Home » Search results for 'worship' (Page 24)
Search Results for: worship
The Bible As Scientific Challenge to Climate Change Speculation
An American actor spoke to the World Government Summit in Dubai this weekend. The Associated Press reports:
Hollywood star Robert De Niro took aim at the Trump administration’s stance on climate change, telling a packed audience in the Middle East that he was visiting from a “backward” country suffering from “temporary insanity.”
I am talking about my own country, the United States of America. We don’t like to say we are a ‘backward’ country so let’s just say we are suffering from a case of temporary insanity.
I would be confident in saying that De Niro doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I suspect “backward countries” to him include people who believe the Bible. It is an ignorant view to say the world is threatened by climate change. Scripture is verified as true and it says the world will end by direct divine intervention. God started everything and He will end everything.
The Bible speaks again and again about the end. The planet won’t survive, because God did not design it to be permanent. It has a built-in stopping point that doesn’t relate at all to fossil fuels and carbon dioxide. Man offends God and He puts up with the offense only so long.
The earth isn’t stable because of anything that man has done. The world is stable because of what God does. The prophet Haggai brings a message from God to Zerubbabel to end his prophecy in Haggai 2:21-22:
I will shake the heavens and the earth; And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother.
He delivered this to say that Zerubbabel needed to trust God and go ahead and return Israel back to the worship God intended. He should not have considered man to be a threat to his work. You can read the same types of accounts in several other places in the Old Testament about the future of the earth according to God.
2 Samuel 22:8, “Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth.”
Psalm 68:8, “The earth shook, the heavens also dropped at the presence of God: even Sinai itself was moved at the presence of God, the God of Israel.”
Isaiah 13:13, “Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.”
Isaiah 29:6, “Thou shalt be visited of the LORD of hosts with thunder, and with earthquake, and great noise, with storm and tempest, and the flame of devouring fire.”
Jeremiah 10:10, “But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.”
Ezekiel 38:20, “So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.”
Joel 2:10, “The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.”
Joel 3:16, “The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.”
Nahum 1:5, “The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.”
Haggai 2:6-7, “For thus saith the LORD of hosts;; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.”
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
The Suicide of Evangelicalism
Truth is true. You can believe it like the dismount in the crunch position in a fall from El Capitan in Yosemite. There isn’t going to be a nice landing. It’s true. It’s not kinda true. The Bible is true like that, even more so, if it were possible to be more true. Truth is what Christianity has going for it. It’s the truth. If or when Christianity gives that up, it isn’t Christianity anymore. It might be something called Christianity, but it isn’t actual or true Christianity, and since the truth is what makes Christianity, it isn’t Christianity. Evangelicalism has given that quality up. They aren’t claiming that any more.
Evangelical churches lack doctrine because they want to attract new members. Mainline churches lack doctrine because they want to hold onto those declining numbers of members they have.
In his discussion of worship, the author notes the movement in both Protestant and Catholic circles away from formalism and reverence in worship toward individualism and narcissism. Wolfe calls attention to the shift toward contemporary worship music over “imposing and distant” classical sacred music and the doctrinal minimalism of power-point sermons in church-growth oriented congregations. He notes that liberals who fear the rise of strong religious belief in America “should not be fooled by evangelicalism’s rapid growth.” Religion, he adds, like “Television, publishing,
political campaigning, education, self-help-advice—all increasingly tell Americans what
they already want to hear.”
He continues:
Moving on to doctrine, Wolfe describes what he calls “the strange disappearance of doctrine from conservative Protestantism.” American fundamentalists no longer care about dogma but about pragmatism. If fundamentalists are weak in this area, we can just imagine the assessment given to evangelicals: “By playing down doctrine in favor of feelings, evangelicalism far exceeds fundamentalism in its appeal to Christians impatient with disputation and argument.”
Beauty, Worldly Lust, Effeminate and Truth in the Real World
The well-known reformed theologian, R. C. Sproul, founder of Ligonier Ministries, some of you readers know died on December 14 this year. I appreciated his defense and exposition of many important aspects of the biblical and historic doctrine of the Christian faith. He impacted much with perhaps his most well known book, The Holiness of God.
Sproul has stepped out in what is now considered a bold way concerning objective beauty, defending the transcendentals of truth, goodness, and beauty. In recognition of his recent death, I want to point out his communication of objective beauty as one of the three legs of the Christian faith. He wrote several articles at Ligonier on beauty to expose and defend this foundational element to the right understanding of God. Here are several articles (1 here, 2 here, 3 here, 4 here, 5 here, 6 here, 7 here, 8 here, 9 here, 10 here). He also has done a lot in video (9 part series on beauty, here) and audio (here, here, here, here, and here). I’m not saying he and I agree on everything, but he puts a lot of effort into saying this is something we can and should judge.
If there is beauty, there is not beauty. If we can judge something to be beautiful, then we can also judge something not to be beautiful. The premoderns categorized beauty as a transcendental, that is, beauty proceeds from outside of this world and from God. Our understanding of beauty should be based on the holiness and majesty of God and separate from mankind. God defines beauty.
I have used the terminology, “truth in the real world,” to apply to what God expects everyone to know. It is assumed truth. I wrote a two part series on “effeminate” in a major way to say that we can know what is effeminate. We can judge that. We are responsible to judge what is effeminate and God is judging and will judge effeminate qualities of men. We read the verbiage, “worldly lust,” and it is assumed among many other assumptions of God that we know what worldly lust is. If the grace of God that has appeared to all men teaches us to deny worldly lust, we should assume that we can know what worldly lust is. We can’t play dumb with that and many other truths in the real world.
It is rebellion against God to say that we can’t know. Sproul says we can know. I believe he compromises and capitulates, but he doesn’t lie and say that we can’t judge these things. I admire him for that. What Sproul knows is that people get an understanding of God through what someone is willing to call “beautiful.”
Whatever it is that people offer God with music says what they believe about God. If what they offer isn’t beautiful, that reflects their understanding of God and also shapes their and others understanding of God. I have written here many times that God is shaped in people’s imaginations by what God is offered in worship. If it is worldly and lustful, for instance, than that is the perception of God. That has, therefore, become the perception of God. If God isn’t God in someone’s imagination, then he has a different God. This is a form of idolatry, and it relates to the gospel.
God doesn’t like or accept everything. We see that throughout scripture. He doesn’t like fleshly or worldly lust or that which conforms to the spirit of the age. We can judge that. We have to judge that. If we go ahead and offer God what we like, that He doesn’t like, that is our view of God. It is rebellion against the nature of God, His truth, goodness, or beauty.
The defense is, you can’t judge beauty or aesthetics. That is an attack on truth. We can know the truth in the real world. We are required to know all three: truth, goodness, and beauty. This is the greatest threat of apostasy, people’s wrong understanding of God based on the inability to judge. They conform God to their own lust, replacing the true God in their imagination.
Sproul says that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. The eye of the beholder or the beholder himself has become god. Men don’t know God because their knowledge of God has been distorted in their imaginations by their perversion of beauty.
Today men cannot or won’t identify manhood, because that has become perverted. This has occurred to the degree that now someone can self identify his own sexuality. Churches are capitulating here like they have already in music and worship. Churches won’t judge worldly lust, fleshly lust, and worldliness, because they say scripture doesn’t tell us what they are. They deny the assumption that we can know. The path away from God into apostasy doesn’t come mostly from a change in a doctrinal statement, but based upon these issues that Christians today say they can’t judge. God expects that we will, so we should assume that we can.
Abiding in Christ: What Does it Mean? part 5 of 9, Old Testament Background to the Vine Image of John 15
Church Autonomy, Pastoral Authority, Closed Communion, and the Gospel: The Means Becoming the End
I believe scripture teaches church autonomy, pastoral authority, and closed communion — all three. I think I’m strong on all three, because scripture teaches all three. If you lose the gospel, none of the three matter any more though.
Church autonomy, pastoral authority, and closed communion are about protecting and propagating the truth. They are a means to an end. The end isn’t church autonomy, pastoral authority, and closed communion. Those are tools in the toolbox, so to speak. They are tools by which the truth and a sub category of that, the gospel, can be protected and propagated. If the truth and the gospel aren’t protected and propagated, then those three don’t matter any more. You don’t even have a church without the truth and the gospel.
As I say that, my first questions for you aren’t, what do you believe about the nature of the church, church autonomy, pastoral authority, and closed communion? I’m asking you first what you believe about the gospel, because you don’t even have a church without the gospel. I’m saying that I believe some churches are more concerned about their own autonomy and pastors, their authority, then they are the gospel itself.
The three and perhaps a few others — whether you use the King James and what’s the nature of the church — in practice seem to take preeminence over the gospel among some professing Baptists, including unaffiliated Baptist churches. I’m asking you to think about it.
I’m glad our church is autonomous. It is again because the Bible teaches autonomy. Autonomy allows the Bible as our authority. We are not subject the compromise and corruption of hierarchical authority. The certain means of purity God gave to individual churches can have their full effect on the preservation of the truth and the gospel. God designed for the truth to be kept by a church. You get it outside of individual church authority and the means are diminished for protecting the truth.
I’m glad for pastoral authority. The point of pastoral authority isn’t to make it easier for a pastor to corrupt the truth and the gospel. Pastoral authority is not a divine right of kings. It has a purpose and is effective for that purpose. The pastor feeds, leads, and protects. He feeds the gospel and the truth. He leads in the gospel and the truth. He protects the sheep from diversion from the truth and corruption of the gospel. It’s not about not being questioned.
I’m glad for closed communion. If communion was supposed to be close or open, I’d go with that. If you practice closed, but you allow truth to be perverted and the gospel altered, then you’ve missed the point of closed. Closed allows for separation. Separation is intended for purity. Purity is purity in the belief and practice of the truth, including the gospel. If you are not protecting your church from a false gospel, but you do protect your church from close and open communion, then you are missing the point of being closed.
I know people who are close in their communion, whose church is far more pure than those who are closed communion. I know those with closed communion with false worship. Communion with God is more important than communion with other church members. If you are not aligned with God in worship, the qualities of your worship are ungodly, then you’ve got a bigger problem the wrong practice of communion. I know those with closed communion, who allow in those who preach another gospel. They won’t allow someone outside of their church to join them in communion, but they have communion with someone who preaches a false gospel. In as simple terms as possible, that’s messed up.
Church autonomy, pastoral authority, and closed communion are the truth. However, I would rather fellowship with someone who emphasizes the truth, all of it, except for those three, than the one who treats those three like they are more important than the truth and the gospel.
Let me close this with a car metaphor. Your acceptance of false worship and a false gospel is like having a blown engine. Your acceptance of close or open communion is like having some dents on the body or fenders, maybe a crack on the windshield. With the latter, at least you can still drive the car. The former you can’t and you won’t.
Divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Remarriage, and New Testament teaching
An addendum: I cut and pasted the Hebrew text in at the start of the blog post, and I do not endorse the only partially pointed Tetragrammaton found in the Hebrew critical text. See footnote #1 in my essay on the history of the debate over the Hebrew vowel points here.
Note also the follow-up post to this one, What I’ve Preached on Deuteronomy 24, by Bro Kent Brandenburg, here.
So Long, Sola: Convenient Evangelical Sola Scriptura
I’m sola scriptura. I’m contending almost all evangelicals now just use sola scriptura. They throw down the sola scriptura card without actually being sola scriptura. It’s hot to say that you are sola scriptura, sola anything. Amazon prime has sola banners to hang up front your theater shaped worship center.
For a Protestant to say he’s sola is to provide his historical bonafides. He at least attaches himself to the Reformation, even if Roman Catholicism goes back to the Edict of Milan. It’s his trajectory to gravitas, even if he’s superficial and self-serving. However, if you’re really sola scriptura, you got to look at what it means. You might read the Westminster Confession from the 17th century, which says (1.6):
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
Most evangelicals can’t know or judge about anything that the Bible doesn’t say and he calls that sola scriptura. Look at certain statements in the confession.
One, this part: “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” Two, also this one, “there are some circumstances . . . which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” I have called this, truth in the real world. A major attack on truth is lying about the meaning of things. Scripture has become irrelevant to many basic decisions in life by an unwillingness to understand using the means that scripture says we have to discern outside of scripture. Everything in life can be guided, led, and judged by scripture, so sola scriptura.
My number one go-to example is the Bible doesn’t say, “Thou shalt not smoke crack-pipes.” Societal norms seem to be where evangelicals will apply scripture using the necessary means God has provided in the real world. Everyone needs more than what is so obvious. Calling a kettle black doesn’t win the discernment gizmo from the cracker jacks box.
Scripture teaches and assumes other things other than scripture. Arguments from scripture can’t be made without something not in scripture. Scripture is irrelevant before its ink dries with the present spin on sola scriptura. Crazy’s got to be crazy. Ugly is as ugly is. More than swastikas are bad.
To be honest, I don’t think what I’m decrying will stop. Rock and rap will continue to be called worship. A butch hair-cut will still pass as feminine. Sunday School teachers shall have optic green highlights. Forget church dress. Nothing will be sacred. God doesn’t even have to be God anymore. The only ones in trouble will be those who apply scripture to about anything. Just bake the cake. Eat it too.
God cares. That’s probably not enough.
Correcting False Doctrine Outside of Your Church: Permissible or Encouraged in Scripture?
The major criticism of this blog from what I’ll call, ‘my own,’ is what it might do to ‘our churches.’ Pastors might have to deal with the can of worms I open, not when they want to deal with it. For the record, I don’t care what biblical issue someone brings up, that our church might be doing wrong. I’ve always thought, the worst thing that could happen is that my church grows or learns or aligns with the truth that is declared. In other words, I’m not afraid of the truth.The argument has several parts. I’m not going to include verses, not because I couldn’t, but because I’m judging that you know them or could find them. One, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and that’s obviously local, because it has pastor and deacons. Two, each church is autonomous. Three, an individual pastor has authority in his church to reprove and rebuke, not outside of that. Four, hierarchicalism is wrong — no state, regional, worldwide earthly authority. Five, writing this blog attempts to bring the truth beyond the church, undermines individual church and pastoral authority, and sets me up as a kind of Baptist pope. I’m not trying to misrepresent the argument. I think this is what it is. If I were to add anything, it would be perhaps to cause schisms in the body, when there are to be none.I think I understand numbers one to five, I just don’t think I’m violating them. I think there are other teachings that should be brought to this mix, that don’t contradict their teaching. What I’m saying is that the conclusion does not follow the premises, and rather than an example in scripture to show that conclusion or application, it goes the opposite direction. I can show how that these premises don’t help the argument.For three, a pastor has authority to reprove and rebuke his own members. That doesn’t mean he can’t outside of his church. He doesn’t have the same authority, because he can’t follow through with discipline outside of his church. Jesus was concerned about the seven churches of Asia enough to warn them. We should warn other churches. Later I’ll show that other churches, other than our own, should be a concern still.You start with the truth. The truth is what’s important. The other points fall in line with the truth. The Bible is the sole authority. Yes, that’s in the context of a church, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, but it isn’t the truth. If the church is wrong, the wrong doesn’t become the truth, just because the church protects the wrong and propagates it. The truth is the truth whether that church ever existed.What happens here is that autonomy and pastoral authority and “church unity” (actually just church agreement) take priority over all other truth. Those are the three that must be kept at all costs. No, it starts with the truth. Autonomy is about the truth, pastoral authority about the truth, and church unity about the truth. If it’s not the truth, then those three are not really those three, but counterfeits or fabrications. I can see how pastors could become more concerned with their teaching and their church, than they are the truth.Let’s say it’s a timing issue. Other church leaders want their people to know the truth, just not when I write about it, thus causing them to have to deal with it. I see that as an extra-scriptural consideration, because the Bible doesn’t talk about it. It’s a personal preference at the most. With this, the church is held together by something other than the truth, and the truth is less preeminent than church autonomy and pastoral authority. The idea, the pastor must be in charge, and that could lose its effectiveness if he is questioned. The key in this is not being questioned in this situation, so that a pastor can keep it going as long as he wants in the direction that he wants and how he wants.The church is the pillar and ground, being that it protects and propagates. I’m propagating. I’m propagating in my Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. This is coming from a church. My church approves. Our church people like our doctrine being published everywhere. It is the truth. I have no authority in another church. We don’t discipline people in other churches, who don’t believe like us. I have no hierarchical authority. I can’t kick people out of a big club or league or convention. This is like saying that I’m brainwashing or that I’m forcing this on people, the types of charges often used by the world. They aren’t true.I don’t see Jesus or the apostles, ever, holding back on the truth. There are no biblical grounds for making pastors more comfortable in their retaining of error. Error should be refuted. Works of darkness should be reproved. I don’t reveal the names of men and their private errors here. Everything is public teaching. If I reveal something public, it has gone through biblical channels already.In addition to everything I’ve written so far in dealing with the arguments at hand, I believe there are actual biblical arguments for doing what I do here. Paul visited Jerusalem four times in his life. The first time was three years after his conversion (Galatians 1). The next time was over ten years later when he brought a gift (Acts 11), a short time later with the reconciliation of the Antioch and Jerusalem church (Acts 15), and then his final arrest and so on (Acts 21-28). In two of his visits, he clashes with leaders of other churches. Paul had no apostolic authority over Peter or the other apostles in Jerusalem. Yet, he confronts them in Acts 11 and 15, because they were wrong on the truth. He reports it in Galatians.When you read Galatians 2, you can see there that Paul was concerned about the partnership he had with other churches. That partnership for the gospel would be ruined by false doctrine. This was not partnership in the church, but outside of the church. That is also my concern as I write here.I want the truth believed and practiced. Sanctification comes through the truth. We don’t want good churches to be ruined through capitulation to error, and thus becoming ineffective in the gospel. We want churches in other places where even our family members and family members of our church members can worship God and practice the New Testament. We could spend a grueling and extensive effort in the start of a new church, only to have five churches destroyed with false doctrine.If our church is strong, because I keep all this truth within the confines of our membership, good for our church. If I get the truth to other churches, that will help preserve those churches. The truth doesn’t hurt a church. It helps. The Apostle Paul was working in Troas and became discouraged in his work there, walking away from an open door, because he was so concerned about the degradation of the church at Corinth. We support evangelism abroad and the start of new churches. A church like Antioch could go down to Jerusalem for the preservation of that church. We can see that Paul saw this as related to partnership in the gospel and the beginning of new churches. If one church is destroyed because of error, that could have been stopped by the intervention of another church, that is also the preservation of future propagation of that existing church. This is worth it and can be argued from all over the New Testament.Since what I’m doing here is scriptural, then the opposition is unscriptural. Why? It’s not scriptural, so what is it? It can be protection of turf, keeping buddies, and being lazy. A pastor wants capitulation to what he says. That’s fine if it’s the truth. Heresy or schism is about error, not the truth. Someone is not causing disunity by bringing the truth. Disunity comes from error. I write here. Someone questions his pastor. A pastor is angry, this guy heard something that disagrees with him. If it’s simple to swat away, just do it. It gives strength to a biblical argument, if I’m wrong. If it’s about dealing with a situation when it is convenient, there is no basis for that. Deal with it when it must be dealt with. Kicking that can down the road never helps. Never.
Abiding in Christ: What Does it Mean? part 1 of 9, Word Study
How Biblical Change Looks When It Happens — And the Opposite
Biblical change starts with conviction. The Holy Spirit reproves the world of sin (Jn 16:8). The Greek word is not about a feeling someone has, but someone convinced, as in being proven guilty. Romans 12:1 says true, perpetual worship of God is reasonable. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
Every major change in my life started with scripture. Every church problem I’ve ever seen relates to something unscriptural. The solution to the problem is in the Bible, because God’s Word is sufficient. Something needs to be changed to line up with the Bible.
When I think our church is doing something wrong, it started with scripture. The Holy Spirit used scripture to convince me. Whatever change we need to make is because our church is failing to believe and practice something in the Bible. Before our church changes, I’ve changed. If the church is going to change too, then I’ve got to teach on it. I spend weeks on it and then open it to question and answer, until we’re all on board. God wants unity too (1 Cor 1:10, Eph 4:3).
Change starts with scripture. If it’s something we are not believing or not doing, I see it in the Bible first. I wonder if it is historical too. Is this something that Christians have believed and practiced as well. If it’s true, it won’t be new. That doesn’t mean there will be a devastating historical argument, because we can’t rely totally on history like we do the Bible, but we should expect that a true position would be found in history.
Scripture comes. The Holy Spirit works. Our souls are enlightened. We submit to what God says. That’s how change occurs.
Many new theological or religious positions have arisen through history and especially in the last one hundred years. If someone teaches you proxy baptism, baptism for dead people, and you haven’t heard of that, what would you do? You should ask where it’s in the Bible. Once you start to hear where that doctrine comes from, you might wonder why you haven’t heard it before. Is that what that scripture means? If not, what is it talking about?
I’ve noticed that leftward changes don’t start with the Bible. They start with pragmatism or lust. They don’t start with Bible reading, where something jumps out in scripture, and then it’s found in history too. No. It starts with something that someone wants to do, and he goes to scripture second, and for the purpose of justifying or vindicating what he’s going to do. This is how the Bible gets twisted or wrested, the way Peter put it in 2 Peter 3. Whole new doctrine proceeds from attempting to accommodate practices once forbidden.
When women started wearing pants, that didn’t start with women studying the Bible. It didn’t start with Christian men thinking of how scripture applied to helping their wives and daughters. Now when women adjust their skirts to above their knees, that isn’t starting with a prayer meeting, and a time of careful exegesis. Along with the change in practice, new teaching does arise. I’ve seen it most prevalent in a new view of the grace of God. Love changes in meaning. These serve to justify a lot of varied behavior.
At a particular juncture in time, a religious leader says, “Things aren’t working as they should, so let’s try this, to see if it works.” It’s tried and it seems to work. People keep doing it. Others try it because it works. Change occurs. This isn’t biblical change. It isn’t someone being convinced by scripture. It’s someone being persuaded by his own lying eyes.
Godly men confront wrong changes. They don’t want the change. Those changing push back. A battle ensues. Godly men stop confronting change. They capitulate. The change becomes the new norm, until another leftward change starts the process again.
Over a longer period of time, leftward changes send people and their institutions away from God. They don’t start with scripture. We have a school and I teach in it. A student might stop doing his homework. That’s a change. I confront it. He still doesn’t do the homework. I stop confronting him. He discontinues homework. Not doing homework is the new standard.
Children sit quietly in the classroom while an adult teaches. A child talks to another child. The teacher corrects it. The child keeps talking. The teacher stops correcting. Talking is the new normal. It’s a change. Some might call it a gracious change. The child wants to talk. He gets to talk. An adult gives the child what he wants. Some call that love.
Men change. Society changes. Does God change? He doesn’t need to. If we need to change, it’s to be like God. Instead men change, become less like God. That’s accepted. Change to be like God is rejected. Today there is far more ungodly change than godly change.
Recent Comments