach. Yes, I am aware there are all different kind of Calvinists, some believing this and others believing that. Yes, I am aware that when Calvinists get caught in the dilemmas of their own doctrine, they frequently deny they believe such and such. But I know the basic tenets of Calvinism, and so do you, and these tenets have consequences, whether you Calvinists want to admit to them or not. When these impinge what you are claiming God’s word teaches, I have every right to point this out. If you can make a cogent argument that I am misrepresenting you, then do so, giving the proof. Instead, you just make the change that I am misrepresenting you. If I am, I assure you that I’m not trying to do so.
In fact, as much as has been written and said about Calvinism over the years, it always surprises me how you guys try to wiggle out of every tight spot you find yourselves in Scripturally by claiming you are being misrepresented. So, let’s look at what Calvinists teach. The Westminster Confession Of Faith (1646), Chapter III, Section V, says:Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid...hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory...without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.
Continuing on in Section VII, the following is said:The rest of mankind, God was pleased...to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
In Chapter IX, Section III, the Confession says:Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
Now, all the religious mumbo-jumbo before and after this section does not take away from the fact that man, in his present condition, according to you Calvinists, cannot render obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ unless God, through His eternal decree, has decided He will save him, and this totally unrelated to anything the creature has done or will do. In such a condition, and according to Calvinism, man’s will is not free at all, not one iota, and you know it. Therefore, I do not believe I misrepresented your position (“putting words” in your mouth, as you claim) when I wrote:You say that my interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:24-26 is wrong, in that the verses are not talking about “time and opportunity” at all, but God’s enabling ability—that is, you believe these folks couldn’t repent until God had directly acted upon them with “irresistible grace,” thereby making (forcing) them believe when they would have not been inclined or able to do so.
Chris, how, pray tell, is my characterization a misrepresentation of your views? Yes, you may want to argue that when God operates upon certain sinners in some better felt than told experience, he frees their wills to do His will of their own free wills, but this is, as I’ve said, just a bunch of religious hocus-pocus.
The Question Is Not “If,” But “How”
You counter with Ezekiel 36:26, which you claim is “a clear example that God can indeed cause someone to repent without forcing them to do so.” But let me remind you that I have no problem with God causing man to repent. I have affirmed all through this discussion that God can, indeed, does cause a person to repent without forcing him to do so. He does so, I believe, by presenting such a person with the demands of the gospel. Then, when the sinner, of his own free will, responds by faith, meeting the conditions of God’s grace, it can be said that God caused him to obey, whether the condition is repentance, confession, or baptism. However, you Calvinists argue that a man can’t even believe, much less repent, confess, and be baptized until and unless God operates upon his heart with some sort of irresistible grace, thereby changing his attitude toward obeying the Lord. Speaking of this “Effectual Calling,” as you Calvinists call it, Chapter X, Section II of the Confession says:This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
So don’t accuse me of misrepresenting what you people believe and teach. But if this isn’t what you believe and teach, then perhaps you’re not a Calvinist after all.
But let’s look at Ezekiel 36:26-27, which reads:I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep my judgments and do them.
If I were a Calvinist, I’d be citing this passage, too, as I can see how you think it says what you believe, but it doesn’t. The question is not if God does this; He does. Instead, the question is how He does it. And quite frankly, this passage doesn’t tell us how God does this; only that He does. You think that He does this through some irresistible grace bestowed upon the sinner that causes him to do what he otherwise would have not had the ability to do, namely, to respond positively to the gospel. But as I’ve shown, and you have ignored my argument, Colossians 2:11-14 is an example of a sinner doing exactly what you Calvinists claim a sinner can’t, of his own accord, do. So, let’s look at this one more time.
In Colossians 2:11-14, Paul wrote:In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to His cross.
Notice how this passage flies in the face of your claims. These individuals had heard the gospel and had obeyed it, thus they were raised up to walk in “newness of life,” as Romans 6:4b calls it, or “made alive,” as it is referred to in this passage. Before being “raised,” these had been “dead in [their] trespasses.” In other words, before being raised and made alive, they were exercising themselves positively to the gospel. Again, this is contrary to what you teach. You would have them already raised and made alive when the inspired apostle says they were still dead in their trespasses. In obeying the gospel, these sinners had been able to put off the “body of the sins of the flesh” by the circumcision of Christ which, in the immediate context, is described as being “buried with Him in baptism, in which [they] were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God.” So, if this was the only passage that refutes Calvinism, and I’ve demonstrated in this discussion that it isn’t, then it would be sufficient to show that your interpretation is contrary with the truths taught in God’s word.
Chris, if you’re going to continue this discussion, you must present your interpretation of Colossians 2:11-14. If you don’t, I will have no choice but to begin questioning your integrity.
Thus, Ezekiel 36:26-27 isn’t the proof-text you are claiming it to be. Yes, God causes those whom He calls to change their hearts, but He does so through the gospel (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:14), not some better felt than told experience.
2 Timothy 2:25 Once Again
2 Timothy 2:25 is your proof-text for believing that man can’t obey the gospel without irresistible grace. I argued that what was under discussion with the “if God perhaps will grant” (NKJV) or “peradventure” (KJV) phrase dealt with “time and opportunity.” This seems reasonable to me and consistent with the passage. Yes, I recognize that this is a non-Calvinist interpretation (after all, I’m not a Calvinist). If I were, I would probably interpret this verse to be saying what you think it is saying. But as I’ve tried to show, your interpretation of this passage is not the only one that can be made. To do this, I’ve had to demonstrate that you are reading into this passage something you already believe to be true, namely Calvinism. Again, this isn’t being purposely unkind but only emphasizes the differences we are debating. In other words, such is inherent in this sort of discussion.
However, if 2 Timothy 2:25 says what you Calvinists say it says (namely, that man is unable to repent and be saved unless God irresistibly causes him to), then there are some logical implications you must deal with: First, all Jews would be saved because God gave “repentance to Israel” (Acts 5:31). I know Pink and others—and based on your treatment of John 6:37, I think you will too—get around this by arguing that only spiritual Israel is under discussion here. But this won’t work based on this next point. Second, all Gentiles would have to be saved, as well, because “God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life” (Acts 11:18). Just as you said in your comments on John 6:44, I don’t believe the Bible teaches universal salvation, that is, that all Jews and Gentiles are going to be saved. But I’m not forced to limit these passages to only the “elect,” as you Calvinists do. In other words, I believe these passages teach that God has given repentance and the remission of sins to all Jews and Gentiles, that is, through the preaching of the gospel to every creature under heaven, not through some bestowing of God’s irresistible grace upon those who otherwise would be unable to positively respond to the gospel. But because of your Calvinistic allegiance, you must convert the “all” in two verses to only the elect. Now, you can continue to moan and groan about what you characterize as my unfair reference to your Calvinistic interpretation if you want to, but this is exactly what I’m talking about. The Scriptures here say all and you say only the elect.
Thus, your interpretation of John 6:44 as referring to only the elect, who God operates upon with His irresistible grace, is forced by your particular viewpoint. It is just another example of the way you Calvinists make a statement in support of some particular facet of Calvinism followed by a string of proof-texts that prove nothing related to the statement that was made. You cite John 6:37, saying it must be considered in making the right interpretation of John 6:44, which is fine, but then you proceed to make statements that are not derived from the text but are, instead, read into it—the first, as you well know, is exegesis, and is acceptable; the second is eisegesis, and is not. You say: “Those who are drawn to Christ are limited to those who are given to Jesus by the Father. Only those who are given to Jesus by the Father are drawn to Him” (italics are mine—AT). These passages say nothing about “limited” or “only.” These are simply words you have read into these passages. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that “no one” is drawn to Jesus except through the gospel. Those who come to Jesus in this fashion may certainly be seen as a gift from the Father to His Son. These passages, as they are written, do not demand a Calvinistic interpretation, and when I made that point, and I think I did, there is no need for me to do anything else. The idea that the gospel is not “sufficient” to save is your’s, not the Bible’s (cf. Romans 1:16-17).
In response to my remark that you Calvinists don’t believe in free will, you say: “Do Calvinists believe that a person is free to exercise his or her will? Most certainly. Where did you get the idea that we believe otherwise?” Well, in answer to your question, I’ll once again cite The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Chapter IX, Section III, which says:Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
Your arguments about free will are just religious mumbo-jumbo. You talk about being free to do this or that, like typing your reply to me, but are you claiming to be an unregenerated person? I don’t think so, so what’s this have to do with whether a man in his unregenerated condition actually has the ability to obey the gospel of his own free will? Absolutely nothing, so stick with the subject and quit trying to equivocate. Yes, I know you Calvinists teach that, once regenerated, your free will is restored, but the kind of will you are talking about isn’t really free, even though that’s what you call it. In other words, you can define it any way you want to, but what you’re defining isn’t free will at all.
Law, Grace, And Romans 8:7-8
First, you refer to my argument as “regarding the law and grace,” but I wasn’t making a distinction between “the law” and grace, as you say. The distinction I made was between law (and this includes any system of perfect law-keeping as a means of justification) and grace. When I said: “The fact that those who think carnally do not have the Spirit of God dwelling in them is not proof, as you suppose, that all such people had never initially been redeemed, only that they were no longer in such a condition, which is exactly what I believe, teach, and have written in this debate,” you replied:Allan, honestly, this is nothing more than conjecture. Nowhere in the text will you find evidence that these people once had the Spirit of God. This is simply a desperate argument. There is absolutely no reason to think that these carnally minded people were once regenerate.
For a Calvinist, no, there isn’t. But you see it is just here that the difference between your Calvinist beliefs and mine are clearly illustrated. You call my remarks “conjecture,” a “desperate argument.” “Nowhere in the text,” you said, would I find any “evidence that these people once had the Spirit of God.” No, not in that passage, but I am not limited to that passage. Because the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible, I have the opportunity to turn to other clear passages that teach that one who was once enlightened by the Holy Spirit can fall into sin and be eternally lost, which is contrary to what you Calvinists believe and teach and therefore you’d never think to factor it into your interpretation of Romans 8:7-8. For example, in Hebrews 6:4-6, the Bible says:For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
And if that’s not enough to cause you to reflect on the truthfulness of your doctrine, then consider what is said in Hebrews 10:29:Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
Observe, if you will, that this pathetically lost individual had at one time been sanctified by the blood of the covenant. Consequently, and in light of these verses, when I argue concerning Romans 8:7-8 what you Calvinists think couldn’t happen, I am standing on the firm foundation of God’s word, not human speculation and conjecture.
Finally, Chris, you can quote all the Calvinist scholars you want to and it doesn’t change anything. Calvinism isn’t orthodoxy, as you and others suppose; it never has been, and it never will be.
I remain yours in service to Him,
From Christiaan De Villiers, Johannesburg, South Africa on August 7, 2006
I need some time to reflect on Colossians 2: 11 - 14. The reason that I did not respond your argument based on this Scripture is because I honestly did not see it posing any threat to my belief system. So please let your readers know that. I am going to take some time to go to my college library this week so that I could do some research. I do not have many resources in my possession. Expect a response by the weekend.
Chris De Villiers
Reply from Allan Turner on August 7, 2006
I’m more than happy for you to do so. I look forward to your response.
From Christiaan De Villiers, Johannesburg, South Africa on August 12, 2006
Allan my dear friend
I know i said I would give you a response by this weekend but I just did not have the time to make it to the library. Please be patient. I won't let you down
Reply from Allan Turner on August 12, 2006
Take your time, I know how other things (like life) can so easily interfere.
From Christiaan De Villiers, Johannesburg, South Africa on August 27, 2006
"Your doctrine , of course, would have them already raised and made alive when the inspired apostle says they were still dead in their trespasses."
The New Living Translation states: "You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins" (Colossians 2: 13). They were dead, then made alive. This seems to be the order according my reading of the text. But the text overall does not seem to be emphasizing the order of salvation as Calvinists know it. It simply does not seems to pose any threat to my beliefs. Perhaps I have misread your argument. If I have, please help me out.
Reply from Allan Turner on August 28, 2006
Well has it been said that there are none so blind as those who will not see (cf. Matthew 13:14; Acts 28:26). First of all, The New Living Translation isn't a translation at all, it is an extensive revision of Kenneth Taylor’s Living Bible (published by Tyndale House in 1971), which was a one-man paraphrase. The NLT was designed, we are told, to improve the accuracy of Taylor's paraphrase. It is not a translation at all, although it claims to be a “dynamic equivalency” translation. While it claims to be faithful to the text upon which it is founded, it is not faithful because it does not simply translate what God’s Word says in the original languages. It renders, rather, what the translator thinks God intended to say. That is the chief reason why a dynamic equivalency or thought for thought translation is so far removed from the KJV, ASV, NKJV. Therefore, its problem is not that it merely uses modern English terminology, but that it employs an entirely different METHODOLOGY of translation, and this new methodology does not (i.e., it cannot) produce an accurate translation of the Bible, as it is far too subjective for this. So, why in the world would you want to refer to The New Living Translation as a source of authority? Second, you skipped Colossians 2:11 and 12 and concentrated on verse 13, which is basically a summary of what is described in verses 11 and 12, remarking that the text simply says they were dead and then made alive, which doesn't pose any threat to your Calvinist beliefs. And I'm sure that's right, but this is because you have failed to consider the plain teaching of God's word as taught in verses 11 and 12, which do describe the process, which is in direct contradiction of your Calvinistic presuppositions. So, I'll go over this one more time, but it appears to me that you are just bobbing and weaving here, which means that I'm beginning to question your integrity. Please, my internet friend, honestly deal with these passages and demonstrate your sincerity by making an attempt, at least, to exegete (i.e., interpret) them before you simply dismiss them out of hand. Otherwise, I (and those who read here) will know that you are not honest. At that point, our discussion will be over.
The Point Of Regeneration As Described in Romans 6:1-14 and Colossians 2:11-13
I think we both agree that regeneration is an instantaneous, onetime event that happens in the moment of conversion, which is the exact moment a sinner passes from one state (lost) to another (saved). When viewed as to its cause, regeneration is an act performed by God. Of this, there can be no doubt. However, when viewed as to its effect, regeneration is an inward change in the sinner’s very nature, and this is why this onetime event is referred to as a new birth or being born again. And of this, there should also be no doubt. Ezekiel 36:26-27 prophetically described this act of regeneration as a heart-transplant operation, with God, the Great Physician, if you will, implanting a new heart and a new spirit within us:I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.
Clearly, the "heart of stone" is one hardened by sin. It is transplanted with a "heart of flesh," which is one soft and yielding to the will of God. This event is described for us in the New Testament in several places. One of these is Romans 6:1-14 and another is Colossians 2:11-14. The fact that you don’t see this as a process has to do with your preconceived ideas, not these passages, for they clearly teach something entirely different than Calvinism.
The event of regeneration, which is part of a process, is described in Romans 6:1-14 as a death, burial, and ressurection. Here Paul says that in the moment of baptism the sinner's old self (i.e., the one with the heart of stone) was crucified or put to death with Jesus (v. 6); in this moment we “died to sin” (v. 2). This death-event is immediately followed by a resurrection and implantation of new life (vv. 4-5), meaning the sinner, who is now dead, is made to be “alive from the dead” (v. 13) and able to “walk in newness of life” (v. 4). As a result, one is “dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (v. 11).
In Colossians 2:11-13 (and because I’ve cited these verses several times already in our study together, I’ll not repeat them here), Paul describes the regeneration event and the process that accompanies it in almost the same way as he did in Romans 6:1-14, except the imagery of death is replaced with the imagery of circumcision: “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ” (v. 11). This is equivalent to the “old self” dying or being crucified with Christ in Romans 6:6. (Notice that in Colossians 2:13 spiritual death and spiritual circumcision are equivalent concepts.) This takes place as a result of “having been buried with Him in baptism,” and is followed by an act of resurrection: “In which [namely baptism] you were raised up with Him” and in which “He made you alive together with Him” (vv. 12-13). In case you are interested in pursuing this further, rather than just resorting to the NLT, you should note that “having been buried” is an aorist participle in the Greek, indicating action that precedes the action of the main verb, “you were also circumcised.” Understand that I am not purporting to be a Greek scholar, but that you can, like I have, observe what these scholars have said about this. In fact, because you took so lonf to get back to me, this is one of the things I was hoping you were doing as you tried to deal with this.
Are you not able to see that in verse 12 it is in baptism, the circumcision of Christ, that one is raised a new creature in Christ Jesus, and not before? Can you not see that the believer who has repented is not born again until he is baptized for the remission of sins? I think you could, and easily so, if you were not so blinded by your man-made doctrine. Chris, as I've tried to lovingly and patiently point out to you over and over again in our discussion, Calvinism is not taught in the Bible.
I’ll stop here and await your response. But please don’t moan and groan about me questioning your integrity, casting dispersions at my Christianity for doing so, for at this point in our discussion, I have every right to do so. As I told you before, the ball is in your court.
Yours in service to Him,
From Christiaan De Villiers, Johannesburg, South Africa on September 1, 2006
I have read your arguments and would like to give you a worthy response. In order for me to do this i would like some time to study the terms Paul uses in Colossians 2: 11-14 and other similar passages. You have taken the time to give me worthy and well thought out responses and I would like to do the same. At this point in time I have some agreements and some disagreements regarding your interpretation of the passage under question. It is the disagreements that I would like to spend more time with. I feel that if I were to respond at this point in time that my answer to you would be premature. My study and arguments of this passage are currently underdeveloped. Please allow me the time to exert a full effort in my understanding of the passage. I will keep my word and respond as soon as I'm ready. I would greatly appreciate an extended time of research.
Chris De Villiers
Reply from Allan Turner on September, 2006
Take the time to do your research and study and may God bless you as you do so, is my prayer.
Return To Part Two Of This Discussion Return To Part One Of This Discussion
Back To The Dialogues