Let GOD Be GOD!

[Winman]

Philippians 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake. This Scripture clearly teaches to all but the most, can I use the term “hardened” Freewillers, that those to whom the Apostle was writing were given the ability to believe on Jesus Christ.

This verse is not addressing ability, it is addressing privilege. All persons who believe on Christ were given this by God. Without God giving us knowledge through the scriptures of Christ, no one could believe on him.

Paul says this in Romans 10.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Here Paul asks how a person can possibly believe on Jesus if they have never heard of him. There is no such thing as faith without an object of faith. It is through the scriptures that we are provided knowledge of Christ and therefore have an object of faith.

And Paul makes this clear just a few verses later.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Here is the most direct statement in all of scripture that explains how faith is obtained. Paul says faith comes through hearing the word of God. He completely fails to mention that a person must first be regenerated by the Spirit to have this ability if your doctrine is true. Not only does he not mention it here, he does not mention it anywhere in scripture, which would be astounding if indeed a person must be regenerated to have faith.

Anybody can pull one verse out of context (the context of Phil 1:29 is persecution and suffering, not faith) and make the scriptures say anything they want.

 

[AresMan]

This verse is not addressing ability, it is addressing privilege. All persons who believe on Christ were given this by God. Without God giving us knowledge through the scriptures of Christ, no one could believe on him.

Paul says this in Romans 10.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Here Paul asks how a person can possibly believe on Jesus if they have never heard of him. There is no such thing as faith without an object of faith. It is through the scriptures that we are provided knowledge of Christ and therefore have an object of faith.

And Paul makes this clear just a few verses later.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Here is the most direct statement in all of scripture that explains how faith is obtained. Paul says faith comes through hearing the word of God. He completely fails to mention that a person must first be regenerated by the Spirit to have this ability if your doctrine is true. Not only does he not mention it here, he does not mention it anywhere in scripture, which would be astounding if indeed a person must be regenerated to have faith.

Anybody can pull one verse out of context (the context of Phil 1:29 is persecution and suffering, not faith) and make the scriptures say anything they want.

No one is denying that one does not obtain the knowledge of the Gospel through hearing the Word of God. No one is denying that this is not necessary, hence the command to preach the Gospel.

You are still simply trying to dance around all the Scriptures that show that God effectually uses His Word to save His elect.

Phi 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
Phi 1:28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which [the gospel] is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, AND THAT OF GOD.
Phi 1:29 FOR unto YOU[not your adversaries] it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only TO BELIEVE ON HIM, but also to suffer for his sake;

What Paul is clearly saying here is that the Gospel itself is to the adversaries of these Christians "a token of perdition." However, the same Gospel is to them salvation from God.
He then explains this by saying that God actually gave them the faith in Him. Because He gave them the faith in Him, they believe on Christ. Period.

1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1Co 1:24 BUT unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. [see v.30]

1Co 1:30 But OF HIM are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: [see v.24]
1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

You constantly say that one is not elected by God until one is "in Christ." This verse clearly says that it is the Father's work wherein one is actually in Christ. To those who are in Christ, He is wisdom and power. These were those "who are CALLED." Therefore, Christ is not "power, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption" to those "which are NOT 'called.'" This call is clearly an effectual call as those who are "in Christ Jesus" are SYNONYMOUS with those "which are called."

Why are they in Christ Jesus? Because the Father did it. The reason that anyone is actually "in Christ" is that the Father elected them, drew them, taught them, and gave them to the Son. Those who are given to the Son will come--all of them. None will be lost. Why do they come? Because Christ is to them wisdom, power, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. He is all this to everyone who is "CALLED." All those who are "CALLED" are the same ones who become "in Christ Jesus."

Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Jam 1:18 OF HIS OWN WILL begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Yes, we need the Word of God to be saved. Yes, we need to preach the Gospel to every creature.
Those who are saved--born again--are so because God Himself begot them through His Word. He did this "of His own will." The word there is bouletheis, which is a present participle meaning "counseling." The boule of God is His decretive will. "My counsel shall stand." He decrees that His people will be saved. He counsels/decrees to beget us (the new birth) through His Word.

1. "Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ to believe on Him."
2. "Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus."
3. "Of His own will begat He us with the Word of truth."

GOD saves! He doesn't "try" to save. He doesn't make a "plan" for salvation. He SAVES! Glory to God He SAVED me! I get NONE of the credit whereby I am saved in any respect. He gave the faith. It is His work that I am in Christ. He begat me with His word. He counseled/decreed this to happen.

 

[The Archangel]

It's basic Calvinistic theology and total error. Those who truly believed God's word in the OT believed in Jesus when he was revealed as I just showed you from Christ's own words in John 5:46-47.

By your understanding no one in the OT could be a real "believer" because none of them knew of Christ.

Jesus Christ IS the Word of God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

OT believers who truly believed God's word were believing on Christ, because Jesus is the Word of God. Lydia believed the OT scriptures and so was believing on Christ.

And that is what Jesus is saying in John 5. If a person truly believed Moses, then they would believe him. Jesus had no problem calling these people believers.

It was those who professed to believe Moses but did not who were not believers.

And as for all this being a God-fearer but not a believer (which is ridiculous), this is just convoluted Calvinistic theology. A person who sincerely fears God is a true believer.

Psa 34:9 O fear the LORD, ye his saints: for there is no want to them that fear him.

Psa 36:1 [To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David the servant of the LORD.] The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.

Again, obfuscation on your part and absolutely nothing of substance. Typical.

The only thing we got is this: "It's basic Calvinistic theology and total error." That response doesn't deal with the text and is basically a "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo" answer. How sadly typical of you.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Again, obfuscation on your part and absolutely nothing of substance. Typical.

The only thing we got is this: "It's basic Calvinistic theology and total error." That response doesn't deal with the text and is basically a "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo" answer. How sadly typical of you.

Blessings,

The Archangel

No substance? Go back in our several posts here. I have posted many verses to support what I believe. How many have you posted?

ZERO

 

[The Archangel]

No substance? Go back in our several posts here. I have posted many verses to support what I believe. How many have you posted?

ZERO

You must really enjoy living in your own little "Winman-land" where actual reality has no bearing.

You posted several things--Cornelius, for one, which are facts not in evidence--unrelated to the original discussion. Then you came up with a idea that Lydia was somehow a believer in Christ because she was called a "God-fearer." Those ideas were quickly dispatched.

Quoting verses (especially those that are way out of context) does not an argument make.

Again, no substance.

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

Again, obfuscation on your part and absolutely nothing of substance. Typical.

The only thing we got is this: "It's basic Calvinistic theology and total error." That response doesn't deal with the text and is basically a "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo" answer. How sadly typical of you.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Archangel, while there was some content which amounts to nothing more an "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" within his posts, he also had some substance along with it.

It does seem that those before Christ were saved through the faith in the level of revelation they had received. Abraham believed and obeyed God's words and that was credited to him as righteousness. I seriously doubt Abraham had any real understanding of Christ at the time.

God fearing people feared the Lord because they believed in the Lord. Don't you think they are now saved even if they never knew the name of Jesus?

 

[The Archangel]

Are you going to respond to post #60?

Archangel, while there was some content which amounts to nothing more an "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" within his posts, he also had some substance along with it.

Nothing of relevant substance

It does seem that those before Christ were saved through the faith in the level of revelation they had received. Abraham believed and obeyed God's words and that was credited to him as righteousness. I seriously doubt Abraham had any real understanding of Christ at the time.

Did Abraham expect a savior named "Jesus" to be born in, say, 6 BC? No. Was Abraham saved by God's grace? Yes. Did Abraham exhibit faith? Yes.

There is one very big difference in what you write with scriptural reality. Abraham, Moses, David, the faithful remnant of the Israelites, etc. did respond to the level of revelation they had--e.g. they didn't have the New Testament. But, belief in the One, True, and Living God was "required." The ones to whom the revelation was given responded to that revelation and were saved.

However, this is not to say that Egyptians or the Philistines or the Hittites were given this revelation. So they were not saved (with very rare examples--Uriah the Hittite, Rahab, etc.).

There is a huge difference.

God fearing people feared the Lord because they believed in the Lord. Don't you think they are now saved even if they never knew the name of Jesus?

It depends on the nature of their "God-fearing-ness." Did they fear "Ra?" Did they fear Baal? Or did they fear Yahweh? Again, a huge difference.

In the New Testament, I don't think anyone would be saved without knowing the name of Jesus. This is illustrated by Paul's modus operandi of going to the Synagogue first when he came to a town. It is painfully obvious that he did not suspect the Jews would be "OK" with the level of revelation they had at that point.

But this whole discussion does not deal with the fact that Lydia was a God-fearer and the text still says God opened her heart.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

There is one very big difference in what you write with scriptural reality. Abraham, Moses, David, the faithful remnant of the Israelites, etc. did respond to the level of revelation they had--e.g. they didn't have the New Testament. But, belief in the One, True, and Living God was "required." The ones to whom the revelation was given responded to that revelation and were saved.

However, this is not to say that Egyptians or the Philistines or the Hittites were given this revelation. So they were not saved (with very rare examples--Uriah the Hittite, Rahab, etc.).

There is a huge difference.

Who said a person could fear "any" God? Not me, you brought that up. Cornelius and Lydia were both Gentiles who believed the Jewish God, the true God.

You are putting things in my mouth I never said. And obviously you do not understand how OT saints were saved.

Maybe you didn't know this, but there were synagogues throughout Asia Minor. Read Acts, wherever Paul went, the first place he stopped was a synagogue. The Jewish scriptures were known throughout Asia Minor.

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

For a pastor, you sure are lacking in knowledge.

 

[olegig]

One thing noted in previous replies seems to be the confusion of faith for there are two faith's at work in the NT.

Galatians 2:16 (King James Version)
16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

From the above we see one faith is man's personal faith in Christ.
This is the same faith that caused Noah to build an ark.
This is the same faith that caused Abraham to leave a land and raise a knife.
And this is the same faith that caused the OT saint to go to the Temple and do the things he was told to keep the Law of Moses.

But after the Law there is a different faith at work.

Galatians 3:21-23 (King James Version)
21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

And this new and second faith is the Faith of Christ which was demonstrated by Christ's submission to the cross, revealed through Paul, and made manifest by the power of the resurrection.

The Faith of Christ of Eph 2:8 is truly the greatest gift God ever bestowed upon mankind.

 

[Skandelon]

Are you going to respond to post #60?

I'll go back and look, sorry if I missed something...

Did Abraham expect a savior named "Jesus" to be born in, say, 6 BC? No. Was Abraham saved by God's grace? Yes. Did Abraham exhibit faith? Yes.

There is one very big difference in what you write with scriptural reality. Abraham, Moses, David, the faithful remnant of the Israelites, etc. did respond to the level of revelation they had--e.g. they didn't have the New Testament. But, belief in the One, True, and Living God was "required." The ones to whom the revelation was given responded to that revelation and were saved.

However, this is not to say that Egyptians or the Philistines or the Hittites were given this revelation. So they were not saved (with very rare examples--Uriah the Hittite, Rahab, etc.).

There is a huge difference.

Sorry, I didn't follow that, I agree with what you said here and it seems to back up what I wrote, so what is the "big difference?" Maybe I didn't follow Winman's point?

It depends on the nature of their "God-fearing-ness." Did they fear "Ra?" Did they fear Baal? Or did they fear Yahweh? Again, a huge difference.

In the New Testament, I don't think anyone would be saved without knowing the name of Jesus. This is illustrated by Paul's modus operandi of going to the Synagogue first when he came to a town. It is painfully obvious that he did not suspect the Jews would be "OK" with the level of revelation they had at that point.

But this whole discussion does not deal with the fact that Lydia was a God-fearer and the text still says God opened her heart.

Actually, doesn't it say she worshiped God?
Acts 16:14 CSB: A woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God, was listening. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was spoken by Paul.

How does one "worship God" before being regenerated? I don't think this is a good example of regeneration for you all. God could open or "hardened" men's hearts and minds through many different means, I don't think we need to assume this is supporting the doctrine of effectual calling.

 

[Skandelon]

At least you admit you are not always objective. Perhaps you don't realize you are entrenched in Arminianism? Further, Calvinism is not some outside force that has taken control of me. I embrace Calvinism, gladly. So, "entrenched" is not the correct word.

Entrenched is defined as being "established firmly and securely," and yes it is possible I'm firmly and securely" set in my beliefs as a non-Calvinist, but because I have been wrong before I am much more willing to reexamine and question my views than I once was.

Remember, I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool Arminian. So I realize that you are not able to remove your Arminian lenses, just as you say that I cannot remove my Calvinist lenses.

I was a "non-Calvinist" before becoming a Calvinist too, but I really had no understanding of the scholarly arguments from the non-Calvinistic side when I adopted Calvinism. Many young (college age) neo-Calvinist I have encountered have never even studied the doctrine of the judicial hardening of Israel during the time of Christ, and few have any idea what Romans 11 says or means. Most have no idea why God would hide the gospel from the Jews by speaking in parables and tell people to keep thing quite for a time. I'd like to think if I had been better educated about all these matters that I wouldn't have adopted the Calvinistic system to begin with, but who knows?

In my previous post I wrote:

So what does God do?

Your view: He regenerates man irresistibly bringing him to faith

My view: He sent Christ to die and disciple us, He sent the apostles, He sent the scripture, He sent His Church, He sent the Holy Spirit, He sent the powerful Gospel truth all of which CAN bring a man to faith (faith comes by hearing); but it can be rejected.

So, you see we both believe man is corrupt from birth, what we DON'T agree on is that man is born HARDENED...i.e. "unable to see, hear, understand and repent."

The mistake Calvinists make is that they think by proving that MAN is an evil enemy of God they have proven MAN is "UNABLE TO SEE, HEAR and UNDERSTAND" God's divine revelation calling his enemies to be reconciled to Him. But I've clearly shown that this is a condition of a man who has BECOME HARDENED/BLINDED, and NOT the condition of a man from birth.

You replied:

What you are describing here is, basically, a universal regeneration. But, that does not comport with the rest of the Scriptures. If you were correct, which you aren't, why would the book of Acts contain these two verses:

Universal regeneration? Where did you get that? There is a universal call, in that the gospel message of reconciliation was sent to the entire world. Is that what you mean? We both affirm the universality of the gospel, right?

You reference Acts 13:48 and wrote: If you were correct, there would be no need to quantify the Gentiles who believed from the Gentiles who did not, hence the "as many as."

Israel is a nation, right?

Is Gentiles a nation? Obviously not. It just means, "non-Jew." Right?

The Gentiles are made up of MANY nations...Samaritans, Philistines, Egyptians etc etc etc.

Which of these nations did God appoint to eternal life? Which of these nations did God grant entrance into his covenant of Grace? As many as believed.

If you read all of Acts 13 you will see the extensive discussion about nations. Israel and the Gentiles and how the Jews are rejecting the gospel. In fact, in just two verses prior it says, " Then Paul and Barnabas boldly said: "It was necessary that God's message be spoken to you first. But since you reject it, and consider yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles!"

Which of those Gentiles nations were "worthy" of eternal life? Those who don't reject it, like the Jews did. Again, this is obviously speaking generally because the apostles are Jewish, so too when it talks about the Gentiles nations being appointed and believing it is speaking in general terms and not about individual salvation.

 

[OldRegular]

This verse is not addressing ability, it is addressing privilege. All persons who believe on Christ were given this by God.

If you want to call the gift of "saving faith" a privilege I will go along with that. I am just glad to see that you have finally come to realize the Biblical truth that "saving faith" is the gift of GOD and not inherent in man.

 

[The Archangel]

Who said a person could fear "any" God? Not me, you brought that up. Cornelius and Lydia were both Gentiles who believed the Jewish God, the true God.

You are putting things in my mouth I never said. And obviously you do not understand how OT saints were saved.

Maybe you didn't know this, but there were synagogues throughout Asia Minor. Read Acts, wherever Paul went, the first place he stopped was a synagogue. The Jewish scriptures were known throughout Asia Minor.

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

For a pastor, you sure are lacking in knowledge.

Is that all you got? A personal attack? You have shown your true colors and they are not good. There is cause for us to pray for your soul.

The Archangel

 

[OldRegular]

so too when it talks about the Gentiles nations being appointed and believing it is speaking in general terms and not about individual salvation.

The following doesn't look like Paul was speaking in general terms to me!

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

 

[The Archangel]

Entrenched is defined as being "established firmly and securely," and yes it is possible I'm firmly and securely" set in my beliefs as a non-Calvinist, but because I have been wrong before I am much more willing to reexamine and question my views than I once was.

I was a "non-Calvinist" before becoming a Calvinist too, but I really had no understanding of the scholarly arguments from the non-Calvinistic side when I adopted Calvinism. Many young (college age) neo-Calvinist I have encountered have never even studied the doctrine of the judicial hardening of Israel during the time of Christ, and few have any idea what Romans 11 says or means. Most have no idea why God would hide the gospel from the Jews by speaking in parables and tell people to keep thing quite for a time. I'd like to think if I had been better educated about all these matters that I wouldn't have adopted the Calvinistic system to begin with, but who knows?

In my previous post I wrote:
You replied:
Universal regeneration? Where did you get that? There is a universal call, in that the gospel message of reconciliation was sent to the entire world. Is that what you mean? We both affirm the universality of the gospel, right?

Israel is a nation, right?

Is Gentiles a nation? Obviously not. It just means, "non-Jew." Right?

The Gentiles are made up of MANY nations...Samaritans, Philistines, Egyptians etc etc etc.

Which of these nations did God appoint to eternal life? Which of these nations did God grant entrance into his covenant of Grace? As many as believed.

If you read all of Acts 13 you will see the extensive discussion about nations. Israel and the Gentiles and how the Jews are rejecting the gospel. In fact, in just two verses prior it says, " Then Paul and Barnabas boldly said: "It was necessary that God's message be spoken to you first. But since you reject it, and consider yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles!"

Which of those Gentiles nations were "worthy" of eternal life? Those who don't reject it, like the Jews did. Again, this is obviously speaking generally because the apostles are Jewish, so too when it talks about the Gentiles nations being appointed and believing it is speaking in general terms and not about individual salvation.

But the Acts passages are not talking about Gentiles as opposed to Jews. The passages are talking about specific persons. The only reason to dismiss the clear text here is to support your view.

We've been down this road before and there is no need to go again.

The Archangel

 

[olegig]

Acts 13:48 (King James Version)
48And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

A few things I feel that are worth noting about the passage from Acts 13.
The passage says "ordained", it does not say "foreordained"; therefore whatever happened took place in real time, not eternity past.
And it is noted in the passage below from Mark that even Judas was "ordained".

Mark 3:14 (King James Version)
14And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

Another thing about the Acts 13 passage is it says "as many as" not "all" and this particular "ordination" was based on the fact they first believed.

 

[OldRegular]

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.{KJV}

Acts 13:48 And hearing, the nations rejoiced and glorified the Word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.{GLT}

Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.{NKJV}

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.{NASB}

 

[olegig]

OldRegular,

Hello, always nice to hear from you, but tell me......

When man takes it upon himself to change or correct the Word of God, does man do this of his own freewill; or do you feel the changes are a direct instruction from God?

I suppose you must believe in divine revelation, since you don't seem to give the freewill thing much weight.

 

[The Archangel]

Acts 13:48 (King James Version)
48And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

A few things I feel that are worth noting about the passage from Acts 13.
The passage says "ordained", it does not say "foreordained"; therefore whatever happened took place in real time, not eternity past.
And it is noted in the passage below from Mark that even Judas was "ordained".

Mark 3:14 (King James Version)
14And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

Another thing about the Acts 13 passage is it says "as many as" not "all" and this particular "ordination" was based on the fact they first believed.

Well, that isn't so. In the Acts passage the word translated "ordained" by the KJV is a perfect, passive participle. The better translation is "the ones having been ordained."

In Greek the passive means that the subject cannot act on his or her own behalf. Rather they must be acted upon. Also, the perfect means that it is something done in the past that has implications for the present.

So, your "idea" that it is taking place in "real time" is incorrect. Also, that belief resulted in ordination cannot be either--because the belief is aorist (and is generally timeless) and ordained is perfect.

Furthermore the word for "Appointed" in the Acts passage is τασσω and the word in the Mark passage is ποιεω. So the words are different.

It does not mean what you think it means.

OldRegular,

Hello, always nice to hear from you, but tell me......

When man takes it upon himself to change or correct the Word of God, does man do this of his own freewill; or do you feel the changes are a direct instruction from God?

I suppose you must believe in divine revelation, since you don't seem to give the freewill thing much weight.

In light of the above discussion of the Greek, you may want to rethink these comments to OldRegular.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[OldRegular]

OldRegular,

Hello, always nice to hear from you, but tell me......

When man takes it upon himself to change or correct the Word of God, does man do this of his own freewill; or do you feel the changes are a direct instruction from God?

I suppose you must believe in divine revelation, since you don't seem to give the freewill thing much weight.

What The Archangel said!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: