Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice? (Job 8:3)

The gospel is available to anyone who reads the Bible or hears it proclaimed. Anyone who repents and believes, who calls on the Lord, will be saved. Christ Jesus rejects no one who comes to Him. That is as fair as it can be. That is as just as it can be.

Christians witness to everyone. There are no exceptions. There are no "Do Not Enter" signs in the proclamation of the gospel.

Anyone who is lost is lost because he refuses to come to God, because he refuses to bow down in the dust of repentance before His Creator Whom he has sinned against.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ September 27, 2002, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

For one moment let me detain you from my object, while I reply to a very common method of misrepresenting the doctrine. It may be as well to start with a clear idea of what the doctrine really is. Our opponents put the case thus: suppose a father should condemn some of his children to extreme misery, and make others supremely happy, out of his own arbitrary will, would it be right and just? Would it not be brutal and detestable? My answer is, of course, it would; it would be execrable in the highest degree, and far, very far be it from us to impute such a course of action to the Judge of all the earth. But the case stated is not at all the one under consideration, but one as opposite from it as light from darkness. Sinful man is not now in the position of a well-deserving or innocent child, neither does God occupy the place of a complacent parent. We will suppose another case far nearer the mark, indeed, it is no supposition, but an exact description of the whole matter. A number of criminals, guilty of the most aggravated and detestable crimes, are righteously condemned to die, and die they must, unless the king shall exercise the prerogative vested in him, and give them a free pardon. If for good and sufficient reasons, known only to himself, the king chooses to forgive a certain number, and to leave the rest for execution, is there anything cruel or unrighteous here? If, by some wise means, the ends of justice can be even better answered by the sparing of the pardoned ones, than by their condemnation, while at the same time, the punishment of some tends to honor the justice of the lawgiver, who shall dare to find fault? None, I venture to say, but those who are the enemies of the state and of the king. And so may we well ask, "Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" Who is he that shall impugn the mingled mercy and severity of heaven, or make the eternal God an offender, because "he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy?" - Charles Spurgeon in a sermon entitled "Election no Discouragement to Seeking Souls".

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ September 27, 2002, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Methinks, my friends, that this overwhelming mass of Scripture testimony must stagger those who dare to laugh at this doctrine. What shall we say of those who have so often despised it, and denied its divinity; who have railed at its justice, and dared to defy God and call him an Almighty tyrant, when they have heard of his having elected so many to eternal life? Canst thou, O rejector! cast it out of the Bible? Canst thou take the penknife of Jehudi and cut it out of the Word of God? Wouldst thou be like the woman at the feet of Solomon, and have the child rent in halves, that thou mightest have thy half? Is it not here in Scripture? And is it not thy duty to bow before it, and meekly acknowledge what thou understandest not—to receive it as the truth even though thou couldst not understand its meaning? I will not attempt to prove the justice of God in having thus elected some and left others. It is not for me to vindicate my Master. He will speak for himself, and he does so:—"Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?" Who is he that shall say unto his father, "What hast thou begotten?" or unto his mother, "What hast thou brought forth?" "I am the Lord—I form the light and create darkness I, the Lord, do all these things." Who art thou that repliest against God? Tremble and kiss his rod; bow down and submit to his sceptre; impugn not his justice, and arraign not his acts before thy bar, O man! - Charles Spurgeon in a sermon entitled "Election".

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

Continuing...

But there are some who say, "It is hard for God to choose some and leave others." Now, I will ask you one question. Is there any of you here this morning who wishes to be holy, who wishes to be regenerate, to leave off sin and walk in holiness? "Yes, there is," says some one, "I do." Then God has elected you. But another says, "No; I don't want to be holy; I don't want to give up my lusts and my vices." Why should you grumble, then, that God has not elected you to it? For if you were elected you would not like it, according to your own confession. If God this morning had chosen you to holiness, you say you would not care for it. Do you not acknowledge that you prefer drunkenness to sobriety, dishonesty to honesty? You love this world's pleasures better than religion; then why should you grumble that God has not chosen you to religion? If you love religion, he has chosen you to it. If you desire it, he has chosen you to it. If you do not, what right have you to say that God ought to have given you what you do not wish for? Supposing I had in my hand something which you do not value, and I said I shall give it to such-and-such a person, you would have no right to grumble that I did not give to you. You could not be so foolish as to grumble that the other has got what you do not care about. According to your own confession, many of you do not want religion, do not want a new heart and a right spirit, do not want the forgiveness of sins, do not want sanctification; you do not want to be elected to these things: then why should you grumble? You count these things but as husks, and why should you complain of God who has given them to those whom he has chosen? If you believe them to be good and desire them, they are there for thee. God gives liberally to all those who desire; and first of all, he makes them desire, otherwise they never would. If you love these things, he has elected you to them, and you may have them; but if you do not, who are you that you should find fault with God, when it is your own desperate will that keeps you from loving these things—your own simple self that makes you hate them? Suppose a man in the street should say, "What a shame it is I cannot have a seat in the chapel to hear what this man has to say." And suppose he says, "I hate the preacher; I can't bear his doctrine; but still it's a shame I have not a seat." Would you expect a man to say so? No: you would at once say, "That man does not care for it. Why should he trouble himself about other people having what they value and he despises?" You do not like holiness, you do not like righteousness; if God has elected me to these things, has he hurt you by it? "Ah! but," say some, "I thought it meant that God elected some to heaven and some to hell." That is a very different matter from the gospel doctrine. He has elected men to holiness and to righteousness and through that to heaven. You must not say that he has elected them simply to heaven, and others only to hell. He has elected you to holiness, if you love holiness. If any of you love to be saved by Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ elected you to be saved. If any of you desire to have salvation, you are elected to have it, if you desire it sincerely and earnestly. But, if you don't desire it, why on earth should you be so preposterously foolish as to grumble because God gives that which you do not like to other people? - Charles Spurgeon in a sermon entitled "Election".

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

Christ Jesus was not punished because He sinned. He was punished for the sins of His people imputed to Him.

(2 Cor 5:21 NKJV) For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ September 27, 2002, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Chappie,

"Your assessment of scripture is a tad les extreme than most Calvinist that I talk to."

Well, like I say, I am a 4 pointer. I hold to unlimited atonement. That allows me to say a few things that a 5 pter can't say.

"Nevertheless, a few areas where I have questions or would like to add something are in order."

Fair enough.

"In your above statement, I find that I have no problem disagreeing with you as election is not mentioned or indicated."

No problem DIS agreeing? Or no problem agreing? Either way the reason election is not mentioned at this point is because I don't hold to doouble predestination. I don't hold that God fore-ordains people to Hell.

"Concerning Christ?s punishment, his death was sacrificial. He bore the punishment of those that le loved. To say that Christ was punished infers that he sinned. My main point was that he did not?"

Actually to say that Christ was punished is only to say that SOMEONE sinned. It does not necessarily mean that the person punished was the actual guilty party. Remember that Christ's sacrifice is prefigured in the OT by the sacrificial Lamb without blemish (See Is. 53 for example although the idea of sacrificial lamb occurs in several contexts). That Christ was to be sacrificed is evident in the words of john the Baptist "behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world".

But as I said, it does imply that someone sinned. That someone is us. Jesus bore OUR sin, was puinished for OUR sin on the Cross. 2Co. 5:21: "God made Him who knew no sin to be sin FOR US, so that in him we might bcome the righteousness of God." That's why we call Christ's death a substituionary atonement. He was our substitute, bearing our punishment. He didn;t do the crime but he "did the time" for us. Someone had to do the time after all, or there would be no punishment for sin at all. And that cannot be said to be just.

The logic of Christ bearing our sins to satisfy the wrath of the Father is summed up very well by Piper: The wisdom of God found a way for the love of God to satisfy the wrath of God without compromising the justice of God. Or words to that effect.

"I am not complaining about God?s grace, I complain bitterly concerning this so called irresistible grace that is never mentioned in the bible and is not of God.. And it is not grace because it saves some. It is grace because it is representative of God?s agape love for every single individual that he ever created. A love that seeks the wellbeing of others rather than seeks its own. God?s love, God?s grace is avai8liable to all men equally. To turn it into a grace that condemns as well as save is wrong. Men do not go to hell because God did not offer them grace, "NO"; they go to hell because they refused to embrace it."

Christ Jesus is an exampe of God's agape love for all people. But to say that God is not just because his grace would only save some is to lead you towards universal salvation. But I believe that Jesus' work is an example of God's general call, his way of showing the whole world His love. Equally. But the reality is that, as John pout it, "He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him the world did not recognise Him. He came to that which was His own, but His own did not receive Him." (jn. 1:10,11) "This is hte verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light becuase ther deeds were evil." (Jn. 3:19) So although th elove of God was shown to all equally, all people equally reject it, becuase they love darkness and their deeds are evil.

It is becuase of this love for darkness that God uses an effectual call, one aimed at specific individuals, over and above the general call (and there are many examples of such in the Gospels) whch pierces that darkness such that people can respond to the Gospel positively and find themselves born of God. The choice of God to send that effectual call to some is election. Election then is an act of grace to allow people to respond to the gospel in a way other than that which tey ar naturally inclined to: rejection.

Now you may say that this makes God a respecter of persons. It does not. God sent Jesus for the whole world. He showed His love to the whole world. So His agape love is not restricted only to some. Everyone got the same sacrifice for sins. And the fact is that God is not a respecter of persons for the simpe fact that the basisfor aplying the atonement to a given person has nothing to do with that person. That is what it means to be a respecter of persons; to choose one person over another because of something in that person which one arbitrarily decides is of value. But there is nothing in any of us that makes us intrinsically more worthy than any other person. So the choice that God makes is not based on anything in us but everything in Him. So God is not a repecter of persons.

"I say that God reaches/touches all men persuasively enough to offer a genuine call to salvation."

I believe also that the invitation to faith is genuine. But the fact is that apart from an effectual call ALL would reject the gospel. Think about it: nothing has changed in us (humans) just because Christ died and was raised. Nothing. If we rejected Him once such that he was condemned to the Cross, what makes you think that we would suddenly be inclined to rceive Him?

"They just do not all become Calvinists."

So long as the become Christians. God will sort out their errant theology eventually, even if only in the eschaton.

"When God reaches them, he will give them the opportunity to embrace faith and come to a saving knowledge of his grace."

That's called an effectual call.

"God offers the precious gift of salvation to everyone."

That's true. But again, no one would accept it apart from an efectual call.

"He has not chosen a single one, because there is not a single one worth choosing."

Right. But election is not based on us in any way. Did you actually think that election was God choosing one person over another bcuase of something in the person?

"So he opens the door and say?s, come."

Right. Effectual call.

"Refuse the invitation and you will go to hell."

Well, even if they'd never heard the invitation they'd go there. Refusing Christ doesn't send you anywhere you weren't going to begin with.

"You will not be efficaciously graced anymore than the next man."

That's not true.

"Salvational election is simply not true."

Yes it is. Maybe not the version you have in mind, but from what I read the version you have in mind is not Calvanist.

 

Well said, very well said.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

I wonder how much of the problem with accepting God's Word concerning the doctrine of election has to do with the difficulty we face when trying to teach unbelievers, and maybe even babes in Christ, about the doctrines of God's wonderful grace - in moving from milk into the meat of the Word. I find the following quote from Charles Spurgeon's exposition of Romans chapter 9 instructive when it comes to not giving in to the temptation to water down God's Word to make it more palatable to those we are trying to teach -

"You know that the modern way of meeting objections to Scripture is to
give up everything to the infidel, and then say that you have won him; but
the true Christian way is to give up nothing at all, and if the truth is
objectionable, to make it, if possible, still more objectionable, to turn the
very hardest side it has right in front of the face of man, and to say, 'This
is God’s truth; refuse it at your peril.' I believe that half the attempts to
win over unbelievers by toning down truth have simply been to the dishonoring
of the truth and the destruction of the doubter, and that it would
be always better to do as the apostle here does, — not to disavow the
truth, but to proclaim it as fully, and faithfully, and plainly as possible."

