End Times and Current Events

General Category => Revelation Prophecy => Topic started by: Psalm 51:17 on June 23, 2015, 11:14:18 am

Title: End Times WAR on Repentance!
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 23, 2015, 11:14:18 am
This is the big piece that has sorely been missing in today's "churches" now(and now I'm seeing professing KJB ministries abandoning it). This is part 1 of 5...


Title: Re: Pastor James W. Knox - Repentance
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 23, 2015, 04:08:18 pm

Title: Re: Pastor James W. Knox - Repentance
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 23, 2015, 07:11:00 pm

Title: Re: Pastor James W. Knox - Repentance
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 24, 2015, 11:14:27 am

Title: Re: Pastor James W. Knox - Repentance
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 24, 2015, 12:12:15 pm
Last part - this is an excellent series!


Title: Re: Pastor James W. Knox - Repentance
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 25, 2015, 03:33:25 pm
First off - this is from another message forum I frequent(and is NOT my words) - pretty much this is the whole silver underlying as well with the whole Obamacare law...interesting read...


The United States has started to travel a very dangerous road today.  The potentials of this action are WAY more serious than most will recognize.

And what is this, you may ask?

It is, at first glance, a simple ruling by the Supreme Court.  It is the 6-3 ruling that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live.

Not a big deal, right?

Of itself...probably not.  But, it is HOW that decision was reached that is scary.

In point:

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them....If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter....In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.

Chief Justice John Roberts

In other words, as Justice Antonin Scalia stated:

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.

A majority of the SCOTUS has now proven that the words used in a law are of lesser significance than the "feelings", "assumptions" or  "desires" of those in places of power to execute that same law.

Or, in shorter form, the majority now decides the meaning.

Any false belief that "rule of law" exists in this nation has now been put to rest.  And, the long term consequences of such a position are...dire.

For example, imagine a person gets arrested for shoplifting.  Did the law really mean to apply to a person that has no money?  Or, was it to prevent people that have means to pay for an item to avoid paying?  Well...if the ones that have a majority in the power to execute the law are of a like mind, it could well be decided that the first meaning--though in complete opposition to the law as read--was the way to proceed.

"Governed by consent" has now started a turn to "might makes right".

Freedom of speech?  Only if you are in the majority.

Freedom of the press?  Only if those with the majority of power agree with your message.

A website states an opinion.  A vocal minority becomes a power of an apparent majority, and the website is removed.

Hate crime laws...they can become large sticks with which to beat down opposing opinions, because...that's how THEY "feel" the law was meant to be used.

The heart of the majority has become the scale by which laws will be applied.

Genesis 6:5 
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Jeremiah 18:12 
And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart.

Zephaniah 1:12 
And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with candles, and punish the men that are settled on their lees: that say in their heart, The LORD will not do good, neither will He do evil.

Matthew 15
16   And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17   Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18   But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19   For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20   These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

This "christian" nation (I say that with both sarcasm and regret) has chosen, by it's empowerment of it's leadership, to not only allow sin, but to rest it's future judgments upon the evil of the heart.  It will now take lies, and wrap them in emotion and ego, and pronounce them to be "an acceptable truth".

Abortion is a sinful thing, and this nation embraced it fully.  Homosexuality is a sinful thing, and the nation welcomed it with open arms.  Fornication, adultery, theft, murder--each of these is a sinful thing...each is coddled and accepted as "doing your own thing" or "a reasonable act" by the majority of this nation.

And God has been patient, allowing time for His called ones to become manifest, and to be saved.

But, now...this nation has taken upon itself the authority to define TRUTH upon a whim.  It has changed the law from being a standard by which people are held accountable to the society at large into a flexible tool for exerting power and enforcing priviledge.

It is no longer a mere question of "What does 'is' mean...", but, "What do you want your words to mean today?"

TRUTH is not flexible, nor is it open to redefinition.

John 14:6 
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

In my opinion, all of the sins of this nation and it's people combined are small and insignificant when compared to this.  This nation has started a journey where it hopes to redefine TRUTH in it's own image!  "We decide what truth is, by our will and at our leisure."

Matthew 24:35 
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mark 13:31 
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 21:33 
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Words are important.  TRUTH is unchanging...TRUTH is Jesus Christ.

This will not end well for this nation.  But it will end soon....

Title: Re: Pastor James W. Knox - Repentance
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 26, 2015, 09:45:32 am
FYI - Knox's church is NOT a 501c3. Good for him, b/c he still has the liberty to preach the whole council of God.

Title: Re: Pastor James W. Knox - Repentance
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 31, 2015, 03:34:04 pm

Title: Re: End Times WAR on Repentance!
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 07, 2015, 06:36:39 pm

Title: Re: End Times WAR on Repentance!
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 10, 2015, 10:08:23 am

Title: Re: End Times WAR on Repentance!
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 13, 2015, 08:20:44 pm
^^ At the 5 minute mark - he noticed the same thing I noticed on YT over the last year - how the gap theory heresy was used to sow seeds of discord among the brethren.

Title: Re: End Times WAR on Repentance!
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 17, 2015, 12:31:24 pm
Been studying about this "lordship salvation" strawman argument recently - apparently, it's been used for over 100 years to tear down the foundations of Christianity.


History of the Lordship Salvation Controversy

May 6, 2008 by Drew

It could be argued that the Lordship Salvation Controversy has been around for ages–ever since repentance lost its rightful place in the church’s gospel preaching. In this post, however, I will briefly trace the clear development of non-lordship theology from its early 20th century beginnings to its present form.

The Lordship Salvation Controversy can be traced back to the interaction of two early 20th century theologians, Lewis Sperry Chafer and Benjamin B. Warfield. Warfield was concerned about Chafer’s soteriology, claiming, “in [Chafer] we hear of two kinds of Christians whom he designates respectively ‘carnal men’ and ‘spiritual men'” (B.B. Warfield, “A Review of Lewis Sperry Chafer’s He That is Spiritual,” 324). Chafer grounded his belief in two types of Christians on his commitment to Sola Fide, claiming that, “the eternal glories which are wrought in sovereign grace are conditioned, on the human side, by faith alone”  (Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, 371). Chafer claimed that repentance and faith are essentially the same thing, thus Chafer could affirm both that “repentance is essential to salvation and that none could be saved apart from repentance,” and that “it is clear that the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition of salvation” (373, 76). Chafer directly addresses how his theology should influence preaching of the gospel, claiming that, “in all gospel preaching every reference to the life lived beyond regeneration should be avoided as far as possible.”

Thus, according to Chafer, the gospel preacher is to call sinners to believe but not explicitly to repent and believe. Hence, Chafer saw two great spiritual changes taking place in Christian’s lives: “the change from the ‘natural man’ to the saved man, and the change from the ‘carnal’ man to the spiritual man” (He that is Spiritual, 8). Chafer claimed that what many evangelicals termed “repentance” and placed alongside faith should actually be placed after conversion in an act of adjustment toward the Holy Spirit. Chafer’s theology reflects the movement of removing repentance from the gospel call and placing it in the arena of sanctification. (Randall Gleason, “B. B. Warfield and Lewis S. Chafer on Sanctification,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40.2, 250). Warfield, seeing “repent and believe” (Mark 1:15) as unitary call unto salvation, claimed that “these things [repentance and faith], cannot be separated, and it is a grievous error to teach that a true believer in Christ can stop short in ‘carnality,’ though having the Spirit with him and in him” (Warfield, “A Review of Lewis Sperry Chafer’s He that is Spiritual,” 326). Warfield thus saw Chafer as teaching that Christians could be justified without experiencing the Spirit’s progressive work of regeneration.

The Lordship Salvation Controversy was later taken up in Eternity Magazine through a brief exchange between Everett F. Harrison and John R. W. Stott. Harrison, effectively workng out Chafer’s theology, placed repentance in the realm of discipleship (Everett F. Harrison, “Must Christ be Lord to be Savior? NO!” Eternity, 14). Stott, arguing that Jesus Christ must be accepted as Lord and savior, emphasized the inseparable connection between saving faith and repentance (Stott, “Must Christ be Lord to be Savior? YES!” Eternity, 17-18). In recent years, Charles C. Ryrie and Zane C. Hodges, both opponents of the lordship position, wrote books in response to John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus, a major work representing the lordship position. Ryrie, much like Chafer, argues that repentance should be understood simply to mean “changing one’s mind about Jesus,” whereas repentance that denotes a conscious turning from sin should be practiced by believers for the purpose of restoring “fellowship with our Father and His family” (Ryrie, So Great Salvation, 100). Hodges takes Chaferian theology to its logical conclusion claiming that “faith represents the call to salvation” while “the call to repentance is the call to enter into harmonious relations with God” (Hodges, Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation, 146). Hodges represents bold and significant departure from the traditional reformed position on the doctrine of repentance by clearly placing repentance in the realm of sanctification. In so doing, Hodges establishes his belief in two kinds of Christians.

MacArthur, however, claims that “repentance is a critical element of conversion” and “not simply another word for believing” (MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, 178). Therefore, while Lordship and non-lordship proponents have debated over regeneration, justification, and sanctification, it has been shown that at the heart of the lordship salvation controversy is a fundamental disagreement on the biblical doctrine of repentance. In posts to follow I will set forth a brief biblical theology of repentance and answer a number of non-lordship objections.

Title: Re: End Times WAR on Repentance!
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 18, 2015, 05:56:30 pm
This is a very good read.


Dear ______

Thanks you for your question on Free Grace vs. Lordship Salvation ... I want to first point out that the short essay on this topic (that you sent) was written by Executive Director of the Grace Evangelical Society. I do not know if you are familiar with this group but it prides itself on believing in what they call free grace while openly charging their doctrinal opponents of adding something to the requirements of salvation over and above the simple requirement to believe. I mention this simply so you know that the essay is biased on the side of the so-called free grace position. It shines a negative light on the "Lordship" position but I would argue that just about anyone from the Lordship camp would probably deny the position as he has stated it. The first rule of debate, as far as I am concerned, is that If you can not represent another man's views in a way that he would agree with, then you have no right to disagree with him.

Having said this I will come clean by telling you that I am firmly in the Lordship camp. I have thought about this for a very long time. In fact this was one of the first major debates I participated in when first becoming a Christian when at the University of Colorado about 20 years ago.

While the no-Lordship position, which is often called "easy-belivism", appears outwardly to promote a kind of "grace alone" position, the facts are actually stacked against it. Upon closer scrutiny we find the group seems to freely exchange the words "grace" and "faith" as if they were speaking of exactly the same thing. Let me explain. While the "no-Lordship" position appears to admirably attempt to protect the doctrine of "faith alone", but in the process it casts aside the biblical doctrine of "grace alone". Those who hold to the free grace or no-lordship position, which include scholars like Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie as well as other famous dispensationalists at Dallas Seminary, are also firmly against the concept of monergistic regeneration. And this is intimately related to the topic at hand as you will see. They reject all biblical evidence which suggests that regeneration precedes faith. Instead, they view faith as something they must contribute to the price of their salvation. So while they may appear to be promoting a 'free grace' position, the fact is that they do not believe that faith arises as a gift of God. If that is the case then salvation is not by grace alone through faith alone but grace plus faith. So in the end their theology is self-defeating. C.H. Spurgeon once said:

"Remember this; or you may fall into error by fixing your minds so much upon the faith which is the channel of salvation as to forget the grace which is the fountain and source even of faith itself. Faith is the work of God's grace in us, No man comes to Me," says Jesus, "except the Father who sent Me draws him. . .Grace is the first and last moving cause of salvation; and faith, essential as it is, is only an important part of the machinery which grace employs. We are saved "through faith," but salvation is 'by grace.'"

Believe it or not, it is the Lordship position which actually embraces a full-orbed free grace ... this is because, God initiates and gives us new life SO THAT WE MIGHT believe. AND that same new disposition, brings us to repentance. Repentance is necessary for our salvation ... the gospel itself clearly and unambiguously says so ... this is no gospel addition .. but again, it certainly does not come from our own natural intrinsic ability. God's grace is what enables us to do so. If we look at 2 Tim 2:25 it speaks of how believers are to respond to persons who oppose the gospel and what God may do for them it says, "Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will GRANT THEM REPENTANCE leading them to a knowledge of the truth"

In other words, repentance is something that is granted by God - a result of God openingour eyes and showing us our need of Christ in light of God's holiness, beauty and excellence. An unregenerate man cannot apprehend such spiritual truths (1 Cor 2:14). When the text says that God's action of grace leads them to "a knowledge of the truth" it is clearly referring to salvation. It is not something we come up with ourselves in our unregenerate natures. And what is repentance consist of? First, it is a repentance of all trust in our own ability to save ourselves --- repentance from trusting in our own good works. A full humble recognition from the Holy Spirit that we are spiritually impotent. Next, because regeneration illumines our spiritual understanding, circumcises our heart, unplugs our deaf ears, opens our spiritual eyes and implants new affections, we therefore now love God more than we love sin for the first time. God works repentance in us as the object of our affections have been changed. No one says Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. So this means that we no longer want to live a lifestyle of unbroken sin. Sins power has been broken. Those who do continue in a lifestyle of sin can really have no assurance of their salvation. The Grace Evangelical Society, as the article demonstrates, are dangerously promoting an antinomian-like theology which seems to uphold a kind of "once saved always saved" position --- not a biblical doctrine. Why not? Because it means that most easy-believism groups embrace the concept that anyone who has EVER made a profession of faith is saved and if they later fall away and becomes a Buddhist or an atheist, it does not matter -- they're in. As long as I made some profession or prayed the prayer ten or twenty years ago then I am a Christian, in that scheme. It seems that Charles Stanley and others teachers like him have embraced this kind of theology. In fact, in a sermon earlier this month (8-5-04) he insisted that conviction of sin is not a necessary part of conversion (conviction of a felt need is).

In my view, and I would argue, the view of most Christians through church history, is that the holy Scriptures never speak this way. There are clear warnings of those who make (false) professions and yet live in unbroken sin. 1 John 2:19 teaches that those who leave the faith were never a part of it to begin with. And Jesus likewise says,

""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' " (Matthew 7:21-23)

Notice that the text says that he never knew them. It does not say to these false professors that He once knew them and then ceased knowing tham at a later time. No, it says "I never knew you". That means that there are actually persons out there who have spuriously believed in Christ. This should be sobering but if we take hold of God's promises then we derive great comfort because our regeneration changes the disposition of our hearts from hostility to affection for Christ and implants in us us a principle of perseverance. The Christian, while he may commit grievous sin, cannot live in it. Rather, faith is ongoing as is our desire to obey. God both encourages and disciplines those he loves so they will continue in their faith. In 1 Cor 11:31-32 Paul says, "if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world." A person who refuses to repent of sin, as a professed Christian, may have to eventually be excommunicated, with the hope that they will be reconciled/restored into fellowship through repentance. We cannot tell someone who lives in sin that they can have assurance. To do so, does such a person no good. It is positively harmful.

The essay you linked to in your email characterized the Lordship people as believing that one must be willing to turn from sins or commit one's life to Christ to be saved. In criticizing this then the 'free grace' people view these things as extra and unnecessary for salvation. In other words we may cling to sins and not have any desire to commit our lives to Christ just so long as we made some kind of a profession of faith. As far as I am concerned, such a belief is horrific, antithetical to everything the Bible teaches and needs to be censored. Repentance is never seen as optional. Obeying Christ's commands is likewise never seen as optional. A truly regenerate person will desire to believe and obey. We will often miserably fail but the Spirit which dwells in us presses us on to sanctification. A lifestyle of sin with no desire to obey Christ is a sign of being unregenerate and plainly in great danger. But whatever our conscience accuses us of we can turn in faith to Christ and He will forgive us.

The essay you sent also charges the Lordship people as believing that ..."the promises of God's Word, while necessary for assurance, are not sufficient. One must also look to his works. No believer can have 100% assurance of salvation merely by looking to the promises in God's Word to the believer." Really? On the contrary, the Reformed position is the only position that trusts in the promises of God as sufficient. Those who make such charges forget that sanctification is also a promise of God to the believer. Look in John 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you."

Christ earlier warns us against not abiding in the vine and says those who do not will be burned, but then here in verse 16 he makes a promise that He chose us and appointed us to bear fruit ... so the truly regenerate will not fall into the camp of those who fall away. Christ guarantees it. Christ cannot lose a believer. He intercedes for us (Romans 8:34) so we will not fail. Can Christ's prayer for His elect fail? Hebrews likewise says of Christ's prayer for us: "Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost [(that is, completely)] those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." This is God's word and so when we note that our works give evidence of true belief they glory goes to God alone because He ordained that we would bear fruit. The Apostle Paul said, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." The Text continually presents this message: That we are required to persevere AND that God grants us the ability to do so. Those who do not persevere cannot live in assurance.

So instead of "once saved, always saved" we believe that Christ will never lose a Christian, will enable us to persevere and will save us to the uttermost. "...he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus." (Phil 1:6) God grants the desire to press on to the end, always remembering that we are sinners and can trust in Christ alone for everything we have. Our desire for faith, repentance and obedience is a gift of God's sheer grace, not something we must come up with in our flesh. The easy believism/antinomian position somehow thinks that when repentance is demanded by the "Lordship" camp then we are calling for trust in works. Sorry, but a true faith produces works because regeneration and sanctification is a work of God in us to begin with. It is those who trust in their own ability to have faith that are ultimately trusting in themselves since such a faith is produced apart from God's regenerative work. Again, to the easy believism camp, faith is a product of their unregenerated human nature - so in the end which theology leads us to trust in free grace?

Title: Re: End Times WAR on Repentance!
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 21, 2015, 02:32:08 pm

Title: Re: End Times WAR on Repentance!
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 29, 2015, 09:30:09 am


Title: Re: End Times WAR on Repentance!
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 20, 2016, 08:57:14 am
Blatant Contradictions and Repentance

The doctrine of Repentance is an essential doctrine for every believer to understand.  In fact, it is essential for every man to repent.  Therefore, a good concept of repentance always profits us.  I wish to address a great error that some hold concerning repentance.  It is a stumbling block to some, and it may be very helpful to treat this topic briefly.

Here is the error:

It is not necessary to turn from sin, because that is a work, and works are not necessary to salvation.  Jonah 3:10 is the choice text for those who hold this specific form of argument, “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”  They conclude that since this passage says that turning from sin is works, then this cannot be a part of salvation.  Let us address this error quickly.

1.  According to the Bible, there are two parts to repentance.  Some examples of this include Acts 26:20, “that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.”  Matthew 3:8, “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.”  There is repentance, that is a heart turn toward God, and fruit meet for repentance, that is, the resulting life of one whose heart is turned from sin to God.  It is very important to make this distinction. 
2.  According to the Scriptures, the first part of repentance is the heart turn from sin.  This is a turn from sin, and we can prove it.  If fruit worthy of repentance is a life turned from sin, then repentance is turning the heart from sin.  The first change, repentance, is only in the heart.  Therefore, no work has been done.  In order to bring forth fruit fitting for repentance, we must bring forth good works.  We can no more bring forth good works without repentance, a change of heart, than a dead body can show the vital signs of life.
3.  Now these good works are not works that save, they are works that are fitting to conversion.  They are the fruit of salvation and not the cause.  Obviously, the life cannot turn from sin unless the heart turns first.  Once the heart turns, the works must follow.  This is fruit meet for repentance.  If one argues that any other fruit besides good works is “work meet for repentance,” then that one argues that we are commanded to bring forth works that are not good.  This is absurd, and makes God one who calls us to sin.  So the good works come from a good heart, made good by a turn from sin to God.  However, these works are never done to save us, but are the fruit of a change of heart.
4. So what did God see in Jonah 3:10?  “He saw their works.”  What works?  He saw their repentance, for we are told by Christ, in Matthew 12:41, that the men of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonas.”  If repentance is genuine, then it is always followed by works that are good.  So when did the Ninevites turn from sin?  They turned when they repented, for a virtuous turn must start in the heart.  This, by nature, is followed by good works, which God also saw.  So, their repentance had to have already taken place for them to have works that could be seen.  Otherwise, we must conclude that a man can please God without repentance of heart.  This also is absurd.

5.  So is turning from sin a work, and are we not to tell men to turn from sin when sharing the gospel?  Only if you hold a view that amount to this: someone can turn from sin outwardly without turning from sin first in their heart.  That is, they can have fruit worthy of a change that has not occurred.   This is impossible.  To turn from sin outwardly, we must call on men to turn from the love of sin inwardly.  That is, they must be called to Jesus from a life of sin.  He came to save His people from their sins.

6.  In short, the argument that turning from sin is a work, and that any call to turn from sin is a call to work, assumes that there is no heart change of mind a purpose that naturally proceeds it.  This is dangerous as we must conclude that one can turn from sin outwardly without having a change of heart.   But if one must have a change of heart, if he must repent, then do works meet for repentance, then to call a man to turn from sin, is to call a man to have an immediate change of heart from the love of sin to the love of Christ.  It is NOT to tell him to go to work, but to have a conversion, wherein the Holy Spirit of God comes in, and prepares the man for every good work.

7.  Yes we must obey God and preach repentance, and the remission of sins.  This is what it means to turn in faith in Jesus the sin-bearer, to trust Him and receive Him as your God.  This must be a turn from sin in the heart, or the works that fit the change CANNOT be good.  Unless the change makes the heart good, the man cannot do any good works.  We are not saved by our works, nor are we saved without them.  We are saved unto good works.  Unless we call men to turn from sin, they can never bring forth works meet for repentance, for they cannot repent.  May God bless you.

Pastor Troy Dukes
Grace Baptist Church
West Palm Beach, FL

Title: Re: End Times WAR on Repentance!
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 03, 2017, 04:58:27 pm

Title: Re: End Times WAR on Repentance!
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 03, 2017, 04:59:47 pm

Title: Re: End Times WAR on Repentance!
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 06, 2017, 10:55:46 pm