Bible Verses that Support an "Age of Accountability"?

Taken from the post "Do Babies Go To Heaven If They Die?  A Critique of Calvinism's Answer" (edited a bit for clarity):


For those who don't know, an "age of accountability" (or maybe more accurately, a "condition of accountability") involves the idea that there's an age where we become mentally capable of making decisions, where we know right from wrong and that we need to reject the wrong and choose the right, and where we are now accountable for our choices, particularly our decision to accept or reject Jesus.  And so children who die too young to be able to make conscious decisions are covered by God's grace and go to heaven because they haven't yet reached that age/condition.  They are not held accountable for their sin, for being unable to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.  This would include mentally-handicapped people who are incapable of making decisions regarding faith.

I believe in an "age of accountability," that young children and mentally-handicapped people are not held accountable for the fact that they couldn't accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.  

However, there are Calvinists who believe that there is no such thing as an "age of accountability," because that would mean that salvation is a choice we make, that we are responsible for the choice we make about Jesus when we are old enough to understand.  And for them, whether we are saved or unsaved has to be Calvi-god's decision alone.  He decides from the beginning of time whether we will go to heaven or to hell.  And since they believe we are all born as morally-depraved, totally-separated-from-God, rebellious sinners who need to repent in order to be saved (Calvi-god causes the elect to repent, but the unelect can not repent), if someone dies before they repent then they must have been predestined to hell.  Babies and mentally-handicapped people included.

My Calvinist ex-pastor gave a sermon once where he said almost exactly this.

What he basically said was (paraphrased, but not really):

"Christians love to believe there is an age of accountability.  But nowhere in the Bible does it say there is an age of accountability for babies or children.  No one gets a free pass!  We are all wicked sinners from conception - sinners by birth, by choice (my note: funny for a Calvinist to use this word!), and by nature, being cut off completely from God.  This is clear in Romans 3:23 which says 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' and in 1 John 1:8 which says that whoever claims to be without sin is a liar.  All of us are sinners, from babies up to adults, and all sinners are required to repent in order to get into heaven.  (My note: the obvious implication is that since babies died before they could repent then they aren't saved.  They are in hell because they were predestined to go there, so the Calvinist would say.)"

This is a pretty definitive statement that there is no age of accountability, that if a baby dies, it dies as a wicked and rebellious sinner who is cut off from God, and therefore they go to hell.

  
But I do not think the Bible supports this view at all.  I think the God of the Bible is very different than Calvi-god!  



What Calvinists say:
For the record, there are Calvinists who do believe in an "age of accountability."  But the very idea that there is an age where we become accountable for our choices contradicts Calvinism's belief that we can't really make choices.  (Yet, as I pointed out in another post, they will try to disguise the "we can't make choices" belief so that they don't sound like they are saying that God causes sin.) 

Some Calvinists say that babies do go to heaven, and some say they don't.  And some say that Calvinism never taught that babies go to hell if they die.


Let's take a look a moment at what the "founder" of Calvinism - John Calvin - says about this:

See John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 7: "I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God?"

From what I can tell, this "seemed meet to God" seems to mean (according to others who quoted this passage) that it pleased God to have Adam's sin lead to the eternal destruction of most people, with no chance of being saved, including their "infant children."  Calvin is attributing the destruction of infants in hell to God.


15 Thou shalt surely smite. ...  If any should object that the little children at least were innocent, I reply that, since all are condemned by the judgment of God from the least to the greatest, we contend against Him in vain, even though He should destroy the very infants as yet in their mothers’ womb.  When Sodom and the neighboring cities were swallowed up, we doubt not but that in the mighty multitude many infants and pregnant women also perished; and whilst our reason struggles against this, it is better rather to look up reverently to the Divine tribunal, than to subject it to our own laws.  The same may be said of the destruction of Babylon; for when the Prophet exclaims: “Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones,” he assuredly eulogizes the just vengeance of God.  (Psalm 137:9.)  So also in this passage, if it does not appear to us agreeable to reason that the whole race of evil-doers should be exterminated, let us understand that God is defrauded of His rights, whensoever we measure His infinite greatness, which the angels themselves admiringly adore, by our own feelings.  Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed, except those which He had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death.  But if we admit God’s right to deprive of the hope of salvation whomsoever He sees fit, why should the temporal punishment, which is much lighter, be found fault with? ...


Okay, wait ... I want to look at this again, with my comments and interpretations added, in bold:


15 Thou shalt surely smite. ...  If any should object that the little children (who were killed in the Old Testament times) at least were innocent, I reply that, since all are condemned by the judgment of God from the least to the greatest (Read: "Babies aren't 'innocent' like we like to believe they are, because we are all born depraved and under God's judgment, babies included"), we contend against Him in vain, even though He should destroy the very infants as yet in their mothers' womb.  (Read: "Who are you to question God's right to kill babies, when we all deserve death anyway!?!") ... So also in this passage, if it does not appear to us agreeable to reason that the whole race of evil-doers should be exterminated, let us understand that God is defrauded of His rights, whensoever we measure His infinite greatness, which the angels themselves admiringly adore, by our own feelings.  Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed, except those which He had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death.  (Read: "God has a right to do whatever He wants to, even kill babies.  Besides, remember that the only babies who die are ones that God has already predestined to hell anyway.  So it's all good and fair!")  But if we admit God’s right to deprive of the hope of salvation whomsoever He sees fit, why should the temporal punishment, which is much lighter, be found fault with?  (Read: "If we admit that God has the right to predestined to hell anyone He wants to, even babies, that He has the right to deny salvation to anyone He wants to, then what does it matter if He brings death and disaster on anyone while they are alive, even the young!?!  After all, if God decides whom He's sending to hell, with no chance to be saved, then He can also decide how and when they die.") ...


So ... despite contemporary Calvinists' denial that Calvinism teaches infant damnation, we see here the John Calvin himself believed that the babies who die are only the eternally-damned babies.


And may I point out something else Calvin believes?  That if a mother can't provide enough milk for her baby, it's because God was pleased to make it so.  So it's for God's pleasure that babies basically starve to death!?!  Well, only the unelected babies, of course.  See his Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 16, Section 3:  David exclaims (Ps. 8:3), that infants hanging at their mothers breasts are eloquent enough to celebrate the glory of God, because, from the very moment of their births they find an aliment prepared for them by heavenly care. Indeed, if we do not shut our eyes and senses to the fact, we must see that some mothers have full provision for their infants, and others almost none, according as it is the pleasure of God to nourish one child more liberally, and another more sparingly


Anyone else want to throw up?  Oh yeah, he's got some great theology, doesn't he?  Painting God in a great light?  Who wouldn't want to love and worship a God like that!?!


FYI: I don't have a problem with God having the right to allow people to die and to even determine the timing of our deaths.  I have a problem with Calvinists saying that God determines who goes to hell, that Jesus only died for the elect, that all babies who die are predestined to hell, and that, by golly, we should just humbly accept this garbage because if we don't then we are denying God's right to rule as He wants to.

It's garbage!  It's Calvinists telling us how their "sovereign God" acts - even when it contradicts Scripture - and then manipulating us into accepting it by accusing us of denying Scripture, of fighting against God, and of dishonoring God if we disagree.  Frickin' Bull-Shih Tzu!




But, you might be saying, that's just John Calvin.  Contemporary Calvinists don't believe that Calvi-god puts babies in hell.

Oh, they don't, do they!?!  So it's just my pastor and John Calvin, huh!?!

In the comment section of the "Age of Accountability" post at Soteriology 101, commenter "fromoverhere" shares some quotes from Calvinist Vincent Cheung (regarding Infant Salvation).
Fromoverhere says:  Cheung says: “The popular position that all infants are saved is wishful thinking, and continues as a groundless religious tradition.  Those who affirm the doctrine of election have never been able to establish that all those who die as infants are elect.  Their arguments are forced and fallacious.  And those who reject the biblical doctrine of election lacks even this to fabricate a doctrine of infant salvation.  Thus the invention deceives the masses and offers them hope based on mere fantasy.  The way to comfort bereaved parents is not to lie to them, but to instruct them to trust in God.  Whatever God decides must be right and good.  It may be difficult due to their grief and weakness at the time, but if the parents cannot finally accept this, that God is always right, then they are headed for hell themselves and need to become Christians.”

Fromoverhere responds: The cold heart of a consistent Calvinist.

And then fromoverehere goes on:  Cheung says, a little further down in that article: “But whether a fetus, infant, or adult, if you can read this and understand this, then I am telling you that you must believe in Jesus Christ to save your wretched soul.  [My - Heather's - note: Interesting that he would plead with people to believe when he believes that God alone determines whether we believe or not, and our decisions have no effect on it because we aren't really even allowed to make any decisions that God doesn't make for us.  So says the Calvinist.]  As for my critics, yes, even obnoxious morons like you can be saved.  My concern is not so much about whether embryos can exercise faith, but that as annoying and unintelligent as you are, whether you can exercise faith….. As for the embryos, if they perish, they will go where God decides – if they all burn in hell, they all burn in hell; if they all ascend to heaven, then they ascend to heaven – but if they live, I will talk to them in a few years.”

But wait… there’s more…  

Cheung says: “Perhaps the same applies to those who are mentally retarded, although there seems to be no biblical evidence to say that some mentally retarded people are saved, since there seems to be no equivalent examples in Scripture.  Their salvation is only a possibility.  It is also possible that all mentally retarded people are damned.  If this is the case, it would be misleading to complain that they are punished for being mentally retarded; rather, on the basis of the doctrine of reprobation, they would be created as damned individuals in the first place.  There is no theological problem either way.”

Fromoverhere replies:  There’s that Doctrine of Grace!  They are not being impeded from salvation by being handicapped… they were created to be damned anyway!!  Comforting!  So… if you spend 40 years taking care of your mentally-challenged child who will never have the mental capacity to call on Christ, at least you can be comforted to know that it was not because he was mentally slow…. it just cuz he was damned all along.  I am sure this will comfort all those parents.

[My note: Seriously, people, if this doesn't anger you, to see what Calvinism does to God's character and Jesus's sacrifice and people's hope of salvation, then you need to look into it some more.  Trust me, Calvinism is coming to a church near you.  Know what they teach.  Know their tricks and their double-speak.  And know why it's so very wrong!]

Fromoverhere continues:  But just in case Cheung was not clear enough…  “In itself, I have no problem with the idea that for anyone to receive salvation, in the absolute sense and without exception, he must exhibit a conscious faith in the gospel.  This would mean that those who are unable to exercise faith are all damned to hell, and this would include infants and the mentally retarded, if we assume that they cannot exercise faith.  I have no misgivings about this.”

Fromoverhere: Phew… I wouldn’t want him to have misgivings about that!


I then gave my response to fromoverhere:

"The quotes from Cheung make me want to cry. Those kinds of teachings are when my blood starts boiling and when I pull out my stronger language and, yes, when I start calling Calvinism “heresy.’ (I try not to do that often, but when they start condemning people to hell that Jesus came to die for … when they start denying salvation for those whom God loves and whom Jesus came to save … when they deem anyone out of reach of God’s grace and forgiveness … well, then I WILL pull out the “heresy” card! Because it doesn’t get much more wretched and vile than that.)

And yet, it’s refreshing to hear a Calvinist be so honest with what they believe. If only all Calvinist preachers were this honest, there’d be a lot less people getting sucked into it, sitting in the pews tolerating the questionable teachings, unaware of what the Calvinist preacher really believes because they dress it up so well. If only all Calvinists were this honest, there’s be a lot less “Calvinists” out there!"

--- end of comments ---


Consistent Calvinists would have to say that if we are all depraved sinners at birth who are in rebellion against God and if we died before we could repent ... then we would go to hell.  Babies included.  Because being old enough to comprehend the Gospel and to consciously choose Jesus as Lord and Savior isn't a part of their theology.  In their theology, Calvi-god predetermines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell ... and nothing that we do or think affects it or can change it.  And so there is no place for an "age of accountability," for being old enough to understand and respond to the Gospel or to God's calls to believe in Him, to repent, and to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Besides, Calvinists believe we are regenerated before we can even understand the Gospel.  They believe we (the elect only!) are saved first, then God regenerates our hearts to make us want Him and seek Him, and then we can understand and respond to the Gospel.  Our mental abilities have nothing to do with our being saved, because that's determined for us long ago from the beginning of time.  (But in Calvinism, we never "choose or accept Jesus as Lord and Savior" because that would mean salvation is a choice.  And they don't believe it's a choice.)  

So whether we are old enough to understand the Gospel or not makes no difference!  Because if it did, then it would mean that salvation is affected by us somehow.  And that would contradict Calvinism's view that it has to be all God's doing, with absolutely no influence from us.  

In Calvinism, if we have any effect on our salvation, then Calvi-god wouldn't be as "sovereign" as they think he is.

I think the only view a consistent Calvinism can have when it comes to babies who die is this: "We don't know which babies are elected and which aren't.  So we can't say if someone's baby is in heaven or hell.  But we can say that all babies are born as depraved sinners, totally unable able to come to God and to repent unless God has elected them.  But since they didn't have the chance to repent, I guess we'll never know.  And most likely, since they didn't repent, they are in hell.  But we can't know for sure.  But take comfort.  You can trust Calvi-god.  And if he decided that your baby should be in hell, then it's for his glory.  So it's all good!"     



What the Bible says:
I do not think the Bible supports Calvinism.

And I think the Bible teaches that salvation is a choice, but that if someone dies before they are capable of making a choice about Jesus then they are covered by God's grace.  I do not think God punishes people for not choosing Jesus if they never had the mental capabilities to choose Jesus.  

(But Calvi-god does cause the unelect to be unbelievers, by withholding salvation from them, by causing them to rebel against him.  Their mental capabilities have nothing to do with it.  Calvi-god doesn't give the unelect the option to believe.  If they are predestined to be unbelievers, they are born as and will die as unbelievers.  And then he punishes them for the sin and unbelief that he caused.  So if unbelief isn't a choice anyway and if we are punished for the unbelief that he causes, why would he not also punish babies for their unbelief if he causes them to die before repenting?  Why give babies who can't believe a free pass, but punish the unelect who were predestined to not believe?  What does age have to do with it, if Calvi-god has predestined our eternal destiny from the beginning of time, based on absolutely nothing about us but only on his whims?)  



Now onto the verses that I think contradict Calvinism and the idea that babies go to hell:

I'm not going to try to convince you of how to interpret these verses, but I hope that by putting them all together, we can get a good idea of God's heart for the very young.  His view of them.  And I believe that, considered as a whole, these verses show us that our God is not the kind of God who would condemn children to hell when they've done nothing wrong.  (Calvi-god would!  But not the God of the Bible!)

Ezekiel 16:20-21"And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to idols.... You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols."  God says that their children - the ones they sacrificed - were His children.  Why would He call them His children if children are born as and die as wicked, depraved, rebellious sinners, wholly separated from Him, under His judgment, and on their way to hell?  If God has predestined to hell those who die too young, shouldn't He instead say something like "You deprived those young ones of the chance to become My children by killing them while they were young"?  Or more accurately, "I caused you to sacrifice your children because I never chose them to be one of the elect anyway"?  But God doesn't say anything like this.  He calls them "My children!"  (The Calvinist, of course, might say that God was referring to the Jewish nationality of those children, that in saying "My children," He meant "My people."  Or maybe He meant all people can be considered "His children" simply because He created us all.  Or maybe He was saying that the sacrificed children were "elected children" only.  If so, interesting how all of those who were sacrificed happened to be elected!  What are the odds!?!  Or did God just make sure that the people only sacrificed the elected ones?  How thoughtful of Him!) 


Also regarding child sacrifices is Jeremiah 19:4-5"For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods ... and have filled this place with the blood of the innocent.  They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as an offering to Baal - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."  This is a big one!  First off, what does God call the children who were sacrificed?  He calls them "innocent."  (Or once again, did God simply make sure only the innocent "elected" children were sacrificed?)  But Calvinists call children "wicked, morally-depraved, in rebellion against God, and completely cut off from Him."  They call innocent babies "vipers in diapers," saying that if babies had the chance, they'd kill their parents in their sleep.  But what does God call them?  Innocent.   (Yes, this video is cute and funny, but don't overlook the theology he's teaching here, that children are depraved "born sinners" who deserve hell.)  Secondly, if God predestined those children to die early, as Calvinists would say, why does God Himself say that He never even considered that child sacrifice should be done?  How can God preplan or cause something He never even thought about?  But a Calvinist would say God preplans and causes everything.  And consistent Calvinists would have to say God preplanned those children to be sacrificed ... to die as depraved sinners, cut off from God, under His judgment, on their way to hell.  Yet God says they are innocent and that He never thought about requiring them to be sacrificed.  Interesting!


In Deuteronomy 1:39, God talks about "your children who do not yet know good from bad."  There is a distinction in God's mind between older people who know right from wrong ... and little children who don't.  And in this case, the Lord treated the innocent children differently than the adults who rebelled against Him.  He allowed the children to enter the Promised Land, but He caused the adults to die off in the desert as punishment for their rebellion.  God did not hold the children accountable for the rebellion of the parents.

Likewise, Isaiah 7:16 refers to an age when a child is old enough to "reject the wrong and choose the right."  This sounds like there's an age (or more accurately, a condition) when you become accountable for your choices, that even God recognizes a difference in those too young to know better, too young to make decisions.  


[Also, I think it's important to note that God, in the Bible, constantly warns us about rejecting or denying Jesus.  We are punished for rejecting or refusing Him, not for not hearing about Him or for being unable to comprehend Him.

“Who is the liar?  It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ.”  (1 John 2:22)

“But he who disowns me [Jesus] before men will be disowned before the angels of God.”  (Luke 12:9)  

"This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."  (1 John 4:2-3)  

How can a baby or mentally-handicapped person deny, reject, refuse, or disown something they had no knowledge or understanding of?  I believe there is a difference between those who never had a chance to hear/understand the Gospel and those who knew about it but rejected it.  

The Word doesn’t say that we are condemned for being incapable of comprehending the Gospel (such as a baby or mentally-handicapped person), but it says we are condemned if we reject Christ, implying that it is referring to those of us who have heard of Him and are able to respond to Him, because you can’t reject someone you've never heard of or can't comprehend.

Consider Romans 1:20"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that people are without excuse."   

This verse is saying that we are accountable for what we know of God, that we are accountable for being able to see God in His creation.  And since God is evident to all, there is no excuse for not seeking Him, for not believing in Him.  We are accountable for our thoughts about Him and for our response to the truth we see of Him in creation.  

I do not think this is referring to those who are unable to see, unable to comprehend, and unable to make decisions.  It's referring only to those who can comprehend the things around them and make decisions based on it.  It says we - those who can see and understand Him in His creation (which would be all of us with adequate mental capabilities) - have no excuse for not turning to Him.  And I believe the innocent - those who can't comprehend yet - are excused, precisely because they can't comprehend.

When a person becomes old enough, they reach an age where they know they need to reject the wrong and choose the right.  And then they will be held accountable if they don't do it.  But before that time, they have no knowledge of right and wrong, are incapable of making a choice, and so they are considered innocent.  They didn't reject Jesus; they just didn't have the chance yet to comprehend Him and their need for Him.  And for this, God does not hold them accountable!  This is what I believe the Bible teaches.]
    
     
In 2 Samuel 12:23, David says that his deceased baby shall never return to him, but that David shall eventually go to his deceased baby.  Sounds like David understood that his baby will be waiting for him in heaven.  (Calvinists might say, "Of course David expects to see his baby in heaven.  Because that child was one of the elect!")


Matthew 21:16: "From the lips of children and infants, you have ordained praise."  How can wicked, depraved, rebellious vipers-in-diapers who are born separated from God, who are under His judgment, and who would murder their parents in their sleep be said to be "praising God"?  If so, then why wouldn't He also ordain praise from older - from all - wicked, depraved, rebellious people who are separated from Him, living under His judgment, and who have murderous hearts?  And aren't we all then - true believers and wicked, depraved, rebellious, murderous unbelievers - standing together, side by side, praising and honoring the same God?  Talk about unity!


Matthew 18:10 talks about the angels seeing the face of the Father when they look at the little ones.  How can the angels see the face of the Father in wicked, depraved, unrepentant, separated-from-God, on-their-way-to-hell sinners?  If that's what the Father looks like to the angels (as Calvinism would have to conclude), then maybe He's not as loving and good as we think He is.


In Matthew 19:14, Jesus says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to "such as these," the children.  How can this be if no children would be allowed to enter heaven because they are depraved, wicked, unrepentant sinners?  (Consistent Calvinists might say that this is simply a metaphor, meaning that people who are as trusting and innocent as children get into heaven.  Yet, once again, if babies are really depraved, wicked, rebellious sinners - not innocent at all - then why would Jesus encourage us to be like them, saying that being like them is how we get into heaven!?!  Weird!)


"So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish."  (Matthew 18:14Consistent Calvinists would have to say that babies who died never repented, and so dying as unrepentant sinners means they are in hell, that God willed them to go to hell.  But this here says it's NOT God's Will for them to perish.  If it's not God's Will for little ones to perish, then saying babies go to hell means saying that God causes the exact opposite of His Will.  (Calvinists have no problem saying God wills one thing but causes the exact opposite.  And they use "it's a mystery that we can't understand" to shut down any opposition to their contradictions.)  

[FYI, Calvinists would say (have said) that Matthew 18 refers only to elected babies - that the angels see the Father's face in elected children, that God will punish those who cause an elected child to stumble (Matthew 18:6), and that He doesn't want the elected ones to perish.  

First off, it's interesting that God called the children of wicked, idolatrous people (in Jeremiah 19:4-5) "innocent."  But here, in Matthew 18, the Calvinist says only the elected babies are innocent.  So then, are all children of wicked people "elected"?  Interesting!  

And secondly, notice again the strong warning (Matthew 18:6) about causing one of these little ones to stumble.  Jesus said it's better for someone to be drowned than to cause one of them to stumble.  This doesn't sound like it's warning about a normal, insignificant kind of "stumbling."  It sounds like it's about the kind of stumbling that causes someone to fall away from the Lord.  Especially since just a few verses later, God says He doesn't want any one of these little ones to perish.  God is talking here about a kind of stumbling that leads to perishing.  But how is this possible if these are "elected" babies?  According to Calvinism, the elect can never lose their election, their salvation.  They are never at risk of stumbling so badly that it leads to perishing.  And so why would God need to warn people to not cause elected children to stumble if stumbling wouldn't have any effect on their election anyway?  This doesn't make sense, if Calvinism is true.]  


Yes, we are all sinners.  We all sin.  But I believe the Bible also shows that there is an age - a time - when we become accountable for sin, for not doing what we know we are supposed to do, for doing what we know we are not supposed to do, for rebelling against God, for refusing or rejecting Jesus, for our decisions.  And before that age, we are covered by Jesus's blood, who paid for all sins of all time of all people.  

How could the Bible say that His death covered all sins of all people, if it didn't also cover the sins of those who died too young?  Shouldn't the Bible then say "Jesus died for all people, except for the very young or the mentally-handicapped"?  (Most Calvinists, though, believe that His blood only covered the sins of all the elect.  Not all sins of all people.  That alone should be enough to reject this theology from the very beginning.)

It's no wonder so many people reject Christianity ... with all the Calvinists out there sharing their warped view of God!  Calvi-god is not the God of the Bible!  It is a horrible, twisted, destructive misrepresentation of our holy, loving, gracious, just God!



Popular posts from this blog

Be Wary Of The Christian Post

Feminism Nonsense (repost)

Why Is Calvinism So Dangerous?

Anti-Calvinism Memes and Links

How Much Power Do Witches Have? (repost)

Why Is It So Hard For Calvinists To Get Free From Calvinism?

80+ Bible Verses for Spiritual Warfare

What's The Best Way To Make People Agree With Your Calvinist Views?

#1 Wrestling With God, 2015 (repost)

Some Carman Songs For Halloween (repost)