Monday, February 06, 2006


I was once again disappointed with Hank Hanegraaff's otherwise good program today (The Bible Answer Man). A caller inquired about Calvinism and Arminianism, wondering which one was correct. Hank answered in a long-winded, roundabout way (as usual), and then said some rather disturbing things.

Hank Hanegraaff admitted that he was raised in a Calvinist home, so he said he "appreciated" that tradition. But then he said the following (not verbatim, but basically), which I respond to below:

Hank H.: "I think it's important that we not make God the Author of evil."

RESPONSE: Calvinists do not say that God is the Author of evil. Read the Westminster Confession of Faith, III:1, and the London Baptist Confession of Faith, 3:1. This is surface theology here. Hank H. should know better, having been raised in a Calvinist home. His parents have probably discussed this with him several times, and I bet that they are probably a little disturbed by his misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Reformed faith.

Hank H.: "I think it's also important that we don't say that God ordained the Fall of man into sin, or the sinful acts of men."

RESPONSE: Proverbs 16:4; Lamentations 3:37-38; Romans 9; compare 1 Chronicles 21 with 2 Samuel 24; Ezekiel 14:9; etc.

Hank H.: "God made us with free will. He didn't make us unable to respond to the gospel call."

RESPONSE: John 6:44ff; Ephesians 2:1-10; Romans 8:7-8; etc.

Hank H.: "God doesn't create men for destruction and guide them to that path."

RESPONSE: Romans 9:21-22; Proverbs 16:4; 1 Peter 2:8; etc.


You see brothers and sisters, I think I can finally say that it is not your average, layperson American evangelical that frustrates me anymore. Why should I be upset with them? They've never been taught Scripture; in fact, most of them have never even heard a sermon with Scripture expounded in it, sad to say.

No--what frustrates me are those in teaching positions who teach against the truths of sovereign grace and God's eternal decree, or who ignore these truths because they think they're "not necessary" or "might offend" or are "too mysterious" or are "concerned that it doesn't make God look very nice."

Today, Hank Hanegraaff told millions of listeners in the United States and Canada the following:

*God does not ordain all things (Really? See above.);

*unbelievers can choose Christ with just a little help from the Holy Spirit (Really? See above.);

*God does not guide all things (Really? See above.); and

*the only way man can be held responsible is if God has not decreed it. (Where does the Bible teach that?)

Hank H. is in a teaching position, but Scripture warns us that we should not presume to be teachers, because we will be judged more harshly.

The Scripture is clear on these things. So the next time you hear someone speak against the sovereignty of God in salvation and providence, be a good Berean and search the Scriptures.

May "To the Law and to the Testimony" always be our guiding thought.


Anonymous said...

I was curious what Hank's view on Calvinism was. I knew his father was a reformed pastor, but I do not think I have heard him say anything I disagree with. I do think his brilliance is a gift from God. I googled a few words and your blog came up and I thank you for your post. I'll take you at your word as to the quotes but will do more research into Hank's ideas. I am a southern Baptist and a 1.5 point Calvinist :) I respect everyone's opinions and am curious as to yur thought on the folowing question. I believe in the supreme sovereignty of God. And that God controls everything he controls but does not control that which he chooses not to control. If we do not have free will as I understand reformed/calvinistic theology to claim, AND, that God has no set of guidlines by which to elect, then does this process by which he elects equate to a mere lottery for sainthood? (Or did he look through time and "elect" those who would have chose him anyway if they had had free will?) I understand calvinism as the later and that being so, whether our free will is exercised now or in an alternate reality seen only by God, then free will is still the basis by which we choose God. Not his sovereignty.

Thank you for your time. Nothing above should be construed as disinginuous. I really want to know the answer to this to better understand the Calvinism. As you may know one of the SBC Seminary Presidents is Albert Molher, a strick 5 point Calvinist, so yes Baptist can be Calvinists :)

Josh Brisby said...


Welcome to The Reformed Oasis!

Thank you for your questions and your kind remarks. I will do my best, by God's grace, to answer them.

First, I would ask you where in Scripture we see the idea that God chooses not to control certain things. It seems to me that we have exactly the opposite. (Reference the Scriptures I listed in this post, but there are many more as well.) Even logically this doesn't seem to make sense. What would one mean if they believed that God didn't control certain things? God holds all things together, and by Him all things consist. Perhaps some further definition and Scripture references would be helpful here from your understanding of things.

Also, Reformed theology in one sense denies that man has free will, but in another sense affirms it. The sense in which man has free will is that he is free to act and make decisions within his character, personality, or nature. For example, a hungry, starving lion will always of its own free will reject the bowl of vegetables. But it is bound to its nature in that sense. Apart from God's saving grace, we will always of our own free will reject the gospel invitation, because we want nothing to do with God. It is our nature to despise Him. Even after we have been born again by God's grace, we still despise God many times. This is why Martin Luther was very up front when someone asked him if he loved God. Luther's telling response was, "Love God? Sometimes I hate him!"

So, the lion is free to choose the vegetables, but it is enslaved to its nature as a meateater. It has free will, but that free will is enslaved.

God's election is not arbitrary. It is based upon God's good pleasure. We do know, however, based upon Romans 9, Ephesians 2, et al, that God did not elect a sinner because He foresaw that the sinner would choose God. In fact, faith itself is a gift from God. This is what we mean when we say that election is unconditional--that the condition of election was nothing inside of the sinner. All are convicts on death row, and the Governor has decided to pardon some. The rest get justice, and those that are chosen receive mercy. But the mercy the elect receive also was because our justice was placed on Christ.

Again, free will cannot be the basis on which we choose God, because we are the hungry, starving lion--but although we are hungry and starving, we don't know that the vegetables are really better than the meat! :0) (This is only for analogy's sake--I am a major meat fan. Hehehe.)

The lion must be changed into a lamb before he will ever choose the vegetables. This is why regeneration, or being born again, must be a sovereign act of God alone. It is just not within our nature to find God and His ways beautiful. This is why Jesus can say that no one "can" come to Him unless the Father who sent Him draws him. And this same person will be raised up at the last day.

I hope this helps. Thank you for your questions. Feel free to ask more or whatever you wish. I like Al Mohler as well. I'm also a Baptist, by God's grace! BTW, have you heard of the Founder's Movement? You could check them out at .

Welcome again dear brother in our Lord and Savior to The Reformed Oasis!

In Christ,
Josh Brisby

Shawn said...

The dialogue is beneficial and encouraging. May I humbly submit that my careful study of scripture has revealed that both Calvinism and Arminianism cannot be fully supported beyond a shadow of doubt in scripture, and thus, we need to be very careful when presenting our views in light of scripture. These are two very good theories presented by two godly men, but these men are fallible and so are their theories.

For example, in Matthew 23:37, Jesus said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that art killing the prophets, and stoning those sent unto thee, how often did I will to gather thy children together, as a hen doth gather her own chickens under the wings, and ye did not will."

From this verse above, the 5-point Calvinist must logically conclude that there is a conflict within the trinity. It seems as though it's the will of Jesus against the will of the Holy Spirit. Let me explain. The Calvinist will state that the Holy Spirit's call is efficacious and irresistable. The human heart simply cannot resist it. If this is the case then how did the children of Israel resist Jesus' call? In the literal translation from the greek text of the verse above, Jesus "willed" that they be gathered to him, but they, being the children of Israel, "willed not". The Calvinist is left with two options. The first option is that even though Jesus wanted to gather the children of Israel to Himself, the Holy Spirit refused to call them because had He done so, they could not have resisted His will. Option 2 is that despite Jesus' call, Israel willingly resisted, which places a gaping hole in their theory.

There are many other scripture references throughout scripture that call to question both theories. This was just one. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts.

Shawn :-)

RobertMosley said...

Your point about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem is well taken. But, you didn't address the verses referenced by Josh. Finding a verse that appears to deny another verse doesn't help (unless you believe the Bible contradicts itself, then what is the point.) First explain how your understanding is compatible with the verses referenced. Then move on to the contrary verses. There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of verses that directly support the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty (try reading Isaiah chapters 40-66). The Arminian position is definitely supportable by scripture (as I would hope any Christian understanding), but at the expense of ignoring a majority of the Bible. In other words Arminianism is only supportable "out of context". That being said, no man-created theological system completely satisfies every single biblical verse, not even Calvinism. In the end we admit there are things we just don't know. When you take the Bible in its whole you come up with “God ordains that which men freely choose”. To deny God ordains all things is to deny hundreds of clear passages, “Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it?” (Lam 3:37) To deny that man freely chooses is also to deny hundreds more clear passages, “He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-- you and your household." (Acts 16:30-31) The natural reading would imply the ability to believe. So we are left with affirming both of these positions. To quote D.A. Carson in his “How Long O’ Lord”:
The Bible as a whole, and sometimes in specific texts, presupposes or teaches that both of the following propositions are true:
1. God is absolutely sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions in such a way that human responsibility is curtailed, minimized, or mitigated.
2. Human beings are morally responsible creatures – they significantly choose, rebel, obey, believe, defy, make decisions, and so forth, and they are rightly held accountable for such actions; but this characteristic never functions so as to make God absolutely contingent.
…The view that both of these propositions are true I shall call compatibilism.

Anonymous said...

Hey Robert,

Thanks for your response, but you've misunderstood my position and didn't really answer my question regarding the passage in Matthew. Don't be worried because it's not the first time.

For the record, I believe God is completely sovereign over the events of the universe. The difference here is that the Calvinist will misappropriate God's sovereignty to the extent that He actually overrides the human will (Irrestiable Grace). What I'm proposing is that in God's sovereignty, He accounts for human freedom and still accomplishes His purposes, which is different than the Calvinist.

How could someone belittle the work of Calvary's cross and state that Christ's atonement is limited to the "elect"? What about John 3:16-17? In 1 John 2:2, John tells us, "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world."

I could go on for hours, but I'll end by paraprhasing Augustine. In the essentials - unity, in the non-essentials - liberty, and in all things - charity. We're all brothers in Christ who have been saved by God's grace through Jesus Christ.

P.S. I couldn't find the scripture references that you were referring to about Josh. If you could help me find them, I'd be glad to address them.


Kelly said...

Point of order Anonymous,
the quote you attributed to Augustine actually originated with Peter Meiderlin (aka Rupertus Meldenius), a Lutheran pastor from the 17th Century.

Regarding effectual calling / irresistible grace, read John's account of the resurrection of Lazarus and Ezekiel's account of the valley of dry bones.

Richard said...

I think people are attracted to Calvinism because they want to believe they are better then everyone else. The Calvinist holes up in his little church and looks down his nose at everyone else just like the rich man in the country club.

Dan said...

Terrible entry, as you didn't even know what exactly he said. True, Hank is not a Calvinist, but calm down. You come off arrogant.

Anonymous said...

May I interject a thought.

Anonymous said...

All 5 points of Calvinism are completely wrong.

I believe in eternal security but where in the Bible does it say the saints will persevere? It never says that. It says God will preserve us. Lot certainly didnt live a very good life but he still went to heaven. We are promised everlasting life when we get saved so we can't lose our salvation but the Bible never says we will persevere.

You quoted John 6:44 but you didnt quote John 12:32.
John 6:44 " 44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 12:32 "32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

The Calvinist believes everybody who is drawn gets saved but if that were the case then everybody is saved because John 12:32 says he will draw all men. It says all men so it is ridiculous to say "Well that means all men that will get saved." John 6:44 says a person can come can come can come CAN COME...CAN COME. It doesnt say they have to come. We can come if God draws us & John 12:32 says God draws all men. So everybody is drawn and we can come. God doesn't force us to believe.

That is a real loving God that sends people to hell without giving them a chance.

Anonymous said...

John 6:44 doesn't say, "can come", it says, "NO ONE can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day."

This is not a statement of man's choice... its a statement of God's ability, and of man's natural inability.

ben said...

The author of the post two sections above appears to be assuming that folks by nature have the ability to ‘come’ to Christ [have faith].

The final statement in the post was sarcastic. I will therefore re-word it in order make it more approachable:

“A real loving God would not send people to hell without giving them a chance.”

I ask myself as Sproul does, “Self, why did you receive Christ and not your friend Sam?”

Answer: Ephesians 2:8,9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God…”

Therefore, I must have faith to be saved, but even my faith is given to me from God as a free gift, so the question should rather be:

“Self, why does God give you faith and not your friend Sam? Are you smarter, better-looking, nicer…more humble?”

If it is for any of these reasons, then I can boast. Thankfully, it is for no other reason than God loved me and hated Sam before we were yet born!

Romans 9:11-13 “…for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls, it was said to her [Rebecca], “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Romans 9:18-20 “He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’ But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?”

Verse 20 is written directly to the anonymous poster to whom this post referrs (and to myself since I often whine like a baby and call God unloving/unfair)

God’s own choosing is the only factor involved in determining who gets saving faith and who does not!
Those who dare to call the Biblical GOD of unconditional election 'unloving', are given a quick slap on the wrist by Romans 9:20.

PS: Neither these points, nor the words of the Bible, will change an opinion. Presuppositions are broken only by the Holy Spirit.

Nick said...

I have been studying this issue of predestination vs. free will for quite some time now. While I believe in the sovereignty of God, God allows things to happen that he doesn't approve of. God does not control all things, because Satan is given power to rule over this world for a time (Ephesians 6:12). God knew that Adam and Eve would sin, yet He did not approve of their actions, and He was grieved at the wickedness of man. If God wanted to control everything, he would, but, apparently that was not His plan. Also, in regards to election not being based on foreknowledge in Romans 9 and Ephesians 2, it is mentioned in Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2 that it was based on the foreknowledge of God. Saying that it was not based on foreknowledge is a contradiction to Scripture. Also, any time Jesus speaks of election, He does not mention that someone CANNOT accept Christ, but rather that they WILL NOT accept Christ. Man is unable to save himself, but I do believe that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, he is able to accept the calling from God, which is given to all men (John 12:32). Also, if election is based solely on a lottery, why would it be required that in order to be an elder, his children must be believers. If a man's child was not chosen, how can that be held against him? (Titus 1:6). I am not a five point Arminianist, but I don't believe that Christ died only to save certain individuals, but that He died to save everyone who would come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the excellent post! I'm a huge fan of Hank's, but would fault him on this. I'm a 5-pointer all the way and guard against those who would misquote scripture. I feel Hank might have been speaking of hyper-Calvinist thought, but here, three years later, I'll never know. If he indeed denies the reformed view of grace, I'm truly disappointed. Like you said, scripture is clear! Thanks again for the post. Very pithy and usable.

kurt said...

This has bothered me about Hank for years. He is critical of those who set up straw men arguments, then he sets up a straw man when he implies Canvinism is fatalistic. He is right when he says JW's should not deny the doctrine of the trinity because they cannot understand it. Then he denies God's sovereign control over all, essentially because he cannot understand it.

Anonymous said...

Ben says...
"PS: Neither these points, nor the words of the Bible, will change an opinion. Presuppositions are broken only by the Holy Spirit."
Very true. But I'm sure you will agree the Spirit will use His Word to do so. I write as a former Arminian BTW. R.C. Sproul's Chosen By God helped me a lot. So I should add that I don't want to sound arrogant about this. it's only by God's Grace that I have come to this understanding. However God's foreordaining all is not an excuse for those who disagree. God is sovereign and I am responsible. Hank and every other Christian should not reject this mystery any more than A JW should not reject the trinity.

Anonymous said...

I am not fully a Calvinist, but I believe that Calvinist have nothing in there belief that is wrong, I just find from reading scripture that I feel it's a little missworded, BUT back to what I meant to say, I disagree with how Hank Hanegraaff is towards other Christians who don't believe 'his' way.
All things said, Believe in the virgin birth, sinless life, death resurection and that Jesus is Lord, and your on track.
Keep up the good work man!

Duane said...

Can someone please explain to me why teaching calvinism is oh so imortant? The Armenian veiw doesn't negate God's soverignty in any way shape or form. Also Calvinism isn't necessary to assure one of their salvation.
I agree with the guy who said this "careful study of scripture has revealed that both Calvinism and Arminianism cannot be fully supported beyond a shadow of doubt in scripture, and thus, we need to be very careful when presenting our views in light of scripture. These are two very good theories presented by two godly men, but these men are fallible and so are their theories."

Duane said...

One more thing. In regards to the guy who said this "Hank and every other Christian should not reject this mystery any more than A JW should not reject the trinity." No way should Calvinism be considered equal to the teaching of the Trinity. This teaching is considered one of the "Essential" of the Gospel and is necessary to believe for salvation. calvinism is not.

Anonymous said...

Actually just the other day I was listening to Hank on the radio and he was addressing the sovereignty of God - and I wish I could find the exact quote - but I will do my best. He was basically saying that God is completely able & capable, in dealing with humans as creatures of free will, to operate in complete sovereignty. I believe he is right.

My husband was raised Calvinist...and we have had many discussions about everything. In the end - we believe that Calvinism was necessary and needed at the time (in the mid-late 1800's) - all of the doctrines that Calvin wrote were at a time when there was severe controversy between those who were Catholic and those who had left the Catholic faith. Many of those in the protestant reformation times had never even read the Bible for there needed to be clear guidelines and teaching at a basic level. On salvation, etc....

NO human can fully conprehend our Our God. The Bible clearly states this. No Doctrine has Him figured out, signed sealed & delivered. Sometimes I think Calvanism professes to have all such matters and mysteries of God resolved in the 5 points and the no need to study scripture folks!

But Calvinists today we find cannot get past the starting gates of salvation. They hang around there making sure everyone who professes Jesus as their Lord & Saviour has done it correctly "as per Calvin". And if not - well then you aren't properly saved. And then they label you an Armenianist. God does NOT operate this way...this is NOT how the body of Christ was designed to function.

Also - Calvinism is NOT the scripture or as good as the scripture. (as Spurgeon is quoted as saying!!) It is a man made interepretation/teaching of the scripture and a guideline only. It does not to replace scripture.

The only way to grow in Christ once you are born again is to read the word of God and the Holy Spirit will teach and exhort.
And yes - get to a church where the scriptures are taught by a Holy Spirit lead teacher!

Calvinism has drawn a big line in the sand amoungst the body of Christ and continues to create confusion and elitism.

Just my 2 cents...

Buckatom said...

I listening to the debate over Calvinism and Arminianism It goes to far at times with attacks and name calling. Christianity is being attacked from within and from outside forces. I was brought up in Arminianism but mainly listen to the reform theologins. Hank Hanegraaff is helping christians out, and leading people to the lord.
Calvinist and Arminians who are standing firm in the faith can disagree over "T-U-L-I-P". But it needs to be civil with love and respect towards each other 1 Cor 16:13. Every true Calvinist and Arminian believer is needed to combat the Christless Christianity and secular movements. P.S. I will say that this "Reform Oasis" site has been more civil then others!

Anonymous said...

Quoting Ben from above and short, in love rebuttal:
"I ask myself as Sproul does, “Self, why did you receive Christ and not your friend Sam?”
Answer: Ephesians 2:8,9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God…”
Therefore, I must have faith to be saved, but even my faith is given to me from God as a free gift, so the question should rather be:
“Self, why does God give you faith and not your friend Sam? Are you smarter, better-looking, nicer…more humble?”
If it is for any of these reasons, then I can boast. Thankfully, it is for no other reason than God loved me and hated Sam before we were yet born!"

If you were to buy your wife a box of chocolates as a gift, but she said she doesn't want them because they'll make her gain 10 pounds, does this mean that you didn't give her a gift? Here's my point: it is quite possible that God gave both 'self' and 'Sam' the gift, but 'Sam' rejected the gift while 'self' did not.

Perhaps all are elected, and only some accept the position (in governmental terms)? If God calls all men unto Himself (John 12:32), wants all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), sent Christ to die for all men's sin 'that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life' (John 3:16), yet only the few are elect, then we have an apparent paradox. If God wants all to be saved, can't God get what God wants? Of course He can, but that doesn't necessitate that He does.

I don't know where I stand on the discussion of Calvinism. I certainly thank God that He drew and chose me and not based on my merits as I had none. I believe he foreknew that I would be reconciled to Himself, but don’t think that He didn’t give me a choice in the matter.
Praise God for His son Jesus Christ!


Anonymous said...

I will always be a follower of Christ and HIS doctrines as defined in His Word. Calvin was a madman who was also a mass murderer. He had people who had the audacity to disagree with him beheaded (at least once) but more often burned at the stake, even ordering green wood to be used so the burning would take place more slowly. This is no one I would lend my allegiance to or ally myself with. I am a follower of Christ and certainly no Calvinist. I believe Calvin to most likely be in Hell (though only God Himself can judge that). Why would I want to follow him? Wrong destination. Hank Hanegraff is right on.

Douglas Anderson said...

A clear reading of scripture leaves not doubt that Calvinism is a lie for Satan. I have heard all the arguments for Calvinism and it takes mental gymnastics, taking scripture out of context and worse - ignoring the original languages. Just do a bit of research on the original languages and you realize that Calvinism is a best an idea for the uniformed and at worst a lie from Satan. Sadly, there are two many Christians who can't claim to be uninformed, so instead they have fallen for a lie from Satan.

Grace Elizabeth Kelley said...

I truly enjoy listening to Hank and to RC, and I gain much insight from both. But, I do not believe we can fully know God's ways--we can know that which is pertinent to us, but not to Him, necessarily.

I have a question for Calvinist (and, I am not a Calvinist). I often hear the argument that God electing us is a humbling statement, because it supposes that there is no good in us, not even enough to choose God. Therefore, all the glory for our salvation goes directly to God (in theory, at least).

Well, I want to switch that around. If those who are not "the elect," had absolutely no choice whatsoever as to whether they would choose Christ. And, if those who are not saved receive the judgment of eternity in burning hell, where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, and where one cannot even get a drink of water (which, by the way, is only needed if we have bodies), then how, exactly do Calvinist' call this a good and just God? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and it is inconsistent with Jesus' teaching and character.

It's funny, I didn't use to know much about theology, so I was not aware of the Predestination discussion. But, during those years, anytime I've heard a radio preacher who sounds harsh, loveless, and out of touch with humanity, almost always, without fail, I later learn they are Calvinist. It would seem that while they claim that Calvinism gives the glory to God alone for our salvation, they then have a strong tendency to take on an arrogant view of themselves because they were chosen while their neighbor was not.

Of course, I'm not saying that of all Calvinist. But, I find it not surprising that the most hate filled and argumentative Christians I've ever known, are almost always without fail, Calvinist.

Also, I too learned in my study of history that Calvin freely burned people at the stake, when they did not profess his doctrines. I suppose, if you believe that non-Calvinist are not the "elect" of God, then its a small stretch then to rid the world of them! Personally, I call that murder.

Dennis Wilson said...

Wow...what an "Oasis" whre Christ creates just to escort into flames the souls of some. Why? He just does because of the "mystery" surrounding the fall of man. What bilge. As Dave Hunt says "What love is this?" It is of a strange sort to make a self aware eternal soul only to douse that soul with the gasoline of "you can't possibly find any way to be saved" and set it on fire forever. No I am sorry "WHO SO EVER may come..." "To as many as received Him..." "For God so loved the world..." Course you will insert elect into all these verses, doing what Peter warned about Paul...twisting them to your own undoing. No my friends, you label Christ with the label monster when you tell me does these things.

johnny said...

Right on Dennis Wilson. Any theology that requires you to have to have outside teachings to undo the verses in the Bible, twisting them and changing the definitions of words like to make them fit... is a cult. It's the same thing JWs and Mormans do.

Jk said...

Calvinism is a cult!

Jk said...

Calvinism is a cult!

Ro Ram said...

TY to everyone that commented on this thread. I learned a lot.