Category: Doctrine

I Was Thirsty

God is omniscient; He knows everything about everything; His understanding is infinite. (Ps 147:5) He knows about all of reality, what has been, what is and what will be (Is 46:10), and He also fully understands every possible variation of reality, even things that will never actually happen. (Mt 11:21) Yet does this mean God actually experiences everything? Can God know something perfectly without personally experiencing it?

Since God cannot be tempted with evil (Ja 1:13), it must be that we experience reality differently than God experiences it; God knows with perfectly infinite understanding and awareness exactly how we feel and experience these sinful tendencies without Himself experiencing them. In other words, God knows what it’s like to sin without ever having sinned. (He 4:15)

So, yes, God doesn’t need to personally experience anything in order to fully comprehend all of its detail. Yet this doesn’t mean God is aloof from human experience, that He doesn’t engage intimately with His creation. Evidently, this is especially true of innocent suffering; He so identifies with His elect that He suffers in and with us. (Mt 25:35-36) While He allows pain and suffering in His children, it is not without personal sacrifice: God is willing to enter into our suffering Himself, and actually does so, being one with us. (Co 1:24)

While nothing exists apart from God (Co 1:17), and while all being and activity is of God and by God (1Co 8:6), it is incorrect to say God is any created thing, or that any created thing is God, or even part of God’s divine essence or being. (Panentheism) It is also evidently incorrect to say God is in (in the sense of inhabiting or indwelling) anything physical other than His earthly temple (Ha 2:20) and the bodies of the saints. (1Co 6:19)

While God is ultimately sovereign, controlling all things (Da :35), He is entirely distinct from the entire physical universe and independent of it. He forbids identifying Himself with any particular aspect of His material creation (Ex 20:4) other than His bride: the church. (Ep 5:30)

articles   ♦   blog

Let Us Reason

To read between the lines is to look carefully at what is written in order to infer truths which are not explicitly stated. We call this reasoning, and God invites to use it as we seek Him (Is 1:18), employing logic to expand from what is explicitly revealed to see what some might consider hidden, yet if one is paying attention and thinking deeply it becomes obvious.

To illustrate, the arrow in the FedEx logo may not be apparent until someone points it out; but once you see it you can’t stop seeing it. The arrow isn’t exactly hidden, but it isn’t exactly there either.

To see it you must look between the E and x at the resulting white space connecting them, which is really nothing by itself: the mere juxtaposition of the letters reveals a shape implied by what surrounds it, and this insight enhances the logo, making an impression which creates additional value.

There are many truths like this in Scripture; what is explicitly stated in the text often implies priceless truths which remain unwritten. We may consider what is unspoken, which we might think ought to have been spoken, or which is certainly implied by what is stated, to learn more about God and His ways.

For example, when Paul is meditating in De 25:4, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn“, he infers a principle for supporting Christian workers. (1Co 9:9-10) Paul reasons from the general context of scripture that God isn’t particularly concerned about the feelings of an ox, so He must be providing a general instruction in how we’re to treat those called serve in ways which make it difficult for them to earn a living in the traditional sense.

We often see this kind of reasoning explicitly stated in Scripture with the phrase how much more; when God shows us how to address the relatively unimportant, He expects us to reason similarly about more important yet related concerns. For example, if the saints shall judge angels, how much more are they qualified to judge temporal matters? (1Co 6:3) If we expect earthly parents to care for their children, how much more should we expect God to care for us? (Mt 7:11) If animal sacrifices sanctify the physical man, how much more shall the blood of Christ sanctify the spiritual man? (He 9:13-14)

We should certainly be careful when looking at the white spaces in scripture, but they’re indeed present and we should be on the lookout for them, meditating both on what’s explicitly written and prayerfully considering what’s implied.

articles   ♦   blog

The Acknowledging

Sharing our spiritual insights with other believers is central to our calling in the church of God; it’s the primary way we edify one another. This is the communication of our faith (Phm 6), how we impart our experience in God to others who are pursuing Him. (2Ti 2:2)

As we explore our own hearts and souls for faith gems to impart to others, we’re searching out and acknowledging every good thing which is within us in Christ, identifying and cultivating the Christ-life within. (Phm 6) But notice how God puts it: “that the communication of thy (s.) faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you (pl.) in Christ Jesus.” We each share our individual faith walk in Christ with others effectively by becoming aware of and appreciating the Person of Christ, not only within ourselves, but also within those with whom we’re sharing.

In other words, as we testify of the faithfulness and character of God as we experience Him in our lives, we’re identifying the works of Christ within us as He works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure. (Php 2:13) At the same time, the Christ within us is reaching out to the Christ within others, calling forth the divine nature within each one to edify, exhort, encourage, refresh, strengthen and nourish the souls of the saints. (Phm 7)

This perspective gives us both a sobering realization that in our testimony we are expressing the eternal Christ Himself to others (1Pe 4:11), and also a confident expectation and hope that our brothers and sisters will be quickened and blessed in our sharing.

articles   ♦   blog

Guilty Before God

Guilt is the fact of having committed a breach of conduct, an offense or crime, which may produce a wide variety of feelings.

If the offense involves a righteous law and one regrets breaking it, guilt may bring a feeling of deserving blame for moral failure, remorse for making an immoral choice. We also call this feeling, guilt.

If a severe punishment is imposed for an offense, guilt may bring dread or even terror. If we expect willful moral failure to draw disdain and rejection from others, we call it shame.

If the offender feels the violated statute is unjust or inappropriate, or if they disdain moral obligations altogether, they may be defiant in their guilt, resolutely committed to violating the establishment. (Re 16:10-11)

If the offender feels they’re not guilty due to a flawed judicial process, they may feel frustrated, resentful, angry or bitter.

If the punishment is trivial and the offender isn’t inconvenienced, they may not feel much of anything.

Eventually, every human being will be found guilty before God (Ro 3:19); what we each feel in that Day may be unique, but it won’t change the fact of our guilt: we will all be found guilty because we all are guilty.

What should we feel when we’re found guilty before God?

Well, since God’s judicial process is perfect (Is 9:7), His law is just (Ro 7:12), and since violating it is evidence of moral failure (Ps 119:118), we should admit we’re deserving of blame — because we are (Pr 20:9); God would not find us guilty otherwise. (Ro 3:4)

This is the first step in drawing near to God: submit to His right to rule over us (Ps 81:15), and agree with His assessment of us. (Ro 3:10) To do otherwise is to lie to ourselves and to God, and also to call God Himself a liar. (1Jn 1:10)

We should also regret that we’re guilty, not simply that we’ve been found guilty; we should feel genuinely sorry we’ve been disobedient to God, acknowledge we’re at His mercy (Lk 18:13), and look to Him to deliver us from our own sinful nature. (Ro 7:24-25) Ultimately, there is no excuse for moral failure (Ro 1:20); we should never disobey Him willfully, but be committed to obeying Him as well as we can.

As concerning the penalty for sin, for the consequences God will impose for our guilt, it’s sort of a “pay Me now or pay Me later” kind of proposal (Ga 6:7); one way or another, there will be consequences for our behavior. (Re 2:23b)

If we’re willing to own up to our sin and confess it, submit to Christ and receive Him as our Lord and Savior, acknowledging the immense penalty He is willing to pay on our behalf, offering Himself up for our sins (Ga 1:4) to redeem us from all iniquity (Tit 2:14), and flee to Him from the wrath to come (Lk 3:7), trusting Him as the atoning sacrifice for our sins (1Jn 2:2), we can receive forgiveness of sins and be delivered from the eternal punishment we justly deserve. (Co 1:14)

From this place of submission to God, we’re left to recon with the guilt for sins we can’t stop, even as we try our best; in this we should expect God’s mercy in judgment; He is infinitely merciful toward those who fear Him. (Ps 103:11) He will discipline us to bring us into holiness (He 12:10), and judge us for our sins in this world as He sees fit (1Pe 4:17); His judgment of His people will be severe in this life for all lapses into willful sin. (He 10:26-31) Yet there is no fear of eternal condemnation in this kind of judgement: even if it is severe, it is for our good to deliver us from the bondage of our sin. (He 12:11)

The alternative is to continue to live our lives our own way, defiantly refusing to submit to the Lordship of Christ (Ro 2:4-5), and suffer the eternal consequences. (Mt 7:26-27) This should produce fear and dread (Is 33:14), even if only in the subconscious, to move the thoughtful soul to repentance. (Pr 16:6) For those who will not turn, eternal terror shall be their destiny. (Re 20:11)

articles   ♦   blog

They Are Remitted

As Jesus equips His disciples for ministry, He gives them authority to both remit and retain sins, implying God Himself will align with their choices. (Jn 20:23)

Some take this to mean the Twelve Apostles could decide whom God would forgive and whom He wouldn’t, effectively determining who would enter Heaven and who would go to Hell. Some evidently leverage this to teach the Roman Catholic Church controls our eternal destiny, contradicting what God Himself says about salvation: we’re saved by believing on Christ. (Jn 3:16) This relationship is between each individual person and God (18); Church leaders have nothing to do with it.

Others take it to mean the Twelve Apostles were simply messengers of the Gospel, showing people how to be forgiven, declaring forgiveness when people believed on Christ. (1Th 1:4-5) Yet the wording doesn’t permit this: it says the Apostles themselves could either remit or retain the sins of individuals as they saw fit. It’s not the same thing at all.

Neither of the above interpretations does full justice to the context, and it isn’t easy to find any other intelligible take on it. Even so, there must be a better way. (Mt 7:7)

Note carefully that this authority to remit and retain sins is the very first working principle Christ teaches the Twelve after giving them the Holy Spirit. (Jn 20:22) In filling them with the Spirit, Christ is forming them into an assembly of born again, spirit-filled brothers in what we might consider to be the first local church. This authority is evidently central to their ministry in this context, not necessarily given to each of the apostles as individuals, or even merely because they are His apostles. This authority to remit or retain sins may be vested in them simply because they are now spiritual brothers within the same local body of believers.

In such a context, they are in fact now responsible to discern what kinds and levels of sins to patiently bear with (remit, or let go of) (Ga 6:1-3) within the local assembly, and what degrees of sin to call out, judge and discipline (retain, or hold on to). (1Co 5:11-13)

Paul, an Apostle himself, reinforces this concept of brotherly authority in the context of church discipline (Ro 16:17); the brothers are to decide when someone is committed to sin and exclude them from fellowship (1Co 5:6-7), treating them as though they are unbelievers. (Mt 18:17)

Further, those whom the brothers forgive and receive back into fellowship after having disciplined them, Paul also forgives, indicating God’s alignment with them. (2Co 2:10-11)

The brothers have this spiritual authority to facilitate unity and purity within the local body; they’re responsible to manage this in all of the complexities and challenges they face together. They are effectively vested with the keys of God’s kingdom (Mt 16:19), manifested in the local church, deciding who is welcome and who isn’t. And as they seek the truth and align in the Spirit, God Himself works in and through them to glorify Himself (1Co 5:4-5), backing them up as needed. (Mt 18:18)

This kind of spiritual authority is, as we have noted, evidently not such that any sinful mortal may decide whether another soul is ultimately eternally forgiven before God, but God’s way of managing corporate purity and health within a local body of believers. (Ro 15:14)

articles  ♦  blog

Neither Mar the Corners

In showing us how to live, God provides guidelines for our personal outward appearance: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. (Le 19:27)

The Hebrew for round the corners seems to mean to shave the sides, and mar the corners seems to mean to disfigure the edges. Initial applications may have been related to hairstyles intended to honor pagan deities, or ways to express deep anguish or grief, as when mourning the deceased. (Le 21:1-5)

Similarly, in the same context God tells us: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord. (Le 19:28)

The general principle suggests any voluntary self-mutilation or disfigurement of ourselves is a desecration of God’s workmanship (Ps 119:73), disrespectful to Him making us in His image. (Ge 9:6) As children of JEHOVAH (De 14:1), we should treat ourselves and each other with honor and respect (1Pe 2:17a), in both our appearance and conduct.

Further, our outside should reflect our inside: our physical appearance is how we first communicate and reveal ourselves and we shouldn’t send mixed messages; the initial impression we present to others should be consistent with who we are and what we represent. (2Co 5:20) We are the light of the world (Mt 5:14), and our physical appearance should align with this identity. (15-16)

So, to reflect who we are in God, we’re to maintain a clean (Ep 5:3), orderly (2Th 3:7), moderate (Php 4:5), sober (1Th 5:8) outward appearance; we ought not needlessly offend (2Co 6:3), distract (Co 3:17) or align ourselves with any unwholesomenesss or darkness. (Ep 5:11)

Further, we must also carefully avoid applying these principles governing outward appearance in a superficial manner, looking for arbitrary, extra-biblical ways to separate ourselves from the world. In the same way God doesn’t call us to believe differently from the world just for the sake of being different, He doesn’t call us to appear visibly different from the world as an end in itself: this would be divisive, a spirit of variance, unloving and therefore sinful. (Ga 5:20)

To the extent cultural norms are compatible with godliness, conforming helps us relate with others in community and set them at ease, which is consistent with loving our neighbors as ourselves. Yet when we’re tempted to emulate the world in ways which are inconsistent with holiness we should resist. (Ja 4:4)

articles  ♦  blog

Thy Name In Vain

Taking God’s name in vain is a serious offense: Jehovah will not hold anyone guiltless who takes His name in vain. (Ex 20:7) He introduces this concept in the Decalogue as the last command of three relating how we’re to treat God Himself. What does it mean, to take God’s name in vain?

Traditionally, it appears to have been understood to mean we’re not to speak or write God’s name inappropriately, which is certainly dishonoring to God. (Ps 139:20) Yet a careful look at the text itself indicates this is not the whole of the matter; it is perhaps only periphery.

The command does not refer to speaking or writing God’s name, but to taking His name, taking it up, bearing it, carrying it along. The Hebrew is נָשָׂא, nasah, to bear. Cain chooses this word in his complaint, “My punishment is greater than I can bear.” (Ge 4:13), and God uses it to describe how the high priest continually bears the names of Israel upon his heart in the breastplate (Ex 28:29), and also how he bears their judgment before Jehovah. (30) So, taking Jehovah’s name seems to be more about taking it upon one’s self, associating and personally identifying with it … with Him.

So, what then does it mean to take up Jehovah’s name, or to associate ourselves with it, in vain? Vain is the Hebrew שָׁוְא, shav, meaning empty, false, deceitful. It is used in the command to not raise a false report, to mislead and give the wrong impression. (Ex 23:1)

Thus, taking God’s name in vain is to falsely identify and associate ourselves with God by appealing to His name and character when we aren’t submitted to Him, not loyal to Him, not faithful to Him. It would include speaking on His behalf when He hasn’t called us to do so and told us what to say. (De 18:20) It also would describe identifying ourselves as God’s servants or representatives under false pretenses or ulterior motives, to gain the respect of and/or otherwise influence, manipulate or control others, using God to benefit ourselves; this is the heart of all false religion.

When the disobedient become impostors, infiltrating the Faith, presenting themselves as Christ’s disciples and servants (2Co 11:15), they evidently do more harm to the name and reputation of God (Tit 2:5) than those who merely speak or write His name in appropriately. When we falsely represent Him to others, who then associate God Himself with our sins and indiscretions and blaspheme Him because of us. (Ro 2:24), God will not overlook this; He will hold each of us accountable for how we leverage and exploit our relationship with Him.

articles  ♦  blog

Thou Shalt Not Kill

The sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill (KJV, ASV, GNV), is commonly also translated, You shall not murder. (ESV, NASB, NIV, YLT) The Hebrew is רָצַח, ratsach, meaning kill, slay, murder, so either translation might be reasonable. Which translation is best, or does it matter?

Murder is defined as “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another” (emphasis mine); it implies the perpetrator acted with malice aforethought, without justification or valid excuse.

Kill has a much broader definition: taking a life regardless of motive or circumstance. The impact of the translation here seems significant, on a deeply fundamental precept.

In societies where euthanasia has been legalized, and/or killing in self-defense, it’s acceptable to take a human life on purpose under certain conditions. In such cases, the command, You shall not murder isn’t violated since the act is lawful, and may not even be malicious; however, such actions do violate, “Thou shalt not kill”; so, the translation does matter.

According to Torah, when is it acceptable for an individual acting on their own volition (not as an agent of the State enforcing capital punishment, or in the military) to intend to take another person’s life?

As a general baseline, consider laws regarding involuntary manslaughter (De 19:1-13): taking a life entirely accidentally, without any malice, forethought or criminal negligence (De 22:8), brings severe consequences in Torah. If the perpetrator wishes to live, he must flee to the nearest city of refuge, and forfeit the comforts of his home, community and way of life for the foreseeable future. The slayer is effectively imprisoned within the walls of this city until the death of the high priest, which could be decades.

If accidentally taking a human life, which certainly isn’t murder, carries such a penalty, effectively treated as if it were a significant Torah violation, what law does it violate, if not the 6th commandment?

What about other scenarios would we not consider murder?

Mercy killing, or euthanasia, for example, evidently violates Torah, though it’s not considered murder when legalized. Consider David’s reaction when a soldier killed King Saul, after Saul was already mortally wounded, to spare him the cruelty of being abused by the Philistines. Though the young man obeyed his king’s direct command, apparently in loyalty, mercy and kindness, even at further risk to his own life, he was promptly executed for doing so. (1Sa 1:1-16) If this act of obedience, bravery, kindness and loyalty did not violate Torah, David would have been guilty of shedding innocent blood himself and held accountable. Euthanasia evidently does violate God’s law, but not, You shall not murder, yet we don’t see any other laws besides the 6th commandment which cover this case.

Further, though taking a life in self-defense is legal in many societies, and therefore not considered murder, this is also not generally allowed in Scripture and is punishable by death. (Ex 21:12) Self-defense, though it is generally not premediated or malicious in nature, is only allowed in a very limited context; Torah is much more limited than what’s legal in many societies.

Taking a life in self-defense is evidently only allowed in the case of a thief killed in the act at night. (De 22:2-3) In this case, in breaking and entering a home at night, the thief positions himself as a threat to an entire family. A man’s home is sacred; no one but family enters without permission. (De 24:10) So, breaking and entering a domicile under cover of darkness is especially threatening; apparently only in this very limited context is there sufficient grounds for proactively taking a human life.

Taking a human life as an independent free-will agent is an extremely serious matter; there is always a severe consequence, regardless of the motive, unless lives are being threatened and there’s no other way to manage the scenario safely. This moral precept is not sufficiently captured by, You shall not murder; it requires, Thou shalt not kill.

This principle of the inherent dignity of human life is rooted in Man being made in the image of God (Ge 9:6); it is foundational to a righteous society. Translating this text correctly is therefore extremely important.

One might argue kill is too general since technically this includes animals and plants, which contradicts other scriptures. Using murder does solve this problem, but then fails to properly classify several classes of unscriptural behavior as sinful, and there is no other command to account for them. This tells us we need to use the word kill here and understand from context the focus is on behavior towards people, not animals and plants.

Given the fact scripture indicates that several types of deliberate killing are forbidden which are not equivalent to murder, as in euthanasia and many cases of self-defense, it appears the classic KJV translation of the 6th commandment is indeed the correct one: Thou shalt not kill.

articles  ♦  blog

Let No Man Deceive You

Let’s carefully consider the claim that king David’s sin with Bathsheba is proof believers can willfully commit terrible sins, still be forgiven and have confidence of Heaven. It’s common for sinners to comfort themselves with the idea that King David evidently sinned worse than they are, committing adultery and murder, yet he still made it. Is this reasonable?

It certainly is clear David committed terrible sins, he committed them willfully and persisted in them over a prolonged period, and he was also forgiven: he will be present in Heaven. But this does not prove the proposed claim; we don’t know for sure if David was a believer at the time he committed these horrible sins: it is conceivable he was regenerated afterward.

David did remarkable things in faith before his sin with Bathsheba, but this not necessarily an indication he was justified, regenerated by God. Some of Abraham’s great acts of faith were prior to his justification; he followed God’s call to leave his home country (Ge 12:4) before believing in God for salvation. (15:6) God doesn’t tell us exactly when David believed in God, having faith unto righteousness. It might have been after his sin with Bathsheba.

The Apostle Paul describes David’s understanding of salvation in no uncertain terms (Ro 4:6-8,  Ps 32:1-2), yet this is likely (Spurgeon, vs 5) taken from David’s testimony after his sin with Bathsheba. Perhaps David’s sin is an indication he was not yet regenerated at the time.

Anyone living a life of willful sin who presumes they have eternal life from David’s example is banking on David committing his horrendous sins as a believer, but this presumption: it cannot be proven. What can be proven is what God tells us about believers and what they’re like. For one, no murderer has eternal life abiding in him (1Jn 3:15); one who premeditates a murder and carries it out, as David evidently did, gives clear evidence of an unregenerate state.

The Apostle John tells us to be very careful here: “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” (1Jn 3:6-10) John warns that false teachers will try to convince us we can live in sin and have eternal life; the Apostle Paul is also very clear here. (Ep 5:5-6, 1Co 6:9-10) It’s deception.

If we want to believe a lie, if we don’t love the truth, it will be nearly impossible to resist this one (2Th 2:11-12); it certainly appeals to the flesh. Let’s not fall for it, and gently warn those who are. (2Ti 2:24-26)

articles   ♦   blog

Faith Alone

Justification by faith alone, and not by works, is the foundation of Christian theology. Often referred to as sola fide (“faith alone”), it is the pillar of the Protestant Reformation; many are devoted to preserving this core tenet of Christian belief: faith alone in Christ alone. (e.g. GES)

In searching the Bible for this concept, it is instructive to note that only a single verse contains both words, faith and alone, and clearly explains the relationship between them — James 2:17: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” It tells us we’re not saved by faith alone; a faith that is alone is dead, not saving faith. (vs 14) The book of James apparently denies the doctrine of sola fide, at least as most would understand it; no wonder Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, had difficulty accepting the inspired text.

Yet it would indeed be perilous to conclude that works are necessary for salvation, that we can somehow earn or merit salvation. Scripture clearly states otherwise: we’re saved by faith, and not by works. (Ga 2:16) Mixing faith/grace and works as grounds for salvation isn’t rational; as requirements they are mutually exclusive by definition; it must be one or the other. (Ro 11:6) How then do we parse this? We must be careful, thorough, and precise; we cannot afford to miss it. (2Pe 1:10-11)

It helps to begin by observing that Christ did not come to start a new religion, nor to teach us a new way to be saved: the way to Heaven has never changed. We’re saved just like Father Abraham and King David; Paul builds his case for justification by faith on the testimonies of these two men. (Ro 4:1-3, 6-8) Born again is not just a New Testament idea; it’s grounded in the Old Testament. (Jn 3:10)

It’s very easy to teach a new (and thus false) gospel by taking isolated NT passages out of context; look at the whole of Scripture. If we can’t see the Gospel in the Old Testament we don’t yet understand it, for this is how the Apostle Paul taught it. (Ro 16:25-26)

Believing on Jesus Christ (Ge 15:6) is the supernatural work of God (Jn 6:29) which causes us to rest in the finished work of Christ for our salvation. (He 4:1-3) This divine work creates in us a new, transformed nature (Ga 6:15) which does not deliberately and willfully continue in sin. (1Jn 3:9-10) Those who do intend to continue living in sin don’t yet know God. (vs 6)

Thinking we can receive the gift of eternal life without receiving Christ Himself is deception: the gift is the Giver: Christ Himself is the Life we seek. (1Jn 1:1-2) To believe on Him is to receive Him as He is (Jn 1:12) and trust in Him (Ep 1:15); it is to love Him (1Co 16:22) and obey Him. (He 5:9)

So, we’re indeed saved only by faith (by faith alone), and saving faith is only in Christ (faith alone in Christ alone), but true faith is never alone: it does not exist in isolation, apart from works. Saving faith is always accompanied by a changed life. (He 6:9) It isn’t that we must change our life in order to believe on Christ, but experiencing faith in Christ will radically change us. Pursuing holiness won’t save us, but there’s no eternal life without it. (He 12:14) When we diligently seek God, we find Him (He 11:6) and He changes us. (Ep 2:10)

articles  ♦  blog