David Westerfield

Gospel. Culture. Technology. Music.


The Peter Syndrome of Catholic Apologists – James White

http://vintage.aomin.org/SBNDDHrep.html

James White refutes the claims of scholarly Catholic apologists who state the historic church throughout the ages has always believed in 1) the Pope (citing Peter constantly as an argument that cannot stand against severe scrutiny) and 2) the infallibility of the Pope.

“Many centuries after the Council of Nicea, long after the rise of the Papacy into prominence (and just before its fall into the Pornocracy), supporters of this institution (the Papacy) began the process of changing history through the use of forgeries. Documents like the famous Donation of Constantine began to circulate. The very fact that men had to create such documents tells us something very important: the belief they wished to substantiate in history could not be substantiated any other way. That is, if people had always believed in the Papacy as it was developing in later centuries, there would be no need to create forgeries to make it look otherwise. One of the forgeries that can be traced to this period involves an expansion in the canons that were passed at the Council of Nicea. Originally the council passed twenty canons, including the famous 6th canon. Yet, centuries later, other collections began to appear. There is no question that these other canons are forgeries-fakes. Yet, amazingly enough, Scott Butler and his co-authors (RCC Apologists) cite from these forgeries in an attempt to substantiate their position! They are not alone here, and in fact, as the quotation below shows, they at least admitted that these canons are not part of the ‘generally accepted’ list. I have heard other apologists, such as Tim Staples, quote Canon 39 of the Arabic canons as if it were a part of the original Council of Nicea, a tremendously dishonest thing to do. On page 308 of Jesus, Peter & the Keys, we find the following:

(From the Arabic Canons of the Council of Nicaea):

‘[CANON XXXIX] Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.

‘Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit; for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishop as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under this power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; inasmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod. [While not a part of the generally accepted canons of the Council of Nicea, these canons promulgated from the Eastern Church give a mind’s eye view of the thinking of Eastern Christianity.]’ Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers–The Seven Ecumenical Councils, vol.14, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 48.'”

“Anonymous” Posts New Video Explaining Who They Are

Apparently, February 10 is their day of action … so they say at least … I’m starting to wonder now if this is a giant marketing campaign for some company?

Free Unlimited Music Downloads?

http://www.qtrax.com/

That’s what they’re claiming, yet the record companies apparently have not endorsed it … http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti … article.do

A Timely Quote for our Day

“We must have the full message. . . ‘deliver the whole counsel of God’. . . . It starts with the Law. The Law of God … the demands of a righteous God, the wrath of God. That is the way to bring men and women to conviction; not by modifying the Truth…. We must confront them with the fact that they are men and that they are fallible men, that they are dying men, that they are sinful men, and that they will all have to stand before God at the Bar of Eternal Judgment….And then we must present to them the full-orbed doctrine of the Grace of God in Salvation in Jesus Christ. We must show that no man is saved ‘by the deeds of the Law’, by his own goodness or righteousness, or church membership or anything else, but solely, utterly, entirely by the free gift of God in Jesus Christ His Son. . . . We must preach the full-orbed doctrine leaving nothing out-conviction of sin, the reality of Judgment and Hell, free grace, justification, sanctification, glorification. We must also show that there is a world view in the Bible … that here alone you can understand history-past history, present history, future history. Let us show this great world view, and God’s Eternal purpose…. Let us at the same time be very careful that we are giving it to the whole man … the gospel is not only for a man’s heart, that you start with his head and present Truth to it … Let us show that it is a great message given by God which we in turn pass on to the mind, to the heart, to the will. There is ever this danger of leaving out some part or other of man’s personality… Let us be certain that we address the whole man-his mind, his emotions and his will.”

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones The Weapons of our Warfare, 1964, pg. 21-22

Unconditional Election – A Friendly Chat

Recently, I sent an email to a good pastor friend of mine who was denying unconditional election in some statements he was making on his online radio show. I was in no way angry about it, but rather saddened by his denial, because so much hope, joy, and love are seen in this particular point and it shows us that the roots of our salvation begin with God, not with us, in order that He gets all the glory for our salvation, not just 99%, but 100%. The email is an attempt to try to convince him of unconditional election. I post it here with the hopes of someone else who doesn’t believe this doctrine would now be convinced of it. If we really look at our own personal experience in conversion deeply, we see that the decisive reason and cause for our salvation was not our initial good will toward God (because Scripturally we had no good intentions toward God), but rather God’s decisive work in us to will that which is pleasing to Him, namely, faith in His Son.
————————————————————————————–

Hey ___!

Before going into this whole thing, I want you to know I admire you so much, appreciate your ministry and see amazing amounts of fruit in it. I just love seeing your desire for the lost to be saved that I also share with you. I praise God for when I see how He’s worked in you and your ministry to will and to work for His good pleasure in helping people come to Jesus. I just want you to be assured that I have nothing at stake in this where I’m trying to “prove a point” or “win” an argument. That is nonsense to me and childish. I love you as a brother in Christ and desire to show that to you. So many “Reformed” types have done a terrible disservice by portraying unconditional election as a fatalistic, mean, harsh doctrine, that God forces people into hell “against their will”, that men have no will of their own, and that secondary causes are of no effect in bringing people to faith. I rather want to present unconditional election in a positive, loving, Biblical light, by God’s grace. I’m a fellow brother of yours in Christ who has been so radically changed and moved in my love for Jesus by this great truth, seeing that the very roots of His salvation mercifully granted to His people go into eternity, into the very counsels of God Himself with His good and perfect plans for the entire world, though we do not fully understand what all He’s doing. I seek for others who love Christ to see the depth of what this doctrine does to radically change the perspective and life of the believer. When I consider God mercifully saving me back in 1997 when I was pursuing rebellion against God as hard as I could, I ask, “Why did you save me, Lord?” and the response from the Scriptures is, “Because I loved you from eternity.” That is unconditional election, in a very short statement. Unconditional electing love. He loved me because He loved me, that’s all I can say and rest in. All the times unconditional election is mentioned in Scripture it is always for the edification of the readers and never presented to bring up dissension in the church. The people who bring dissension into the church with this doctrine nowadays (and in times past) have totally misconstrued and warped the Biblical understanding into a deterministic, pagan Greek idea (aka fatalism) that is far from the way the Scriptures present it. I want to present unconditional election in relation to the love of Christ for His people, from the Bible; that is at least my desire in this and I ask the Lord to help me do just that.

I’m a sinner saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. And as such, I have nothing to boast in concerning this, no knowledge, no wisdom, no insight, as if it came from myself. Everything I have is a gift from God, everything. So if I believe to have insight into a point, God has blessed me with that and I give Him all credit for it. When I speak, I in no way intend to insult your intelligence of the Scriptures or any other way. I simply desire to display what I believe to be the Biblical understanding of this point for your personal edification and relationship with Christ; that is my prayer. All of what I believe concerning election comes from the Scriptures, as I’ll show later on in our conversation. In my conversion experience, unconditional election illustrates itself so clearly, as I’m convinced it does with every believer, if they’ll take a step back and consider the possibility of these things. All I boast of is Jesus and His cross on my behalf to raise me from spiritual death; that work alone is what brought me to faith, applied by the working of the Holy Spirit directly and through secondary means (like people and Scripture). It is my hope in this you will see that the main issue concerning unconditional election is rightly giving God the praise for every step of salvation, from alpha to omega, and that He is the Author, Creator, and Granter of our faith itself. Anyway, with that said …

To get the conversation going, I thought it would be good to start with a few questions that hit at our own personal experience: our conversion. All believers want to give God the credit for their salvation at every step, from beginning to end. I haven’t met a believer who didn’t want to give God all glory for their conversion. Salvation is the work of God through Jesus’s death and resurrection, where He was given on our behalf because we were helpless to save ourselves in any capacity at all. As believers, we all agree on that 🙂 In addition, I want to start with a good definition of unconditional election from Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology: “Election is an act of God before creation in which He chooses some people to be saved, NOT on account of any foreseen merit (or anything else at all) in them, but only because of His sovereign good pleasure.” This has historically, since the Reformation, been known as grace alone, that is, grace alone is the only explanation for why I am saved and another is not. The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, article 3, paragraph 5, also has an excellent definition that I would commend: “Those of mankind who are predestinated to life, God chose before the foundation of the world was laid, in accordance with His eternal and immutable purpose and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will (that we cannot know). God chose them in Christ (that is through the work of the cross) for everlasting glory, solely out of His free grace and love, without anything in the creature as a condition or cause moving Him to choose.” This is unconditional election (what I believe), as opposed to conditional election, where God chooses sinners based upon something he sees in them or something they do.

But what about our faith, through which we were saved? Where did that come from? Hoe does that fit in with Grace Alone? If we were spiritually dead and blind to the message of the Gospel in ourselves naturally (Romans 3:9-18, 8:7-8) (e.g. to Jews the cross is a rock of stumbling, to Gentiles foolishness), how is it we, as foolish Gentiles, came to be “assured of things hoped for … convicted of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1) if we “were dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1)? The answer is in the latter part of Ephesians 2:4-5. “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ.” The key there is that God alone, not myself in any capacity, made me alive together with Christ, bringing me from spiritual death, giving me eyes to see and ears to hear, which then infallibly gave rise to my faith because I could now see Christ for who He was. Paul even goes further in this passage to show that faith itself is the grace of God, that is, an undeserved gift graciously bestowed on wrath-deserving sinners. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this [“by grace … through faith”] IS NOT your own doing; it is the Gift of God, not a result of works, SO THAT no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) God is the One who grants faith by grace alone (not grace plus my good intentions toward God, because I have none prior to regeneration) … so that no one may boast, but rather give God the glory for bringing them to faith. No one is owed salvation or this granting of faith through which we are saved, nor can we earn it in any capacity. We are owed wrath instead, and it is only God’s grace that we are delivered. The point of unconditional election is so that we don’t boast in anything, anything at all, including our faith. This is why election is so difficult to wrestle through, because it strips us totally down where we have nothing to rely on in ourselves, and all that is left is Christ and His power breathing life into our dead souls and sustaining us until the very end.

So I ask again, where did our faith come from? Did our faith arise from our spiritually dead soul, or did we produce it out of our unregenerated human nature? Now I want to affirm something many so-called “Reformed” people who misunderstand this doctrine and distort it do not either believe or convey: historic Reformed theology strongly affirms that we are the one’s who will to believe in Christ or not. “Freewillians” and historic “Predestinarians” both agree on that in fact. God doesn’t will for us or believe for us. We either believe, or we don’t, ourselves. We do make a genuine choice pertaining to Christ. But the question is why do we make the choice we do, namely the choice in favor of Christ as Lord and Savior? Most who disagree with predestination will throw the Scriptures up against it that say “Whosoever will” as an attempt to discredit the validity of this doctrine (though the words “predestined” “elect” “election” “chosen” “called” are all in the New Testament itself and must be dealt with if we are to be faithful to the Scriptures). But my response to those who would raise those verses as a counter-point to unconditional election is, of course whosoever believes will be saved. That doesn’t answer the issue we are dealing with though in unconditional election. I have no problem preaching those verses because they are Biblical. “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'” (Romans 10:13) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) Indeed, God has loved the world by sending Christ into it, that if anyone throws themselves at the feet of Christ for salvation, they will be saved. I believe that with all my heart and will teach it, just as C.H. Spurgeon did, who also believed this great truth of unconditional election.

Yet these verses, as precious as they are to Gospel preaching, just beg the question being aimed at in discussing unconditional election in particular: being dead in tresspasses and sin, naturally a slave to sin under the blindness and darkness of the wrath of God, why did I will what I willed when I trusted Christ? Why did I desire what I desired when I fell in love with Christ? Being the sinful wretch that I am, poor, blind, and naked, how did I will something pleasing to God, namely faith? How did I come under such deep conviction all of a sudden that I had so thoroughly offended God by slapping Him in the face with my glory-hating life? The Scriptures answer these questions adequately: the Holy Spirit came in, and gave me new birth, gave me spiritual eyes to see, ears to hear, and cut me to the heart with the message of the Gospel, bringing deep conviction of sin and great love and trust in Jesus. “We love because He first loved us.” (1 John 4:19) and “The Lord opened [Lydia’s] heart to respond to Paul’s message.” (Acts 16:14) He cut me (and all who believe) to the heart by His power through the work of the cross, applied by the Spirit, when I wanted nothing of Him in my rebellious sin. He did not merely give me an opportunity to be saved (though indeed that is true and I surely affirm that), but He made sure I got saved by His supernatural, incomprehensible power, “making me alive together with Christ.” Is there any way I can claim credit for my belief in Christ who I cannot see with my physical eyes, though now I know in my heart of hearts He is who He says He is, the Christ? Why am I not a Pharisee, hardened in unbelief, left to my sinfully dead will that always chooses evil in the sight of God? Where did that conviction and resolve come from that Jesus is the King of Glory? Was it not from the hand of God Himself that brought me to faith in His Son? If not, isn’t this something I could rightly boast in as having done myself apart from God’s work? But if so, was this not a choice He made to move in me and bring me to faith in His Son? And when did He make this choice to save me through the cross? “He chose us (believers) in [Christ] before the foundation of the world…” (Ephesians 1:4)

Here’s a scenario I would pose as an illustration …

Two unbelieving people, best friends, go to a church and hear a preacher very clearly present the Gospel. One believes and the other rejects it as foolishness.

Why does one person believe and the other reject the message? What made the difference? Was it intelligence? Sheer willing of faith by his own spiritual strength out of a sinfully dead state? Was one was more naturally inclined to believe than the other? Was one more spiritually empowered by nature than the other? Was it anything at all within the guy as a reason for why he believed?

The Reformational nickname for election is “grace alone,” because there is no other explanation besides grace as to why one is saved and another hearer of the gospel is not. To deny unconditional election is to deny “grace alone,” which as Luther clearly stated, was the hinge upon which the Reformation turned. Denying unconditional election, as very carefully articulated in Romans 9 in particular, is essentially denying that the decisive reason for our salvation was something other than God’s grace (free will led by chance, spirituality, intelligence, etc.).

I believe that dwelling upon these questions and then going to the Scriptures (particularly Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John 6, several places in Acts), unconditional election is an inescapable reality in the Bible itself that brings so much joy in our faith; it is solid rock to place our feet on when everything around us crumbles. “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31) That is the hope of God’s unconditional electing grace, from beginning to end. “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 1:6)

To end, I want to quote C.H. Spurgeon where he says something profound that hits right at the center of this:

“The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, ‘I ascribe my change wholly to God.'”

Your Brother in Christ,

David

“What do you have that you did not receive?” – 1 Corinthians 4:7
“But by the grace of God, I am what I am.” – 1 Corinthians 15:10

Anonymous Consortium of Hackers Declares Cyber-War on Scientology

Allegedly these are hackers, that is, not sure how this has been verified …

Update @ 2:07 pm

Well apparently, they are already working on it … http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325586,00.html

How to Forgive from the Heart

There is a default mode of thinking with every human being in the world. This thinking permeates the way we all naturally approach relationships at almost every level. And this thinking essentially says, “Someone hurt me, and now they must pay.” Even in our “forgiving” of another person, we only forgive if they ___. This thinking results in bitterness, anger, self-exaltation, conceitedness, and a general “everyone owes me because of what I’ve endured” kind of attitude toward the world, or the victim mentality as it has come to be called.

So how do we really forgive someone from the heart? First of all, before we answer that, we need to ask another question: what is forgiveness? Forgiveness is essentially taking the hurt or pain within yourself that the other person inflicted upon you, putting down your arms, and not seeking revenge. Forgiveness is not so much acting like nothing ever happened, but rather, not seeking revenge in any capacity, either subtly or overtly. This is increasingly difficult the greater the offense.

So how do you forgive someone who caused so much pain? In yourself and your abilities, it is really impossible for you to forgive someone. And even when you do “forgive” someone, there is still a feeling of “they owe me” many times that eats away at the relationship. This is where, practically speaking, the difference between religion and the Gospel becomes blatantly apparent. Within religion, you merit your eternal life and blessings from God, or you lose them. Because of this thinking, we also feel like people merit their relationship with us or they lose it, and vice versa; we feel we either merit relationships or we lose them based on what we do.

In the Gospel though, Christ merited the blessings for you out of love, through belief and trust in Him, because you were incapable of ever meeting God’s infinitely just, holy standards. Or in other words, you offended God on an infinite level by disregarding His name and glory in all you did. Therefore God was rightly and justly angry at you, on an infinite level. This anger results in just eternal punishment, because we are His creatures and He is the Creator. We owe Him, and yet we are unable to pay Him back because the payment is infinite in relation to the one offended. Therefore our due from Him is eternal wrath. We are owed wrath in fact. And no amount of moral or religious toiling can pay Him back for the infinite hurt we have caused Him. Some will object at this point and say, “But God should just take the pain within Himself, like you just said we should do, and pardon everyone.”

Funny you should say that, because, well, Jesus came to do exactly that, if we will believe in and trust Him. Jesus, being God from all eternity, became a man, like us, in order to bridge an infinite gap between us and God. He did this willingly, out of love. Jesus took both the worst man could throw at Him and the worst God had for man, and took the searing pain from both ends in Himself on the cross. Through the work of the cross, Jesus took the blow we were owed by God in Himself, that whoever believes in Him will indeed be forgiven. God has made a way for us to be reconciled. Jesus made a way that was impossible for us to accomplish by ourselves. Jesus’s work on the cross is the ultimate forgiveness.

I submit to you, all of you who harbor bitterness and angst against someone else for how they’ve wronged you, you will in no way be able to forgive them (as defined above) in yourself, your power, will, and ability, because all that comes from us naturally is corrupted. The only way to forgive someone from your heart, in a way in which you seek no revenge upon that person is to have been forgiven yourself of a debt of infinite value. Until you see that your offense against God is an infinite back-slap to God’s name, value and glory, and that it is infinitely greater than the offense inflicted upon you; and that your offense has been forgiven through the work of Christ (i.e. through faith alone, He takes your eternal hell for you on the cross, and gives you His infinitely perfect record), only then will you ever be able to fully forgive the person who hurt you. You must first feel the weight of the debt you’ve incurred by your sin. It is a grievous injury to God’s value and worth. Our due is wrath, not goodness. Sin, great and small, is all an infinite offense against God. He is no one’s debtor, we are not owed anything good, but rather only wrath.

Therefore, to experience this kind of forgiveness, the lifting of such a heavy burden by the work of Christ for how you’ve wronged God when you should have been sent to hell for eternity, is the only way to change from the inside out, in order that you can then truly forgive the person. It is the only way to really forgive someone from the heart. Ask God to help you first feel the weight of your sin and then feel the weight of mercy in the cross. You will then look at the person who injured you and say, “How can I not forgive them after having been forgiven such a greater offense myself?”

Abolition of Abortions in America

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibr … hird_Wave/

The pro-choice, liberal camp would position itself as helpers of the poor and afflicted, yet %90 of abortion clinics are in low-income, minority-based urban areas and “Black and Hispanic women suffer 56% of all abortions while representing only 25% of the female population,” according to this article. Abortion clinics are specifically targeting urban neighborhoods basically. And it would in no way surprise me if the overarching design is to reduce overpopulation in these areas. The people who support and run these abortion clinics are ruining the lives of minorities in particular; emotionally, mentally and spiritually. Is this not a subtle (or rather blatant) form of racism?

This is a really good article on praying for the third wave of anti-abortion activists, really the only hope for abolishing abortions altogether: Black and Hispanic believers who desire to see the end of abortion, by working from the inside out of their own communities. The first wave of anti-abortion activists were predominantly Catholic, the second Evangelical, and now the hope is that the third wave will rise from within urban communities themselves. If the left really loved the poor, why would they be in favor of murdering their children? In fact, it sounds fairly racist. Makes no sense to me … and Obama voted for legislation in favor of what are called “live birth abortions,” where a child is born mongloid, for instance, and is in need of immediate care or it will die within 45 minutes of being born. So the mom decides she doesn’t want it because of its disorder, and then the nurses take the baby, put it in a room by itself, and they just let the baby die. What an abominable, sick practice. And people want this guy making giant, life-altering decisions for the country when supporting such a wicked form of blatant infanticide? His moral compass is jacked beyond all recognition to be able to support something like this. Makes me weep just thinking about that awful practice.

People are calling for change with Obama, but what kind of change, for better or worse, morally speaking? Where does it stop? We are on a slippery slope. Should I have the “right” to personally abort the life of someone else who may have inconvenienced my life in an unexpected way? “But they took away my rights!” It is the same argument. But with abortion, instead of a grown adult, it is a live, human baby! What about the baby’s rights? And how much more pernicious is this act than someone murdering another person? Just consider it …

Good Stuff … Clinton Nods Off During MLK Service

Who do you say that I am?

“And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that I am?’ And they told him, ‘John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.’ And he asked them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered him, ‘You are the Christ.’ And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.”

Ultimately this is the question everyone needs to ask themselves about who exactly Jesus is. Answers abound in our day just as in the day of Jesus. In the day of Christ, some said he was a prophet, Elijah, or John the Baptist. In our day, people say he was a great teacher, maybe the best of all moral instructors, or that he was merely a man of mystery who changed the course of history. Yet these responses all miss the mark of the only two responses we can have: he was either a lunatic liar or He was exactly who He made Himself out to be, the Christ. Many in our day seem to only read the sermon on the mount when making a conclusion about who Jesus is. Deepak Chopra is one example. He “[carries] the Sermon on the Mount with [him] wherever [he goes] and [tries] to live by it.” Jesus is just a moral example to him. They fail to read all the other instances in which Jesus says things that are extremely hard to hear (concerning election, His judgment of the unbelieving, His exclusive claims of authority over all things), making Himself equal with God even, the supreme authority of the universe. When concluding who Jesus is, you cannot ignore the controversial statements he made.

“Who do you say that I am?” This question is very important for believers and unbelievers. For unbelievers, who you say Jesus is determines your eternal fate. If he is just a moral example, as with Chopra, then he is no different than any other person in the world and has no power to deliver you. He’s just an ideal, not one who bore the wrath you deserve on your behalf, not one who redeemed you from certain eternal death. Yet He is the Christ, the supreme commander of the universe, and on that day of final judgment, Jesus will say to you who reject Him, “I never knew you.” That is a frightening prospect if He is the great commander of the universe. For believers, who you say Jesus is today has everything to do with personal holiness and conformity to Him. For example, though you may confess Christ as your Lord and Savior and indeed be saved, does He have any bearing on decisions you make throughout the day, from small to large ones? If not, then in your heart, you are not regarding Christ as the King of the universe. But if He is the center of your world, then He reigns supreme and directs you in the way you should go, to His glory.

Just consider this question: who do you say Jesus is? And then turn to the Scriptures, ask God to reveal Christ to your heart through what you read, and seek God to grant you greater love for Christ.

Page 72 of 118

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén