SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Revivals And Church History : Finney Criticism

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 Next Page )
PosterThread
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: Finney had a blind spot

To make Finney (or any man) our model is dangerous. After all, he is not God. Yet to discount the magnificent work God did through the man is equally dangerous. Either way we grieve the Spirit, and take our eyes off of God. We miss the mark!

Might I suggest that the danger is not so much in the man or his methods, as in the one who runs with it and uses it to promote a self-righteous, self-focused, self-dependent kind of works religion. I call this promoting the “other” gospel.

That fatal outcome can happen with anything – including the Bible itself. I am a piano teacher and see it happening with the best of pedagogues and their methods. Zealous teachers grab onto the method, and religiously adhere to it; However, they have lost the pioneer vision and spirit of its founder. And that is so sad for their pupils. Music learning becomes a list of rules, should's and shouldn'ts, and all the while inspiration, freedom, and joy is lost. (Can anyone relate?)

Any good method can become a tyrant when it degenerates into this kind of practice.

Maybe Finney's pitfall was this: Seeing God's great work, and eager to keep it alive forever - he took the reigns from the Spirit and made a method for man to hold. I think of the disciples who wanted to preserve the transifguration by confining it to three tents. It doesn't work that way. God's Spirit can't be confined into tents, books, methods, or any man-made container.

God used Finney in ways that boggle the mind. Yet God left the man with a serious blind spot. I don’t know why God didn’t remove it - maybe so man wouldn’t depend on him and put him on a pedestal. But if we don’t see that blindspot, and if we have the same blind spot --- look out! We are in danger of turning Finney’s methods into a tyrant – for ourselves and also fellow believers.

If Finney tells me I can’t do blah-blah on the Holy Sabbath, do I listen to him because he was such a fine man? No! The Spirit is my conscience, not Finney. And The Bible must take deeper authority in my life than any man.

The holiness movement, as promoted by Finney, with all it’s focus on holy living had some deadly pitfalls:


…. some of Finney’s teachings distorted the purity of the Gospel message in an attempt to control the sinful passions. In his article, Holiness Essential to Salvation, he prescribed a high standard of sanctification and then stated "in proportion as they recede from this they fail of salvation". Finney's Sabbath laws were many; for example, "abstinence of all amusements, and abstinence from walking or riding abroad for exercise."

Harry Ironside (1876-1951), an itinerant preacher and author, shared in his biography, his experience in the Holiness Movement during the early twentieth century. Early in his ministry, he zealously promoted holiness teachings, and was eager to achieve this high level of perfection. However, he soon came to see that the teachings had some negative effects on people. He wrote: "It left a tremendous train of spiritual derelicts" Pg 89 , A Biography, H A Ironside.

Ironside saw disillusioned failures, emotional wrecks, and people who abandoned the faith entirely because they felt that they could never measure up. He also saw many "living in cunningly concealed hypocrisy", trying to hide the fact that they were falling short.

In his own attempts to attain this sanctified state, Ironside was constantly nagged by his own imperfections. Eventually, in total frustration, he left the ministry, believing that he was a bad example. Prior to this he had been preaching four hundred sermons a year. He even considered giving up, and following the way of the world.

The Holy Spirit restored him by revealing to him that he had been focusing on himself all along, and not trusting in the good news. Ironside came to the realization that the grace of Christ was sufficient. As a result, he became an outstanding preacher of the gospel – the Good News.

(Edit Added)
I feel that we learn best through the life and works of Finney by observing what God did, and by keeping God in the forground.

Then our faith in God grows (rather than in any man, including ourselves).

Diane


_________________
Diane

 2006/10/16 7:56Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Early morning ramblings

Hi Chris;

"The [u]fact[/u] of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, [u]as if[/u] Christ had never died for us."

Underscored it differently, does this change the perspective any? Is not our forgiveness in fact an act of sovereign mercy?

One of the great beauties of tarrying in these parts has been the opening up of word definitions, have grown to love them, after all what is it that we are attempting to grasp but understanding, of each other, of all these 'old dead saints' who were used mightily of God...

[b]Intrinsic
INTRIN'SIC

INTRIN'SICAL,[/b] a. [L. intrinsecus; intra and secus.]

1. Inward; internal; hence, true; genuine; real; essential; inherent; not apparent or accidental; as the intrinsic value of gold or silver; the intrinsic merit of an action; the intrinsic worth or goodness of a person.

2. Intimate; closely familiar.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe,

Appreciative of your reconsidering not towards any particular bent that might be assumed by those who are seemingly in defense of Finney's words ... just the process itself. Might interject that I know very little of Finney's particular expressions at issue here and grasped a bit of it by investigating after the out takes were presented at the onset. It is redundant but worth repeating the same sentiment expressed by Philologos quite awhile back towards our approach to the scriptures; That we lift up the segments to examine, but be sure to put them back where we found them. (Paraphrased). In other words, context. Context of the [i]whole[/i], the whole of scripture, the whole of men of God that includes and even more importantly exhibits their character, what else have they spoken, written, voiced? It is far too easy to jump to conclusions from slice's or selections without further considering the context and motivation of the whole. In fact, in this instance it would be good to ask, where was the original taken from and was the whole of it even in consideration? There yet may be still some disagreement and that is fine, but has it been given it's proper due? That is a very generic question as it applies here.

But to circle back a moment to a great importance.
"The process". If anything I have learned, better am learning, is that the tremendous expression of so many different saints, both living (In this forum for instance) and dead (Or truly alive if you catch my meaning) is one of constant considering and reconsidering, "Have you considered my servant ..." Of thinking and re-thinking. I know for a fact there are things I do not know, things that are still held in abeyance, things that can only be summarized as ... 'perhaps'. (Another grand word!)

What is learning but discarding and replacing error with truth? Being teachable is a joy, humbled, a virtue not an embarrassment, the greater embarrassment is to hold on to 'save face'
and raises the question; To whom? Mere men? Ah, the folly! It is that wonderful paradox of the faith, going low to be raised up (In the Lords estimation), last-first, the opposites of the worlds ways of thinking and the ways of the Lord.

There are saints in our midst who have tarried 20, 30, 40 years with the Lord and we, the privileged majority are able to learn and grow alongside them, not to mention all the great gleaning available through this vast resource. Overstated? Impossible.

In prayer this morning, the thoughts turned again towards this matter of theology and of approach. Seems to this one that there can be two different primary ways of going about it (amongst many). That we attempt to construct as it were by piecing things together, a crafting of particulars that suit our preference or level of comfortability (A hunch here being that of the root of denominational thinking, "verse overdose"). The other being a sort of 'deconstructing', stripping away at all that is contrary to revealed truth .. and there it gets tricky because of that dastardly, often obtuse and highly suspect word; Opinion.

Still challenged by Oswald Chambers on this, he put it slightly different in stating that "If we are still saying we are sick of ourselves, we are not" (Paraphrased). Same with opinion.... How do I say it without boxing myself into a pickle? :-?

Bluntly though, there is a weariness of my own particular opinion. What does it amount to if it is not beneficial and true, doesn't somehow communicate towards the truth of the inward reality? There is a grand difficulty in articulation and expression that often leaves me puzzled and embarrassed somewhat ... "Do I really grasp what I am talking about?" or has something gotten under the skin, something tweaked with an emotion not understood, opening up some wound that is seen in others ... Do I know something of pride that warrants a pointing out of it when it is seemingly expressed by others? What the motivation but towards healing if a wound is touched and the yelping results? Believe me if anything, there is an awful lot of yelping that first reacts upon conviction of my own faulty perceptions and they are many, still just out of reach, the adjustment of the heart\head and practical reality. How much more denying and self repudiating is there still to commence? How much more the shifting and uplifting of the Lord to the rightful place of exaltation, not in pious sounding sentiment, but in real time reality? Why such a longing for revival? If this might be taken rightly, a large dose of it is due to being sick of mere men and their opinion, this one first and foremost and I am speaking of us saints in general. Surely there is good opinion, great even in our midst but is full circle back to, how does it measure up? Speculations might contain fact, but are not fact in themselves, otherwise they would no longer be speculations. Am about to go off the rails of confusion so I will stop.

The reason I think we are in a state of deconstruction is because of all the great misrepresentation of the Lord's thought. That is our Theology or ought to be. The simplest things may prove to be the most difficult. Honesty. A right understanding of who were are and Whose we are, where we stand in the Lords estimation and where we fall and fail in obstructing what the Holy Spirit would prefer to be doing in each of us, through us. We clog the channel by underestimating the important things and overestimating the peripheral.

But God gives more grace. Amazing isn't it?


_________________
Mike Balog

 2006/10/16 10:02Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Roadsign's:

Quote:
Ironside saw disillusioned failures, emotional wrecks, and people who abandoned the faith entirely because they felt that they could never measure up. He also saw many "living in cunningly concealed hypocrisy", trying to hide the fact that they were falling short.



This is a good point. I think the danger becomes our preoccupation with perfection. We need to walk with God and live lives filled with the Holy Spirit. Constant 'self-examination' can lead to dispair.

Ron Bailey has likened our 'examination' for perfection as was that of the High Priest in the Old Testament. The word 'perfect' means simply "as it was intended to be." We were intended to be representations of Jesus Christ. The High Priest would look at the offering for spots and blemishes. Things that were "not as they were intended to be." It was the High Priest's job. Some animals at 6 months may be well, but at a year they develop something; a spot or growth of some kind. Likewise we come into times when the Holy Spirit, speaking that of the High Priest [i]to us[/i] will point to the spot. We have to resolve to deal with what that 'spot' is in order to remain as "we were intended to be." And this is my concern. It is always as if 'man' is doing the examination and using his criteria of 'perfect' (what Christ is supposed to be) as the template. This is that 'taking the reins' from the Holy Spirit, I think.

I think our counsel needs to be, "obey in that area the Holy Spirit is revealing". this is not to say we don't preach on sin, but I think we have to allow God to be God and the Great High Priest to do His job. Let Him call out the imperfections. Let Him do the pointing, etc. etc.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/10/16 10:38Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Roadsigns:

Quote:
... [u]some of Finney’s teachings distorted the purity of the Gospel message in an attempt to control the sinful passions.[/u] In his article, Holiness Essential to Salvation, he prescribed a high standard of sanctification and then stated "in proportion as they recede from this they fail of salvation". Finney's Sabbath laws were many; for example, "abstinence of all amusements, and abstinence from walking or riding abroad for exercise."



Notice the statement... [u]some of Finney’s teachings distorted the purity of the Gospel message in an attempt to control the sinful passions.[/u] this is what the Rabbi's called "putting a fence around the Torah." The idea is that if we make things strict enough then we won't have to fear 'actual transgressions'. We will make rules that keep people back from committing the real sins. This sounds good at first, but as with the Jews these 'commandments of men' become the law of the land.

I think also we run the risk of misrepresenting God. What did our Lord say about the Sabbath? What would the Lord say and what did He do concerning amusements? One of the first scenes we have of Him is at a wedding providing wine for the guests. Was that for the nutritional needs? Why did He not say, "just get on with it! The water will suffice!"? I think at issue is a gross confusion between asceticism and spirituality. They are not the same thing and when we glorify ascetic life styles we run a secondary risk of envying easter religions. I am not spiritual because I deny my body any sense of pleasure, I am Spiritual because I walk in the Spirit and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. The Holy Spirit will keep me in [u]balance[/u].


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/10/16 10:54Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
The reason I think we are in a state of deconstruction is because of all the great misrepresentation of the Lord's thought. That is our Theology or ought to be. The simplest things may prove to be the most difficult. Honesty. A right understanding of who were are and Whose we are, where we stand in the Lords estimation and where we fall and fail in obstructing what the Holy Spirit would prefer to be doing in each of us, through us. We clog the channel by underestimating the important things and overestimating the peripheral.



Well stated Mike.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/10/16 10:59Profile
OverSeer
Member



Joined: 2006/7/15
Posts: 153
Geneva, Alabama

 Re:

Quote:
…. some of Finney’s teachings distorted the purity of the Gospel message in an attempt to control the sinful passions.

This is precisely what Finney was after - he was attempting to guard against antinomianism, believing that vicarious atonement, i.e., penal-substitution encouraged rather than discouraged antinomianism, therefore he opted for "governmental atonement (governmental substitution)." Finney's definition of atonement:
Quote:
ATONEMENT: the governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners. It is a covering of their sins by his sufferings.

The governmental theory of atonement emphasizes the seriousness of sin. It is a mediating view with both objective elements (the atonement is regarded as satisfying the demands of justice) and subjective elements (Christ's death is seen [b]as a deterrent to sin by impressing on the sinner the gravity of what is involved in sin[/b]).

"The major proponent of the governmental view of atonement was Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), by training as a lawyer rather than a clergyman" ([i]Christian Theology[/i]: Millard J. Erickson, pg. 806).

The governmental theory of atonement denies that the justice of God necessarily demands that all the requirements of the law be met. The law is merely the product of God's will, and He can alter or even abrogate it, just as He pleases. Hence:
Quote:
GOSPEL JUSTIFICATION: it consists in a governmental decree of pardon or amnesty--in arresting and setting aside the execution of the incurred penalty of law--in pardoning and restoring to favor those who have sinned, and those whom the law had pronounced guilty, and upon whom it had passed the sentence of eternal death, and rewarding them as if they had been righteous. Not to be regarded as a forensic or judicial proceeding. An act of grace, not law.

Also according to the governmental theory of atonement, no penalty can be attached or transferred to Christ, for punishment cannot be transferred from one person to another. Hence:
Quote:
LEGAL JUSTIFICATION: the pronouncement that the justified person is guiltless, or, in other words, that he has not violated the law, that he has done only what he had a legal right to do. An act of law, not grace. It cannot be possible that a sinner can be pronounced just in the eye of law; that he can be justified by deeds of law, or by the law at all.

And:
Quote:
7. He can not plead as our Advocate that He has paid our debt, in such a sense that He can demand our discharge on the ground of justice. He has not paid our debt in such a sense that we do not still owe it. He has not atoned for our sins in such a sense that we might not still be justly punished for them. Indeed, such a thing is impossible and absurd. One being can not suffer for another in such a sense as to remove the guilt of that other.

The problem in the governmental theory of atonement is its divorcing of justice and mercy which are wed together by God in the death of Christ. The governmental theory opts for the setting aside of the law on the basis of mercy - therefore:
Quote:
. Our Advocate may urge that He has borne such suffering for us to honor the law that we had dishonored, that now it is safe to extend mercy to us; but He never can demand our discharge on the ground that we do not deserve to be punished. The fact of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, as if Christ had never died for us.

So in the end the governmental theory of the atonement has Christ dying - not so that God could extend mercy (according to this theory, "our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, as if Christ had never died for us"), but so that the government of God would be "honored." In order to accomplish this "honoring of God's government", He had to make an example of someone. Hence the death of Christ.

However, our justification not only hinges on the mercy of God - it also hinges on the fulfillment of the law. God's nature is not one-sided. He is not merely righteous and demanding, nor merely loving and giving. He is righteous, so much so that sacrifice for sin had to be provided. He is loving, so much so that he provided that sacrifice Himself by giving His Son. This is why I refuse the governmental theory of atonement and hold fast to the penal-substitutionary theory of atonement.

Grace and peace
Olan


_________________
Olan Strickland

 2006/10/16 12:15Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

OverSeer's:

Quote:
The governmental theory of atonement denies that the justice of God necessarily demands that all the requirements of the law be met. The law is merely the product of God's will, and He can alter or even abrogate it, just as He pleases. Hence:
Quote:
GOSPEL JUSTIFICATION: it consists in a governmental decree of pardon or amnesty--in arresting and setting aside the execution of the incurred penalty of law--in pardoning and restoring to favor those who have sinned, and those whom the law had pronounced guilty, and upon whom it had passed the sentence of eternal death, and rewarding them as if they had been righteous. Not to be regarded as a forensic or judicial proceeding. An act of grace, not law.




This is why salvation is so fragile in the G.O.G. system. The sinner is viewed as a prisoner pardoned under the condition that he/she never sin again. To sin is to forfeit pardon and come under the direct judgment of the Law as if one had never been pardoned to begin with.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/10/16 13:46Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Gov't of God:

Quote:
The fact of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, as if Christ had never died for us.



If this is true then why would Christ need to die at all? I'm reminded of the brutal nature of the sacrifices of the Old Testament. The gallons and gallons of blood would be akin to working in a slaughter house. But it was not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats could take away sins. The fact remains, without the shedding of blood there is no remission.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/10/16 14:24Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: the role of faith

Olan said:

Quote:
However, our justification not only hinges on the mercy of God - it also hinges on the fulfillment of the law.

So true! Yet there was a time when I would have totally misunderstood your statement – assuming it to say: Mercy is only half satisfactory. Law is the other half.

I now believe that mercy is 100% sufficient. It is not half of the formula, but neither is law. Actually, without law, then what would mercy be??? Without law, how can “mercy” be mercy? Why would anyone need mercy without law? Do you know what I mean? There is a faulty way of understanding mercy/judgment that leads one to believe that God’s mercy, atonement, Christ’s death and resurrection is not enough. Therefore we must be careful to prop up our salvation with our own efforts – to polish up the bits that God might miss (with his other half).

I know that you are not saying that, but that is what is so easily assumed.

Quote:
God's nature is not one-sided. He is not merely righteous and demanding, nor merely loving and giving.



Perhaps I’m getting picky about words, but I think I’m reflecting a much-held misunderstanding about God’s character – that is: God is half loving (nice) and half unloving (mean and punishing). A person takes on whichever half best fits into his pre-shaped life-views, or his religious affiliation. Or maybe one views God as nice (loving) one day – when you are good, but mean (righteous) the next – when you messed up. What a horrible life. That reminds me of pagan deities.

I now see God as 100% loving – all the time, even when he is just and righteous. Love never bi-pass law. God’s love offers the provision to live a victorious obedient life, not to pretend we are righteous when we are not.


Quote:
He is righteous, so much so that sacrifice for sin had to be provided. He is loving, so much so that he provided that sacrifice Himself by giving His Son. This is why I refuse the governmental theory of atonement and hold fast to the penal-substitutionary theory of atonement.


Amen!! I can appreciate the implications of this statement (if I understand it right). I remember in my earlier years wondering why so many (not all) born-again Christians had little evidence of the victorious life. They were troubled with anxiety, legalism, self-absorption, criticism, negativity, etc etc. In fact, I remember wondering why many NON- Christians were better off.

I now realize that many Chrisitans were trusting in a fantasy – a self-delusion programmed into their minds like a mantra: “I am perfectly saved, I’m fine, I have no sin bondage (that’s not possible), I am justified (JUST AS if I were sinless), glory, halleluiah, I’m H-A-P-P-Y. and all the while legalism haunts them. Deep inside they know something is not right.... Blaaaah!


Christ died to set us FREE FROM sin, not so we could pretend we were free.
Christ came to fulfill the law by putting his law in our minds, give us new life, guide us by the Spirit, and transform us through our cooperation with him: follow the Spirit, seek him, etc...

Did you notice how often these truths get left out of discussions related to the Christian walk? I wonder why? I fear that many saints fail to communicate the full message in their zeal to Christian-ize and holy-ize people. And many, like me who counted on man to lead them on the straight and narrow, grab onto all the instructions and run the race with self-reliance…. till they fall into the ditch. (Praise God for ditches!)


Here’s my thought:
Without FAITH, we are going to mess up every single doctrine that exists. And we are going to misunderstand every single Bible story, and every single divine law.

And without faith we are going to miss the best that God has done in the past (ex via Finney), and the best that he is doing now.

Without faith we can’t see it because we are blind.

Quote:
I think our counsel needs to be, "obey in that area the Holy Spirit is revealing". this is not to say we don't preach on sin, but I think we have to allow God to be God and the Great High Priest to do His job. Let Him call out the imperfections. Let Him do the pointing, etc. etc.



God can handle his children quite well! ... I believe.... I have faith!

Diane




_________________
Diane

 2006/10/16 14:37Profile
OverSeer
Member



Joined: 2006/7/15
Posts: 153
Geneva, Alabama

 Re:

"But false prophets also arose among the people, [i]just as there will also be false teachers among you[/i], [b]who will secretly introduce destructive heresies[/b], even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. [b]Many[/b] will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned" (2 Peter 2:1-2).

"Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you [b]appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints[/b]" (Jude 3).

"For we can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth" (2 Corinthians 13:8). Truth cannot be destroyed, it cannot be proven false, and it is only to one's own destruction that such an attempt will lead (see 1 Peter 2:6-8).

When we engage in polemics (destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God with the Word of God - 2 Corinthians 10:4-5) and apologetics (giving a logical reason/defense for our faith - 1 Peter 3:15) the two are to line up for a faithful witness to the truth - "Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses" (2 Corinthians 13:1). Even in our interpretation of the Bible the Lord has given us immediate context, over-all context, and the Holy Spirit to establish His truth.

That being said, we should be able through the Word of God and logic to expose any lie or lofty speculation that is raised up against the knowledge of God. If what is proposed is truth then the Word of God and logic will prove it to be so. If what is proposed is falsehood (opposition to the truth) then the Word of God and logic will destroy it.

The Bible tells us that there are men who are "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. But they will not make further progress; [i]for their folly[/i] (lack of understanding) [i]will be obvious to all[/i], just as Jannes' and Jambres' folly was also" (2 Timothy 3:7-9).

If what I have spoken in this thread is falsehood then it can and should be undone. If what I have spoken in this thread is truth then it cannot and will not be undone. There is no denying that Finney held to the "Governmental Theory of Atonement" which is a mixture of Pelagianism and Socinianism. The question now is: is that sound doctrine or heresy?

If it is sound doctrine then Finney was a hero. If it is strange doctrine then Finney was a heretic.

What will we do to come to the knowledge of the truth? Will we get into God's Word and see what He has to say or will we with our own prejudices ignore God's Word and opt for some method that can never determine truth? Will we see what God has to say or will we prop up our beliefs with what others had to say? Do I believe that Rick Warren is telling the truth because W. A. Criswell, or Billy Graham, or Adrian Rogers, or any other so-called pillar endorsed his teachings? Do I believe that Finney was telling the truth because J. E. Orr, or A. W. Tozer, or Leonard Ravenhill, or any other so-called pillar endorsed his teachings? I am not being derrogatory towards anyone esteemed as a pillar - see Galatians 2:6-10.

As thingsabove's signature says:

Quote:
"Controversy for the sake of controversy is a sin, controversy for the sake of the truth is a divine command." Dr. Walter Martin, author, Kingdom of the Cults


Grace and peace
Olan


_________________
Olan Strickland

 2006/10/17 11:28Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy