Archetypal Moses
A Bedouin from Sinai, ca. 1930 – a Hebrew descended from Joktan the son of Eber,
the progenitor of the Hebews
Moses looked much more like this than Charlton Heston
The Theoretical Cancellation of Salvation
in the Classical Armstrongist Model of the Law
By NeoDromos
The reason why people turn to Jesus is because through him they are offered salvation. If that offer is not present or is impaired, then there is no reason to turn to Jesus. If a belief system inadvertently nullifies the offer of salvation, there is a need to revisit the theology that underlies that belief system. Because Jesus did, in fact, bring to us the Gospel of salvation so something is awry. In this writing, I present the case that classical Armstrongism denies salvation to all comers in the way that it models the Law of Moses. I do not believe that this was intentional. I believe it is the inadvertent product of an incomplete soteriology. Therefore, I have classed the denial as “theoretical” only. I will refer to classical Armstrongism – the Armstrongism of documents written in the middle of the last century. I do not know what modern denominations derived from the pre-1995 Worldwide Church of God believe on this topic. I would hope that their soteriology is now much more mature.
Acne and the Armstrongist Legal Model
“What are these statutes and laws? The Ten Commandments formed the basis of God’s Law given to his people.” – Herman L. Hoeh, from his article titled “Which Old Testament LAWS Should We Keep Today?,” 1971.
The classical Armstrongist view is that the statutes and judgments of the OT are based on the Ten Commandments, that they existed before the Old Covenant so that the change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant would not affect them. They are still in force today and they magnify the Ten Commandments. This means that if you transgress the statutes or judgments, you transgress the superordinate Ten Commandments from which they are derived. Read carefully his section in the article cited above titled “Other Laws Based on the Ten Commandments.”
Let us consider the following case from Leviticus 13:45,
“And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.”
This law is contained in the same section of Leviticus that states the dietary laws. Hoeh refers to these as binding “statutes and laws.” So, for people who follow Hoeh’s reasoning, it is critically important to salvation to understand precisely, if possible, what this law means. In the interpretation of this law, the preponderant point of obscurity is the term “leper.” Leper is a translation of the Hebrew word tzara’at which does not refer to Hansen’s disease. This is what the Jewish Study Bible (2nd Ed., Oxford University Press, p. 222, Notes) says about this term:
“This has sometimes been translated as “leprosy” (or “leprous affection”), but the disease today called leprosy (Hansen’s disease) was not known in biblical times and the description given in the Bible is not consistent with it.”
If anything this term was broad scope. It seemed to include natural and supernatural effects. It had to do with a pathology that blemishes the surface of things and, principally, the human skin. In modern times a broad class of common and uncommon skin eruptions has been identified with tzara’at. But nobody knows, and certainly not the King James translators, what this pathology is. So much for Biblical literalism. So, it is likely that in an abundance of caution that this broad definition would arise:
“The Talmud maintains that Leviticus 13:1 et seq. refers generally to any disease that produces sores and eruptions on the skin (Sifra 60a).” (Jewish Encyclopedia, Funk and Wagnalls, Volume 8, Page 10, 1904.)
This means that Leviticus 13 encompasses common acne as well as many other skin afflictions.
A Hypothetical Case in Point
Assume an Armstrongist minister, who is exemplary in following classical Armstrongist theology, has a teen-aged daughter with a little acne. The Jewish Study Bible interprets the prescription in Leviticus 13:45-46 to mean that the teen should keep her hair in a disheveled state, clothes in disarray and should warn others by shouting “Unclean.” Recall that Hoeh asserted that such laws were a part of God’s eternal moral law that pre-existed the Old Covenant. Hoeh wrote in the section of his article titled “Other Laws Based on Ten Commandments”:
“Notice! Here again are the statues and laws of God existing before the old covenant. As they existed before the old covenant, they could not be abolished when it ceased to exist. The old covenant could not destroy what it did not bring into force. The old covenant was merely an AGREEMENT to keep laws that were already in force.”
This statement by Hoeh assigns a striking gravitas to Leviticus 13:45-46 within Armstrongist theology although I doubt that Hoeh was thinking about tzara’at. And although I have seen many people with skin afflictions in Armstrongist congregations, I have never known this law to be kept.
The Pro Forma Cancellation of Salvation
This model unavoidably results in the cancellation of salvation. I think that this was probably inadvertent. Hoeh was avidly pursuing the hermeneutical integrity of the Sabbath, the holy days, dietary laws and tithing and shot salvation dead as an innocent bystander. There are many laws in the Old Testament that are classed by Hoeh as God’s pre-existing, eternal, moral law that are disregarded or gratuitously modified by modern Armstrongism. These laws are as much on the critical path to salvation as Sabbath observance is in the Armstrongist legal model. This means that under Armstrongist theology, there is a soteriological formula, it is just that nobody observes it and it is not taught as being a requirement and, hence, it does not result in salvation for anyone.
What is lacking to make the Armstrongist view defensible is a Doctrine of Selectivity. Why is the law concerning the Sabbath important to salvation but not the law concerning tzara’at? There must be a reason and it is certainly not found in the writing of Herman Hoeh. Armstrongists argue themselves into the loss of salvation. Armstrongists make the keeping of the Law a requirement for salvation yet they do not keep it in its entirety. They observe it selectively and in a modern implementation (staying in a hotel rather than a brush arbor for the FoT, for example). And they have not asserted a well-exegeted Doctrine of Selectivity to underpin this viewpoint. Essentially, what they have done is issue a new rendition of the Law of Moses through the WCG Church Administration Department (CAD). So when you spar logically with them you must recognize that they are not talking about the Law of Moses, they are really talking about the Law of the CAD. And the CAD, further, is based on post-70 AD Rabbinic Judaism (sans Temple) and not the Law as observed in Second Temple Judaism which was based on the OT.
Summary Argument
Paul, in contention with the Circumcision Party, stated, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” If you are going to make keeping the Law of Moses an adjunct condition to the salvific work of Christ, you must keep all of the Law. It is a unified body of legislation. I would assert that classical Armstrongism and likely modern renditions of that theology do not provide a clear path to salvation. And this is lost in the clamor of trying to prove that the Old Testament laws are still in force. I would strongly advocate that, instead of a pre-occupation with predictive prophecy, Armstrongists should revisit the concept of salvation that is fundamental to any rendition of the Gospel and define a Biblically based soteriology that makes the good news, good news.
26 comments:
This article ignores the simplicity of the ACOG dodge.
Premise 1: In the New Testament, God gave the leaders of His Church the authority to bind and loose regarding laws and judgments.
Premise 2: HWA and his successors are the leaders of God's Church.
Premise 3: HWA and today's leaders have the God-given authority to pick and choose, to bind and loose as they see fit.
QED
Anonymous 8:05
You are right. The Armstrongist rendition of the Binding and Loosing doctrine, if it is unlimited, essentially makes it possible for human leaders of the denomination to think that they can cancel any law that God might have put in place which alters the very fabric of good and evil. But I do not know if it is unlimited. I think it is probably not but I do not know of any doctrinal statement that limits the extent of it. My guess is that there is no formal statement and binding and loosing in the WCG was done ad hoc and seldom. It may be unlimited in theory but not in practice. It is a scary concept that confers on flawed humans powers greater than God - if the doctrine is what I fear it is. Here we suffer from the lack of a formal statement on the doctrine or even a description of precedent.
I did hear a sermon in the Field House in Big Sandy that denied that binding and loosing could be boundlessly creative - it had to reflect existing law. But the guy at the pulpit who spoke this was not a high ranking minister.
But so far and to my knowledge, the laws of Leviticus 13 have not been formally abrogated or modified. Just ignored.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Mr. Pack is the Elijah to come, which means he can't die before Christ returns.
I find the B&L doctrine very difficult and prone to abuse. If binding and loosing authority is unlimited, we should all be in the catholic Church, they had the authority to do so. If it is not unlimited, then many would say it is limited by the law of God. But as has been pointed out, not being in booths is a contradiction of the law of God also no trumpets on trumpets, no tassles etc. There are many law contradictions in COGs. So HWA santioned and condoned law breaking and therefore disqualified himself (if he had any authority in the first place).
Hypothetically, if your point #2 were true, HWA appointed Joseph Tkach Sr. as his successor, passing the binding and loosing authorities to him. Remember, King David never wavered in his respect for God's anointed, King Saul. The so-called leaders of the so-called churches of God did not respect God's anointed, and all rebelled against Mr. Tkach's binding and loosing authority when he made the corrections.
Personally, I do not believe that HWA was correct in seizing the primacy of Peter for himself. And, that's pretty much what he did. He claimed in True History of the True Church that an endless chain of laying on of hands throughout the ages led to his era of the church, but again, in his hypothetical, there is an inconsistency or violation, since nobody in the so-called Sardis era passed the authority to HWA, or made him God's anointed. He rebelled and took it for himself. His authority was imaginary. His baptism wasn't even performed by a sabbath-keeping minister, it was done by a Baptist pastor in Oregon!
The Jewish rabbis and scholars have a long tradition of interpreting the law, keeping records (the Talmud) of their decisions much the same as the Supreme Court of the USA keeps records of their interpretations of Constitutional law. Within this context they have preserved the intent of the law right into the present. It is possible that this encompasses the meaning of binding and loosing, and it's not at all a single, unaccountable man making unilateral picking and choosing decisions.
And, then there is the debate as to what constitutes the Old Covenant, and what constitutes the new, but that's another whole new topic.
The is no such thing as cancellation of salvation. Baptised Christians are in individual relationship/covenants with God. That's why scripture talks about working out your own salvation with fear and trembling and not allowing anyone to take your crown.
You dwell your mind far too much in the political shenanigans of the twentieth and twenty first century working of church organisations. Do you know of no other way to function? Does nothing else interest you ?
Seriously? This is the best you have?
We look forward to your report after Pack's funeral.
Neo,
You have identified the crux of the problem with Armstrongism's approach to the Law. By making SOME of the Torah part of the terms of the New Covenant, they have unintentionally diluted/confused/canceled the absolute TRUTH that our salvation was/is accomplished through Jesus Christ. Moreover, I would say that they don't want to revisit this part of their theology, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to formulate a rationale for cherry-picking certain provisions of the Law as binding on Christians.
As you suggest in the concluding paragraph of your treatise, the problem with this approach should be obvious to all. The "fly in the ointment" is that the Jewish religious leaders, along with Jesus and Paul, all clearly regarded the Law as a WHOLE. Moreover, unlike Hoeh, Jesus, John, and Paul repeatedly stated that the basis/foundation/premise of that Law was LOVE - NOT the Ten Commandments! Christ distilled the Torah into two great principles: Love for God and love for neighbor; and then he commanded his followers to observe these principles as part of their new lives in him - NOT as a way to earn what he had already accomplished for them (salvation), but as a demonstration of their repentance from the things that had originally incurred the death penalty (which he had already paid for them) and their new devotion to God and each other!
In other words, the New Covenant does require that Christians live moral lives going forward, and that morality is based on Christ's distillation of the Torah - the Law of Love. Moreover, this requirement has NOTHING to do with their salvation - it is simply framed as a reflection of their gratitude and responsibility for the wonderful gift of salvation which they have received in and through Jesus Christ. Armstrongites inadvertently make SOME of the dos and don'ts of the Old Covenant the means of their salvation - substituting those works for the free gift which Christ has offered to anyone who accepts his offering/sacrifice on his/her behalf.
Armstrongites wallow in the tired old arguments over Law and Grace, because that is easier for them than addressing the inconsistencies/dissonance inherent within their own theology relative to God's Law (and, more particularly, how that Law specifically applies to both the Old and New Covenants). Unfortunately, Armstrongites cannot seem to comprehend and accept that Jesus Christ FULFILLED the Torah for us - ALL of it! For them, this is just shorthand for abolishing the Law. They appear to be unable to understand that Christ transformed (magnified and made honorable) the Law for New Covenant Christians. They insist on cherry-picking from among the dos and don'ts of the terms of the Old Covenant and refuse to address the spiritual and cognitive dissonance that this produces for their soteriology.
For those who are interested, I have written a series of posts for my own blog on Jesus in the Torah: https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/ These posts reflect the many ways Christ fulfilled the Law for us, and I believe they represent the way that Christians should view the Torah.
Binding and Loosing
This was not the topic of my essay but it has arisen as an "escape valve" for the hypothetical and illustrative case that I set up. I did a cursory scan of WCG literature on-line and found the follow two statements, the first by HWA and the second by GTA.
"There has been much discussion at Pasadena between certain ministers of lower than apostle rank, as to the CHURCH binding and loosing.
"So now let it be MADE OFFICIAL — by Christ's present day apostle — that this binding and loosing PLAINLY, CLEARLY was given to Christ's chief APOSTLE — not to lower rank ministers ordained by his authority — not by the CHURCH as a body — but by the APOSTLE!" Herbert W. Armstrong, "How Christ Gives the Church Its Beliefs," Good News Magazine, 1978.
And further:
"God's ministers have the grave responsibility of prohibiting certain things, and of permitting other things! This does not mean mere MEN may arbitrarily alter the divinely revealed LAWS of God! It does mean Jesus Christ decides, through His instruments, in certain cases where there is no specific, definite "Thus saith the LORD" found in Scripture!" -- Garner Ted Armstrong, "How to Keep Unity in the Church," Good News Magazine, 1962.
While this is by no means a fully developed doctrinal statement, it does show where the compass was pointing in the early WCG. The first statement was made in the midst of the political crisis over the Systematic Theology Project which I think had strong elements of a father-son conflict. GTA referred to D&R decisions about binding marriages in the context of his statement quoted above.
Much could be explored here but this is a sidebar to my main argument. There is enough dogma here to indicate that the WCG would not loosen the Law of Leviticus 13. And specifically a field minister could not make an ad hoc loosing decision. It would have to be done by HWA as Apostle. The forensics of this is complex. There can be the influence of precedent. WCG did modify some OT Laws. But overall it focuses on controversies that tend to be Talmudic rather than Torahic.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anonymous 1:21
I am sorry that you seem to have not understood anything that I wrote. Of course, there is no formal cancellation of salvation in reality. But there is in Armstrongism. And, perhaps you would advise Paul in his conflict with The Circumcision Party that he is focused too much on "political shenanigans." I believe you have missed the meaning of all this. There is an arrogance associated with feigned simplicity.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
It is worth mentioning that the major departure from the Old Testament in Armstrongism is not the Binding and Loosing doctrine. The use of Binding and Loosing seems to have been relatively tame in the WCG - unless you happen to have been involved in a D&R case. Another point of complexity is that it is difficult to understand where the dividing line is between simple interpretation and application of the law versus binding or loosing conditions that are innovative and case dependent.
Where Armstrongism really departs from the Law of Moses is in implicitly aligning with Rabbinic Judaism. The sacrifices and ceremonies were discontinued but there are other practices in the Law of Moses that assume the centrality of the Temple. After the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the Academy of Jamnia repackaged the law so it could be practiced without the Temple. This was the beginning of Rabbinic Judaism. A simple example: It states in the OT, “Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.” This meant at the Temple not at Tucson or Lake Ozark. The creators of Armstrongism did not explicitly declare a foundation on Rabbinic Judaism but the praxis more aligns with Rabbinic Judaism than Second Temple Judaism.
If Jesus, according to Armstrongism, preserved the Law of Moses (and Jesus was speaking of the OT that he himself kept not Rabbinic Judaism, sans Temple) in place and the also magnified it, how can Armstrongists engage in non-Temple observation of the law like was taught by the Academy of Jamna?
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
My thought on binding and loosening often moves toward caring for the salvation of others. If Armstrong and Armstrongites had the authority to bind and loosen why would they not loosen the need of Sabbath observance in order to bring more people in line with God?
Obviously there are good arguments for why the sabbath is no longer in effect for the Christian; it’s been argued for 2000 years and established for most. But, still,for the sake of argument let’s say most of Christianity has been “wrong” about this. Why then wouldn’t a caring person or group, with the authority to bind and loosen, simply remove the sabbath as a requirement, thus bringing many pure hearts into the fold who had been confused or deceived regarding sabbath observance?
The sabbath is largely a physical act. Certainly, the spiritual aspects can be applied without Saturday.
Basically, I suppose I am saying that if someone has the authority to loosen the sabbath for the sake of millions of pure hearted non-cog Christians, then is it unloving not to do so? Is it not justifiable and reasonable for such an authority to conclude that the important spiritual takeaway is that Christ is our Rest and that the sabbath need no longer disqualify the pure hearted that were confused/deceived?
NeoDromos wrote:
Anonymous 1:21 I am sorry that you seem to have not understood anything that I wrote.
Blog readers, please consider the possibility that Anon did understand what NeoDromos wrote, but happens to disagree and has given sound reasons for that disagreement. Only an arrogant man like Dave Pack would dare to presume that anyone who disagrees with him has misunderstood him.
Amen to the article! The disagreement, as evidenced above, is exactly why Paul wrote about the "simplicity in Christ". The law was impossible to keep, made for arrogance and superiority and was but a shadow of the coming Savior. He kept all of it for us, He fulfilled every single jot and tittle and when He had completed it, He exclaimed "it is finished". Nothing left undone.
All the Christian believer is tasked with is recognizing our need for His finished work, on our behalf and our love for God and neighbor.
Acne does not affect clothing - Lev 13:47-59 or houses - Lev 14:34-53. I do not know exactly what the plague of leprosy is - Lev 14:34.
8:27: I'm sorry, but it appears that you seem not to have understood anything that NEO wrote, anything that 1:21 wrote, or anything that Dave Pack wrote.
Blog readers, consider the possibility that 8:27 is "attack man", and is just deliberately being obtuse, for the purpose of looking for a fight if he can get one! Let's see how he responds to this.
This above mentioned cherry-picking between which laws in the same chapters and sometimes verses to keep or dispense with was one of the first things I noticed when I my eyes were opened.
There have been a few doctrinaL ideas that have been used post '95 in the groups in my circle.
The first being an arbitrary distinction between laws of 'ritual washings' being unneccesary although that ritual uncleanness curiously doesn't extend to clean/unclean meats.
The other is a newer idea of national vs spiritual laws which is what torpedoed my interest. That imaginary line is indeed even more wavy in practice than it sounds.
In regards to the binding and loosing issue, HWA made a statement to the ministry in the December 3, 1974 issue of the Bulletin, which I believe was the precursor to what later became the Pastor General's Report. In his letter to the ministry on the subject of "WHAT IT MEANS TO BE 100% BEHIND ME IN THE WORK!" he had this to say,
"Yet we have made a few mistakes. Not many, but once discovered, they have been CORRECTED. When it was PROVED to me that "from" in Lev. 23:15 was a misleading translation into English
-- that the true meaning was "count ... beginning with," not "count
... from," I changed our understanding. Until that was PROVED to
me I withstood all opposition, criticism and pressure of dissidents
who were trying to split up the Church. Likewise, when PROOF came
to me of error and NEW LIGHT, I changed the D&R ruling. The same
on facial make-up. Meanwhile, Christ, who KNOWS better than we that
He is dealing with fallible humans -- but who are HONEST with His
Word, has BOUND in heaven what His Church, even in unrealized error,
has bound in earth."
His position on binding and loosing was that he alone had that power, and that Jesus Christ would bind even his "error" and those under him, i.e. the ministry trickling down through the ranks to mere members were duty bound to follow him even in error, and Jesus Christ would back this up. This of course runs completely contrary to his statement of "don't believe me, believe your Bible" which is still quoted and referenced by ministers within the COGs today whenever it suits their purposes.
It's interesting that in the paragraph quoted above, HWA states that "I changed our understanding" and so his understanding or one could say private interpretation of scripture, was the standard for doctrine in the church, rather than solely scripture itself. And, those who promoted or voiced what would later come to light as the "correct" position on how to count Pentecost were accused of "trying to split up the church." In essence he is saying that if he as the human representative of Jesus Christ (another well known church uses the term Vicar), makes an error, then Jesus Himself is duty bound to bind that error on the rest of the church unless or until such a time as he comes to a correct or better understanding. This position is of course problematic on a number of levels, regardless of the particular doctrine under discussion.
As a side note to NEO, I hope this serves to answer the question you posed to me in another thread. While I remain a Sabbatarian and continue to keep the Holy Days, I do not consider myself an "Armstrongite" as you termed it. I do not idolize or place HWA or anyone else for that matter on a pedestal. I believe it is the job of every person who wishes to follow Jesus Christ to "prove all things" and "work out your own salvation with trembling and fear." This is a process for all of us, and isn't achieved overnight.
Occasionally participating in the discussions on these threads helps me to clarify my own thinking, and I hope that in some limited way, my comments might be helpful to others.
Concerned Sister
Anonymous 9:14 wrote, "Acne does not affect clothing - Lev 13:47-59 or houses - Lev 14:34-53. I do not know exactly what the plague of leprosy is - Lev 14:34."
The term "tzara’at" immediately throws us into midrash. If we were to combine all of the characteristics of tzara’at described in Leviticus, we would quickly see that there is no such pathology that we know of that meets this description. So how do we treat this polysymptomatic disease? Do we say it doesn't exist and therefore we can forget about this section of God's eternal moral law (according to Hoeh)? Or do we view it as a class containing many diseases that have in common that they blemish the surface of things (for instance, fungus, acne, psoriasis, measles)? The Talmudists seem to have chosen the latter.
The word tzara’at comes from the Hebrew verb meaning "to strike." So maybe tzara’at was a special, supernatural disease that God would use to smite someone or something. (It raises the question, "Why would God smite clothing?") The point is that Herman Hoeh stated that this was a part of God's eternal moral law that pre-existed the Old Covenant, on the same level as Sabbath observance, and nobody in the Armstrongist community has really looked into it that I know of. You could lose your salvation because you steadfastly refused to acknowledge and keep the law of tzara’at. Like consistently and defiantly breaking the Sabbath. If you find a doctrinal statement on this somewhere within Splinterdom, let me know.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NeoDromos just doesn't get it. He overvalues the intellect, which Armstrongism sets aside as irrelevant. He writes:
The term "tzara’at" immediately throws us into midrash.
No, it doesn't. If you accept the underlying premise of Armstrongism, that God's Apostle makes the rules and can re-make them, then the term tzara'at is irrelevant. What is relevant is what God's Apostle has instructed Armstrongists to do. NeoDromos recognizes that approach as bogus, but he seems to think that his intellectualizing establishes would matter to an Armstrongist. It wouldn't and it doesn't. Any Armstrongist reading NeoDromos' stuff would quickly conclude, "He's an unconverted intellectual, and his mind is blinded so it cannot see what God's Apostle has shown to me."
Anonymous 4:03
I do get it. I was a loyal Armstrongist for 30 years. I know the prejudices. While I agree with you to an extent I disagree with your assessment of Armstrongists. They are not as pathetic as you make them out to be - at least not all of them.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Sad athiest's running a blog. Loving trying things on with strangers but never the courage to be honest and open about their beliefs.
Then in real life always clinging on for dear life the acquisition and attainment of power in a belief system they claim to despise.
What double standards.
Anon 11:26
Assuming you are not a troll, I feel it is time for you to reconnect with reality. Do you realize that the post here raises a very precise issue and should be addressed with very precise responses? Blithely and erroneously categorizing everyone here as atheist may assuage your stirring anxieties but it just doesn't cut it otherwise. Your critical comments not only missed any relevant target that I know of but probably came dangerously close to your own foot. The best way to engage in this environment is to address the concern at hand with a well reasoned counterpoint. Reality is out there. You can find it. If you were an Armstrongist you will of course have a lot of fantasy land ideas to which you are "clinging for dear life" that will need to be cast aside. But the journey is worth it. And there is only the journey.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Did anyone else understand Anon 11:26's comments, or even remotely see themselves in them?
The Armstrongite discounting of Savior Jesus enrages me; I could go on forever on this topic.
However, since I'm otherwise engaged this evening, I will bring to attention a recent post regarding UCG's Mario Seiglie's hideous chart of steps to salvation - in which he completely left out the completely sufficient work of the the completely sufficient Savior Jesus.
Only in COGlandia can one purport to be "Christian" and yet talk about achieving salvation without mentioning Jesus.
I can see the point that Armstrongist theology cancels salvation; yet, I'm hung up on the idea that their far greater sin is that they cancel the Savior.
Oh, the horror of Armstrongism; may the poor COGlodytes finally be moved to embrace Jesus as their Savior!
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQfUE2B2A1Z4B0GXVLAE7rD8sEaR6EKxnNxRZ1WBgotxBb4rV_wEKIDi6safkWQYiQZm5zLu8zCUbfE_2N0m5zpioUPqJpPz1Jw6-EqG-xgFnrdZc2CawzBiVST8HaVa_dwuYZyzvECWaUKn-QgXc1ZLqWykrKSXUZpVOn_yfAYVe8gPpT7vmBWL8V/s1692/Screen%20Shot%202022-05-11%20at%2012.55.31%20PM.png
Post a Comment