The doctrine of reconciliation is one which is understood generally by studied believers; however, there is considerable debate about the specifics of exactly what it means. The word itself simply means to completely change the position of something. In this case, it means to completely change everything to bring it into a position where God is propitiated, satisfied that His will is being done.

What does God mean when He says, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (II Cor. 5:19)? There are several acceptible views on this matter; which do not contain the idea that God reconciling the world must include the salvation of all lost people.

FIRST, there are those theologians who say that “the world” here does not mean every person in the world, but some people from all over the world, some from “all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues” (Revelation 7:9). This view is consistent with other scriptures. For instance, the Bible says that Paul’s ministry would result in an “obedience to the faith among all nations, for His name” (Romans 1:5). This view that some people from all over the world would be obedient to the faith is also consistent with scriptures which use “the world” to refer to a group of people from the world, but not every person in the world.

For example, when the Bible says, “Ye shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15), who believes that this means that every person in the world is able to see our light (testimony)? Or, when Jesus said that the “gospel shall be preached in the whole world” (Matt. 26:13), who believes that He meant that every person in the world will hear the gospel? And, when the Bible says that “the gospel is come unto you as it is in all the world, and bringeth forth fruit” (Col. 1:6), surely Paul does not mean every person in all the world received the gospel and was now bringing forth fruit—at the very most, he could have meant that some people throughout the Roman world had received the gospel.

So, II Cor. 5:19, according to this view, does not have to mean that all lost people are going to be saved, and “the world” does not mean every person in the world.

SECOND, some theologians teach that there is a reconciliation of the entire world of man, but that that aspect of reconciliation saves no one. This view teaches that reconciliation is in two parts: 1.) a general part that changes the world to a position in which God could save those that believe, something which was an utter impossiblility unless Jesus died for the sins of the world; and, 2.) a specific part that comes to fruition at the time that a sinner believes, and his position is then changed from condemnation to salvation.

This second view seems to have been the teaching of L.S. Chafer. In his SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, VOL. III, Soteriology, he says, “The two aspects of reconciliation are best disclosed in II Corinthians 5:19-20. In verse 19, it is declared that the world (cosmos, which term is never by any stretch of exegesis made to represent the elect who are saved out of it) is reconciled to God.”

Chafer refers to the first aspect of reconciliation as “general reconciliation,” and to the second aspect as “specific” or “individual.” He says, “There are two aspects of reconciliation: one wrought for all by God in His love for the world and the other wrought in the individual who believes when he believes.”

Chafer explains the problem that arises: “It is assumed, thus, that general reconciliation is equivalent to general salvation. To avoid such a conclusion, it is asserted [by Chafer] that Christ died for only the elect.”

He continues, “It is evident, then, that whatever complete change is indicated for the cosmos, according to verse 19, it is not equivalent to the saving of anyone—elect or non-elect; [but] it has made the reconciliation of verse 20, which IS equivalent to salvation possible. . . .”

Chafer is saying that reconciliation is two fold, had two aspects. The first, a reconciling of the world is found in verse 19. And, the second, a reconciling of the individual believer, is found in verse 20. The first, being a general reconciling of the world, saves no one.

In chapter X, titled “For Whom Did Christ Die?” Chafer comes back to the subject of reconciliation and to II Cor. 5:19-20: “According to II Corinthians 5:19 there is a reconciliation declared to be world-wide and wrought wholly of God; yet in the verse which follows in the context it is indicated that the individual sinner has the responsibility, in addition to the universal reconciliation wrought of God to be reconciled himself to God. . . . The desideratum is not reached. . .until the individual, already included in the world’s reconciliation, is himself satisfied with that same work of Christ which has satisfied God as the solution of his own sin question. Thus there is a reconciliation which of itself saves no one, but which is a basis for the reconciliation of any and all who will believe. When they believe, they are reconciled experimentally and eternally, and become the children of God through the riches of His grace.”

According to this view of the meaning of “world,” only those who have faith in Christ are saved. Unbelievers are not truly reconciled.

THIRD, there is the view that “world” in II Corinthians 5:19-20 simply means that both Jews and Gentiles are being reconciled. Some people, especially Jews, would divide the entire world into these two groups. In this case, it is not every individual in the world who is reconciled to God, but some individuals from among both Jews and Gentiles. It is a way of saying that the Gentiles are not left out.

This view is certainly consistent with Ephesians 2:11-22. In that passage, Paul is writing to “Gentiles in the flesh. . .aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants. . .” (verses 11-12).

In the Church, the Jews and the “far off” (the Gentiles) are both reconciled, “made nigh by the blood of Christ” (verse 13). Christ has made “both one” (verse 14), both Jews and Gentiles being reconciled to God. Christ has made “one new man” (verse 15), which is the Church. Paul says that God has made this “one new man” (the Church) so that “He might reconcile both (Jew and Gentile) unto God in one body” (verse 16). In so doing, Christ made it possible for all men to have peace with God, both those who were “far off” (Gentiles) and those who were “nigh” (Jews) (verse 17).

In other words, the death of Christ placed the whole world, both Jew and Gentile, in a new position (reconciled), making it possible for sinners to be saved. Mankind and the entire universe was completely changed in position. This is reconciliation. But it did not automatically save anyone. As Chafer says, “The reconciliation of the world does not obviate the reconciliation of the individual” [SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY; VOL. III; p. 237].

To summarize this view, “God. . .reconciling the world unto himself” (II Cor. 5:19) means that Christ died and thus created the Church “that He might reconcile both (Jew and Gentile) in one body” (Eph. 2:16).

While each of the three above views of the world and of reconciliation has some elements to commend it, I do not hold to all that is taught by any of them. There is, I believe, an even better position. A fourth view is held by quite a few students of the Bible, myself included. It is the view that when Christ died, He guaranteed that the entire universe, both the world of men and the natural world, would one day be reconciled to God. It is also the view that reconciliation does not equal salvation. Reconciliation simply means that the position of all men and of everything in the natural world, the spirit world, and all else will be completely changed, so that everything will be brought into agreement with the will and purpose of God.

When all the people of God are in eternal bliss, when there is a new heaven and a new earth, when the curse of God is removed from creation, when the wicked are in the Lake of Fire, when the evil angels are in Tartarus, when Satan, the anti-Christ, and the false prophet are cast into Ghehena, and the lid has been put on the “garbage can,” then, and only then, will the universe be reconciled to God. Then, and only then, will “all things” be according to God’s will and purpose.

There is nothing in the Bible doctrine of reconciliation to suggest that every person in the world will be saved from sin, go to heaven, or have eternal fellowship with God.

Colossians 1:20-23 is the most complete treatment in Scripture of the subject of reconciliation:

VERSE 20: “And having made peace through the blood of his cross [and man can have peace with God only by being justified through faith in Jesus Who shed His blood on the cross. See Romans 5:1] by him to reconcile all things [all things, not just all people. "Things" is not in the Greek text, But, "all" ("pas") is, and the meaning of that word is "the whole." The context is that of all of creation. So, the translators have it right as "all things."] unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth or in heaven.”

Note: Some people, like J. Vernon McGee, point out that the above verse says things will be reconciled on earth and in heaven, but no mention is made of those under the earth, in Hell. This is pointed out because it is believed that reconciliation equals salvation and the fact that Hell is not mentioned might give some evidence against Universalism. However, the “all things” of verse 20 are the same “all things” that are found in verse 16 (three times), verse 17 (twice), and verse 18 (once), and the “all things” seems to be inclusive of all that God created.

The fact that “all things,” and not just all people, will be reconciled proves that reconciliation does not equal salvation. “All things” do not get saved. Only people can get saved, not the natural creation, nor even the angels.

Furthermore, Phil. 2:10-11 makes it clear that the time is coming “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”

Those words give us a very fine description of how “all things” are going to be reconciled to God, even those beings which are “under the earth,” in Hell. But it does not say that any get out of Hell after they bow their knees in Hell and admit that Jesus is Lord. They do not get out of Hell, because reconciliation does not equal salvation.

Paul continues in Col. 1:21: “And you [Christians], that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.”

That means that Christians have the position in Christ of having been completely changed (reconciled). Our experience is not yet that of being completely changed and being in complete conformilty to the will and purpose of God. Our practice falls far short of being reconciled. But, our position IN CHRIST is that of being reconciled. “In his sight” (v. 22) we are reconciled.

VERSE 22 gives us God’s definition of our personal individual reconciliation. God counts us to be just as we will be in that day when Christ presents us in heaven. That is our position. Paul says that we are reconciled “now” “In the body of his flesh [i.e., in Christ] through death [accomplished by His death] to present you [here comes the definition of our reconciliation] holy and unbameable and unreprovable in his sight.” (v. 22)

So, we conclude that reconciliation does not mean salvation. That is not the definition. Rather, it means to have a position completely changed. Bible reconciliation means that everything and everybody will be put in a position that glorifies God, that fulfills the will and purpose of God. For the Christian, this means being holy, unblameable, and unreprovable in His sight.

(2) He is mean spirited. He threatens those who dare differ with him. He blames everything on Geo Bush, which is unprecedented behavior for a sitting president. Meanwhile, Geo Bush is a decent human being, never criticizing Obama at all. This is a matter of principal with Bush. Yet, Obama continues to bash Bush. He learned this meanness in Chicago where the politicians are used to running things like a mob would do, giving offers no one can refuse and breaking the knee caps of any who voice a contrary opinion. Why do Americans think that he is a good speaker?

(3) He can not think on his feet. That is why almost everything he says is read from a teleprompter. It gets to be a joke. The other day he was speaking to an elementary school class and he had to have his teleprompter there. When he gets out of touch with his handlers, or if they forget to tell him to avoid certain obvious mistakes, he stumbles badly and makes horrific mistakes. An example is what he did the day of the shooting at Ft Hood, when 13 of our men in uniform were killed by an Islamic terrorist. The announcement was made that the president will make a statement, and when He came to the podium he spent the first 5 minutes giving “shout outs” and talking about mundane things. Guess his handlers forgot to tell him that this statement has a singular and solemn purpose and that he should only offer condolences to the families of the dead, comfort the wounded, promise to bring Justice, and assure the nation that due vigilance was being taken. This error was due to immaturity, a lack of gravitas, and a lack of common sense. The result was that our war dead were treated with disrespect and the incident was treated with less importance than it deserved.

(4) He talks in a monotone. Not only does he think that it is an effective way to speak if he talks as if he is mad all the time (which of itself leads to a monotone), he also “lectures” his audience and talks down to them in a most arrogant manner. This is very tiring. No matter what subject he is discussing, his voice is on the same pitch, same cadence, same speed, and same drop in volume on the last word of each sentence.

I think the president has an undeserved reputation as a great speaker simply because he reads the teleprompter accurately. He obviously thinks that he is a great speaker and that his talking can fix anything, so he tries to make a speech every day. I hope the American people will come to realize that it is not “great swelling words” that make an effective speaker but measured and sincere words matched by appropriate deeds. T. Roosevelt talked softly and carried a big stick. Obama talks and talks and talks loudly and carries no stick at all.

Why is Social Security a failure? First, because, if, at age 66, you had all of the money you paid to SS, plus interest, you would have far more than the average person ever collects from SS. And, you would still have enough money left over to purchase an annuity to give you a SS-like income after your savings is expired.

Secondly, remember, that you now pay 12.4% of your income to SS. That is equivalent to paying to SS one full year’s salary out of every eight. If a worker’s wages are less than $106,800.00 per year, and he works from age 20 through age 67, SS will take the equivalent of 100% of that worker’s wages for seven of those years. Imagine that! Seven years labor to pay for Social Security. Most people never draw out of SS the amount they paid, plus interest. Those who die before age 62 get nothing back from SS except $200 toward their funeral. Most men are dead before age 70. Those who die at age 70 will have received less than $100k on average. Women tend to live longer, but their average monthly payments from SS are less than what men receive.

Thirdly, there have been many cuts in SS, contrary to what politicians would have us believe. Survivor benefits have been cut. Full retirement age has been raised. Eighty percent of benefits are now taxed by the Federal government and by some State governments. Cost of living payments have been suspended for at least the next two years. These are all cuts. Politicians do not want to admit that these are cuts because anyone favoring cuts in SS would not be reelected. So, they have brought these cuts in through the back door.

And finally, SS is broke. No surprise, with all of the government abuse of this program. If the President and congress cared as much about our seniors as they do about the irresponsible big banks, the radical false environmentalists, and the greedy automobile labor union executives, they would find money to rescue SS and medicare.

Government’s mishandling of SS and medicare is typical of the ineptitude and inefficiency of any government bureaucracy. It would not be any different with government run health insurance.

If the SS taxes had been saved and invested instead of raided and spent, how much better it would have been. Through the magic of compounding, the money paid into the system, over the 45-50 years of the average beneficiary’s working career, would have been so great that SS would be solvent, and no one would have found a reason to make cuts.

As it stands today, SS is certainly an example of poor goverment planning and poor government management. Government management of our health care would be even worse. It would be a disaster.

Medicare is a similar example of mismanagement. It is unfair to medical providers, approving only a fraction of the cost of treatments and diagnostics. The result is that medicare patients and the taxpayers are the losers.

How are patients the losers?

1. Patients may have trouble finding a doctor. Doctors, and other providers, are losing money on medicare patients. Therefore, some doctors will not take any more medicare patients. Probably all doctors will keep all of their patients who turn 65 and go on medicare. But, if the patient moves, or for any other reason, is looking for a new doctor, he may not be able to find one
2. Medicare patients may not be able to go to the doctor of their choice. They can only go to a doctor who will agree to take them as patients.
3. Medicare patients may not be able to get the tests, treatments, or surgeries that their doctor says they need. Medicare decides what procedures it will cover. Of course, private insurance companies also decide what procedures they will pay for, but these decisions must be according to the policy, and the patient can shop for the best policy. The medicare patient does not have that option.
4. There is another way that medicare patients and all tax payers are the losers. When hospitals and other providers are forced to take less than the procedures cost, the real high cost is passed on to other insured patients, and, in the case of public hospitals, to the tax payers. This, in turn, drives up the premiums on all private health insurance. This premium busting cost is often overlooked. Indeed, the liberals are now using the cost of health insurance as an excuse for a “government option.” This is ironic because the Federal government is one of the biggest reasons for the high cost of private insurance.
   

And now, Mr. Obama is saying that he plans on helping to pay for government health insurance for all Americans by taking the “waste” out of medicare, five hundred billion dollars of “waste.” By “waste,” he means those “unnecessary tests and procedures” that our doctors think we need to keep us alive and keep us walking. Obama and the liberals in Congress do not believe that seniors are worth the expense to the medicare system (which the seniors bought and paid for). To Obama, it is a “waste” to keep these old, non-productive people alive.

The Federal government is breaking faith with its seniors. Social Security and medicare are “bait and switch” programs because the rules have been changed in the middle of the game. These programs are not what seniors thought they would be, and not what seniors were told that they would be at the time that those seniors were forced into them.

These programs are no longer what seniors paid for. America is indeed turning its back on its seniors.

Now the liberals want the government to take over the entire health care insurance business and the entire health industry. Those liberals want a government panel to decide health care standards and treatments for the various “classes” of people. They want the government to have power to hand out penalties to individuals, employers, insurance companies, and providers that do not do as government wants. They want a Federal Health and Insurance Commissioner with enormous, unimaginable power.

If it becomes a reality, the “government option” and government health care program will be a bigger failure than Social Security and medicare combined.  (9/23/09)

“FACT #1:  Medicare will not be ended, and no benefits or services will be cut.”

My Response:  There is no final bill as yet.  It is still a work in progress, and no one knows exactly what will be in it.  So, neither AARP nor anyone else knows if Medicare will be ended or cut.  What some members of congress have suggested, however, is that there should be a new federal health insurance and that people presently receiving Medicare should be shunted into that new program.  The idea is that all of the problems with Medicare could thus be solved.  In that case Medicare would end.  The real question is:  Will America break faith with its Seniors?  After all, Seniors bought and paid for Medicare.  Will there now be a “bait and switch?”  Medicare should be looked upon as a form of annuity, a financial instrument that is bought before the time of need.  If seniors had not been forced to buy Medicare, they might have had money to buy some other plan.  There have already been many cuts in both Medicare and Social Security, and there are many in Congress who want to make more cuts in benefits.

“FACT #2: No legislation currently in Congress would mandate the rationing of care.  Period.”

My response: Of course there isn’t.  Why would anyone in Congress write that into a bill?  The real question is:  Will rationing be the logical consequence of national health insurance?  The answer is, YES.  Under a national health insurance program, providers (Doctors and hospitals) would be told that the pay schedule for various procedures will be so much, about 1/3 of what the providers are now charging.  The consequence of the government’s pay schedule will be that in the future there will be fewer and fewer providers, and far fewer QUALITY providers.  You ask, “How do you know that the government program will pay far less than Doctors now paid?”  Answer: Because that is what has happened with Medicare.  The result of having fewer providers will be rationing of health care.  It is inevitable.   In every socialist country, this is what has happened!  Nationalized care leads to a cut in remuneration for providers, and that leads to rationing.

“FACT #3:  There is no provision of (sic) any piece of legislation that would promote euthanasia of any kind.”

My response: No.  It would take a real idiot of a Congressman to write something like that into a proposed bill, provided, of course, that he wanted it to pass.  The real question is:  Will the inevitable rationing of health care result in the government refusing to pay for procedures that might keep seniors alive?  Some in the Administration and in Congress are on record as being in favor of turning down care for old people when the money and resources are needed for young people.  These are the horrible realities of health care rationing.  Rationing can best be avoided by letting the free market system work, resulting in both young and old alike receiving the care they need.

“FACT #4:  We have not endorsed President Obama’s plan.”

My response:  Words are tricky, sometimes.  Endorsed? How about promoted?  Obama does not have a plan yet.  But is AARP pushing for a nationalized health care insurance program?  Yes.  And does Obama have AARP “in the tank” for a nationalized health insurance program?  Yes.  In fact, the President said as much yesterday.  The AARP leadership and Board does not speak for a majority of it’s membership on this.  That is why AARP is speaking out of both sides of it’s mouth on this issue.

FACT #5: “So what is AARP fighting for in health reform?  1. Stopping insurance companies from charging older Americans unaffordable premiums because of their age.  2.  Ending the practice of excluding people from insurance because of pre-existing conditions.  3.  Holding down health costs and making insurance coverage more affordable for all Americans.  4.  Making prescription drugs more affordable by narrowing the Medicare doughnut hole, bringing generics to market faster, and allowing Medicare to negotiate better drug prices.”

My response:  Comprehensive nationalized health care is not needed in order to achieve  these worthy goals.  These are worthwhile goals.  And you could add, 5. Give financial incentives to medical schools and prospective new doctors.   6.  Kick some of the illegal borderjumpers out of our country, because they are bleeding the health care system dry.  7.  Fix the tort system.   It should also be added that the 4th item above has already been achieved through the cooperation of the drug companies who are going to narrow the doughnut hole by making drugs cheaper for those who reach the $2,700 limit.  The other goals mentioned here could be reached with out having a nationalized health care system.  We do not need a government takeover of the health and insurance industries.

Peter’s Great Confession

What should I do now? Some would say that I should speak of Mr. Obama only with distain and contempt. Some of his antagonists will say that we should disrespect him, speak evil of him, and oppose him at every turn no matter what suggestion or goal he might put forth. Well, there is something to be said for being the “loyal opposition.” We should oppose wrong-headed politics. So, I will lend whatever influence I might have to defeat any socialistic idea, any idea that will give our tax dollars to shabbily run banks and companies that cannot compete in our free market system, any idea that will weaken the U.S. military and make it too lean to protect my children and grandchildren from U.S. hating aggressive nations and terrorists. Yes, I will write, speak, and teach to oppose any policy of President Obama and our liberal congress when that policy will result in harm to our country.

But, I do owe something to President Obama. He will be my President, the President of our country, the greatest country on earth. He will be the number one representative of our country where ever he goes in this world. He was elected by the people of my America, a place I greatly love. President Obama will be to me like the U.S. flag, a symbol of the freedom ideals that made America the great country that she is.

I owe President Obama my prayers. I have always prayed for our Presidents, the ones I voted for and the ones I didn’t. Come to think of it, if I didn’t vote for a man who becomes President, maybe I should pray more for him than for a President for whom I did vote. President Bush has often told individuals with whom he spoke that he appreciates the prayers that have gone up for him. Sometimes he has said this with tears on his face. I think that President Obama will appreciate the prayers of our citizens, too. But whether he does or not, I will still pray for him, because I am not praying to make him feel better. I am praying for him because he needs our prayers. I am praying for him because without God’s blessing there will be shame, weakness, failure, dishonor and defeat for our country.

The Apostle Paul wrote, “I exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men; for kings and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (I Tim. 2:1-2).

President Obama will hold great authority. He will be the most powerful man in the world. Therefore, we are commanded, as Christians, to pray for him. We must remember that “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will” (Proverbs 21:1). God is able to change Mr. Obama’s mind. God is able to cause our new President to rule in a way that will surprise everyone; even Obama himself may be surprised to find that he makes decisions that are very conservative, capitalistic, and cautious.

So, I will pray that Mr. Obama will come under the influence of people who are pro-life, people who favor a strong military, people who believe strongly in the private ownership of property, people who believe in the right to make a profit, and people who believe that workers should be able to keep what they earn.

I will pray that Mr. Obama will set a good example in his life style, and that he and his administration will be free from scandal.

I will pray that he will make good decisions, that he will make good appointments, and that he will reject extreme internationalism.

Mr. Obama could be a good President, but if he is, it will be because Christian people pray for him, and because he listens to the voice of God. I owe it to him to pray for him.

I also owe it to Mr. Obama to respect him. He will hold our nation’s highest office. He was elected by the American people. To treat him with contempt would be to disrespect my country and the process that brought him to that high office.

The Apostle Paul wrote, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. . . honor the king” (I Peter 2:13-17).

When Mr. Clinton was President, I strongly disagreed with his life style. He was a fornicator, a liar, and a licentious man, and all of this in the Oval Office. However, I was careful in what I said about the President. I did not rail against him. I did not call him disrespectful names. In the pulpit and in the classroom, I was careful to speak of him as our President, with honor. Why did I speak of Mr. Clinton with such reverence? Because the Bible says that we should honor our governmental leaders. Not the ones we like, only. Not the ones with which we agree, only. No, we must honor all who hold the office, because God says so.

This does not mean that we cannot disagree and say so. It does not mean that we can not criticize bad decisions. If the President promotes a bad policy, we ought to stand against that policy. But we should still respect the President for the office he holds. We should not call him bad names or heap scorn upon his head.

God brought Mr. Obama to the presidency. We do not know why. Some have said that we get the kind if leaders that we deserve. That was certainly true when Israel got Saul as her king. But be that as it may, it is after all, God Who placed Mr. Obama in office. God could have prevented Mr. Obama from winning the election, but He didn’t. So, we must recognize God’s choice and be respectful of God’s choice.

Paul wrote, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher power. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Romans 13:1-2).

Paul goes on to say that our rulers are ministers of God to us (v. 4); we should be subject not only for wrath sake, but also for conscience sake (v. 5); and therefore we should render fear (reverence) to whom fear is due, and honor to whom honor is due (v. 7).

I wish President Obama well. I pray that he will be in good health. I pray that his wife and family will be safe and peaceful. I pray that he will have a wisdom that could come only from God. I pray that he will gather to himself advisors who are sensible. I pray that he will quickly develop a maturity that is beyond his years and experience. I pray that his faith will be in the Lord (as he professes it is). And I pray that he will be a far better President than his critics have predicted. And, I am one arch conservative right winger who will respect Mr. Obama as my President no matter how things turn out.

 


Top row: Our ship, the Carnival Imagination / Boys on Grand Cayman Island

Second row: Sam & Brady with their “wooden friend” / Holding a turtle at the Turtle Farm

Third row: Hanging out on the deck / Mini-golf on top deck–look out Tiger Woods!

Fourth row: The steward left us a pet / Breakfast on the deck tastes better!

Fifth row: Brady enjoys the long, blue slide / Sam & Brady both thought the yellow slide was awesome!

Sixth row: Sam is dressed for dinner / Brady really liked his fresh fruit cocktails

Last row: Our waiters were so good to us / Karen, Brady, Lloyd, and Sam on formal night in the dining room