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ September 27, 2002, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

"Where have you been, finally we have a Calvinist that makes some sense. I am still studying your last post, preparing a response. If you are a real Calvinist, why have you not accused me of blasphemy or called me a heretic or something. You have not even taken the time to establish your superiority at interpreting the word of God. WHO ARE YOU??? Yet while I have someone that I can listen to, I would like to address your above comments.."

You're making me blush, dude!

Honestly, what I said about election is pretty well the standard Calvanist line so far as I know.

Accuse you of blasphemy? Give me grounds and I might do that. But you have not done so.

Establish my superiority? I have credentials and a degree. Beyond that I am a human being with all the attendant flaws and failings. IMO, having the degree just means I know enough to make bigger mistakes!

As for comments, fire away...

"When studying the word of God, it is a rule of mine to stick to what is logical, at least until I run into a scripture that tells me that logic is out the window pertaining to the issue at hand?"

Makes good sense.

"Concerning the word ?Choice?, I have learned and accepted the word to mean, to select something that has an appeal to us, be it physical, mental, pleasurable, or profitable. And I know that NEITHER a secular, nor a biblical definition disagrees with that assessment."

That may well be true for us. God however makes choices for less carnal reasons. He chooses according to His will and purpose, His character.

"It is my understanding that what is chosen must be found in the object of our choice. Let?s say, we chose an orange. Why. Because we like the way it taste. Now is the object of our desire found in us? No, it is found in the orange. I also know that the same word is used to indicate a choice that we make or a choice that God commands that we make. So let?s just start in familiar ground. Give me ?ONE? instance where we chose, yet do not chose between. One instance where we do not choose based on what is more or less appealing to something inside us...."

The key in election is grace vs merit. When I say that God chooses a person based on who God is in Himself, and not on something in us, what I am saying is that God's choice is based entirely on His own free agency. There is nothing in us that can, in any sense, lay a claim upon God to grant us grace to believe. God chooses us of His own free will, and not in response to something in us. So its about God's unfettered free agency in choosing that is at issue. This is otherwise known as God's sovereignty in election.

As for choosing vs, choosing between, the key is that God does not make comparisons. When he chooses a person for salvation, he does not do so relative to someone else, nor because that person has something God "wants" or "needs". God is after all totally sufficient in and of Himself. God's call is "in accordance with and on the basis of God's purpose" (Ro. 8:28).

How exactly does God choose withot choosing between? I'mnot sure I can explain it. All I can esay for sure is that Paul spends a lot fo effort in Ro. 9:6-29 explaining that belonging to God's spirtual people has never been about race or anything else we might think of . Paul there argues (a very scandaous thing to the jew!) that election has always been rooted in God's gracious and soverign cal, and nothing else. So God can narrow the boundaries by eelcting only some Jews (Ro. 9:6-13, and broadening the boundaries by electing some Gentiles to be saved (v. 24-26). In the words of NT Wright "what counts is grace, not race". The fact that the promise of blessing was spoken before either Jacob or Esau was born indicates that nothing within the boys ior anything they had done was the basis for choosing one or the other.

I guess what I am saying is that whilke we might make distinctionos based on preferences and that sort of thing, God does not.

"To say that God chose based on nothing in us, and everything in him is illogical; and indigenous to the word ?choice? is criteria that makes it impossible. Now we know that with God all things are possible. Yet, at a minimum; even with God in the equation, somebody has chosen the wrong word to describe what happened. For God to say that he will destroy with fire and brimstone precludes the possibility that he will use water.."

I don't think it is illogical. There is nothing in any one of us that makes us intrinsically more desirable. That's the point of Jacob and Esau. beofre they ewer anything, before they could do anything, one was chosen and the other not. So it is God's purpose in election that mattered, not anything in the individuals themselves.

"You say that God chose based on nothing in us, and everything in him. I say, in light of the definition of the word ?Choice? that it is impossible to do so."

Maybe for us. Not for God. He is not bound as we are. he is utterly free to choose where we are not. Fundamentally God looks at us all the same. remember what Paul says in Romans 3:22-24. There is no differnece between us since we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God. No differnence.

If I may point out, you have set up a circular system. You have made the only basis of choice something in the thing chosen. But I could do the opposite and base choice in the character and purpose of the person choosing.

What you need to do is establish, biblically, that God chooses according to somehting in us. Romans 9, whether you accept that Paul is speaking of individual salvation or not, suggests otherwise. it suggests that ther is nothing in the individual that makes a differnce to God.

Your premise then is flawed. You aid you knew of no definition of choice, biblical or otherwise, that contradicted your understanding. I submit that Roamsn 9 provides evidence of an error in your understadning of choice.

 

My point is: Is it fair for a father to punish a son for the wrongdoing of someone else's son? If your father punished you when your neighbor broke a window, would you consider that fair? Of course, not. As for Isa 53, are you suggesting that "the chastisement for our peace was upon him" is not referring to punishment?

First, on what passage of Scripture do you assert this to be true? Second, who here is denying that anyone may believe if they wish to? I certainly am not. As for respecting persons, I have already addressed that.

I agree with that. However, my point is more specific. When the Bible says that "God has chosen you to salvation," I do not have the option to say that God didn't choose to salvation. You apparently are plenty comfortable saying that. I am not. On these issues of election, the fact of it is painfully clear; the acceptance of it is not becuase of the desire on the part of some to reject it, with all good intentions to be sure. I simply cannot pretend the Bible doesn't say stuff like "God chose you to salvation," "God chose in us in him," "All that the Father gives will come/no one can come unless the father gives it to him," etc. These verses are too clear to simply wave away.

But God didn't choose to act in concert with man. I can't find that in Scripture. I suggest that if God does not do thing in the way he says he did, he has lost his integrity and thus is no longer God. I say that if God gives his sovereignty to man, he no longer has it. I do not say that God doesn't require a response from man. He does.

I simply think you have not yet dealt with the plainness of Scripture on some of these matters. As always, I appreciate your participation. My time is limited so I am answering quickly here. Please forgive any apparent shortness or rudeness. It is most certianly not intended.

[ September 28, 2002, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

G'day, Chappir, eh?

(Feeling very Canadian today for some reason...)

"The truth has its merits, yet I shall continue my endeavor not to give you cause."

Cool.

"Excellent. Yet credentials that deny that others may have credentials; to me represent the failure of credentials. I also have a problem with credentials that produce an air of superiority rather than one of humility. Yet, to this point, your credentials are fine."

Oh I could tell you stories about credentialling odies that would curl yor hair. In a lot of ways, the best credential is a sound argument.

"True, but I have absolutely no ability to apprehend a choice without criteria. His criteria in this instance would be that which suits his will (that which he wants) and that which suits his purpose. Criteria established. "

Fine, though we must proceed understanding that since his ways are not our ways, no his thoughts, our thoughts, that we ar ethe creation and nto the creator, we must tyake care. I suggest that we have as necessary postulates:

1) That we cannot say that God cannot do a thing becuase we cannot conceive of it. We must beware of projecting our limitations on God.

2) That if God's self-revelation says that God does a certain thing, even if we cannot see how we ourselves could ever do it. We must be open to having our ideas corrected.

3) That which suits His will and purpose need not be conditioned by anything intrisic to the individual.

The real question, IMO, is "what is God's will and purpose in election?".

"There is something in us that God can choose from: (even if God has to put it there) Nevertheless, there is nothing in us that has the ability to lay a lawful claim on God?s grace. Because of a lack of merit in us, God is not obligated to anything in us. He is free to choose without any obligation to us, free of any merit that warrants his choosing because of anything worthy to be chosen in us."

Exactly. If it were otherwise then God would not be givng frely but out of obligation. if it is out of obligation, then that can't be grace.
"Oh! he chooses according to something in us allright, (Faith) even if he has to put it in us. And becaue faith was in no man, no man was chosen over another."

Ok, with this I agree. When I was answring the question about Gode choosing one person over another, I was thiking on terms of someting inate, intrisic, to human beings. Given that there is nothing of that nature that causes God to a person, then God's choices are not predicated on something in us, but, as you say, something that God places in us.

"Man is absolutely without merit that is capable of binding God. God chose faith without respect to any man having it or not having it. No man could say, look; I have faith: Therefore you have to choose me. (God is not respecter of persons)"

Exactly.

"Do not reject the gift of faith, and there is something in you that God has chosen. He did not choose you; he chooses faith; yet it must be found in you."

And it isn't there unless God gives it.

"This should no longer be a point of contention, we should now be able to agree and move on to how it got there. Resistibly or irresistibly. Whatcha say?."

Sure!!

"Shucks dude, this is an ackward situation. I agree with most of what you have to say. Hope you know that i'm gonna have to give John (Calvin) a ring to see what he thinks about this situation."

To be honest I haven't read that much of the Institutes, and I have read only 2 Systematic Theology books. I consider my self a "biblical theologian" rather than a systematician, so I rely on exegeting individual texts in their contetxs, and worry about how it all fits together later. That way, I figure I minimise the chances of letig my theology determine my interpretation of a given text.

"Are you suggesting that God extended one call that had no posibility of working in the first place. Can we call it genuine seeing that it failed so miserably? God now sent out a call that is more potent that would work. If to God's first extension, absolutely no one responded, what as wrong with it.

Might I ask why????"

I don't know if I am saying that God extended a call that had no hope of working in the first place, if by that youmean that there is something wrong with the work of the Cross. After all, the effectual call and the general call are based on the same thing, the Cross. It's just that the general call can't cut through the basic problem; sinful people. The Cross provides atonement for our sin, but it does not, in itself effect any change in us. It provides the basis for a different relationship with God, a new life, and a new lifestyle. But it does not effect those things in itself.

The merits of Christ still have to be appropriated by faith. But since nothing in us changed from before the Cross, we have no reason to think that a person who, in the words of the hymn, "caused his pain.. who Him to death pursued", would do anything differently if they had it to do over again.

The main differnece between a general and effectual call lies in the work of the Holy Spirit, to cut trough the garbage in us that we can't cut through alone, to grant us faith, and enable us to respond to God. So the problem isn't with the general call per se but with the people responding to it. God would accept anyone who responded to the general call, no question. The call is genuine and effective for anyone who responds appropriately. (Genuineness isn't predicated on the response an offer gets, but on the sincerity of the person making the offer. And God is certainly that.) But apart from an effectual call, no one does.

The effectual call

 

What is not being taken into account in this discussion on election is that the issue of man's status after the Fall is not being taken into account. The apostle Paul stated that man is dead in trepasses and sins. Christ Jesus stated that no man can come to Him unless he is enabled to do so by God the Father and all of those that are enabled by God the Father will be raised to eternal life.

So until, and unless, the Biblical doctrine of man's inability is refuted, any attempt to refute the Biblical doctrine of unconditional election is pointless.

Unless the non-Calvinist can defeat the "T", it is pointless for him to argue against the "U", the "L", the "I", and the "P".

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ September 28, 2002, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

In the Luke 18 parable of the unrighteous judge - it is not "unjust mercy" that is sought - but rather - "justice". And What is Christ's conclusion? Is it --
"If I give you justice all the saints will die"?

Is it - "so you see - unjust mercy is the only hope"??

In Luke 18 - Christ settles it - "Shall not God bring about JUSTICE FOR HIS ELECT who CRY TO HIM day and night??".

In Daniel 7 it is "Judgement passed IN FAVOR of the saints" that ends their torment.

Just And Mercy - INSTEAD of unjust Mercy, from the God who "So loves the World", who is "Not willing for ANY to Perish" who "IS the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT our sins only but for those of the WHOLE WORLD".

And although - the Calvinist must claim "ALL are going to heaven", we know he really means "the arbitrarily select Few".

In Christ,

Bob.

[ September 28, 2002, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]