Dr. Wayne Grudem – The Interpersonal Relationship among the Members of the Trinity

This lecture is from an Academic Conference at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Grudem’s presentation is the 5th lecture of this series and it is titled:

Troubling Doctrinal Deviations in Evangelical Feminist arguments about the Trinity.

Several recent evangelical feminist authors have denied that the Son is eternally subject to the authority of the Father within the Trinity. These authors include Gilbert Bilezikian, Rebecca M. Groothuis, Kevin Giles, Millard Erickson, Phillip Carey, Linda Belleville, and Dennis W. Jowers.

In reading these arguments, I noticed that they contained important doctrinal deviation either in what is said, or what is implied in the form of the argument. The argument deviated from the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, in some cases and they rejected the authority of Scriptures, it seems to me, in other cases. So, those are going to be 2 parts of my paper:

  1. Evangelical feminist arguments that deviate from the orthodox  doctrine of the Trinity,
  2. And, Evangelical feminist arguments that reject the authority of Scripture.

Arguments that deviate from the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity

1. Denying the Trinity by denying any eternal distinctions
between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Essential to the doctrine of the Trinity, as affirmed by all four previous speakers, and is taught in the Bible is the idea that the distinctions between the persons of the Trinity- the Father is not the Son. Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. They are 3 distinct persons. They’re equal in deity, and there’s only one God. But, within the being of God Himself, there are three distinct persons. Several recent evangelical authors are unwilling to specify any distinction between the persons. For example, rather than agreeing that the names Father, and Son indicate a distinction between the persons , a number of evangelical feminist authors argue that the names only show that the Son is like the Father, not that He is distinct from the Father in any way.

And sadly, the most prominent writer in this regard is Millard Erickson, whom I respect in many ways for much of what he has written. Erickson says, „There is considerable biblical evidence that the primary meaning of the biblical term Son as applied to Jesus is likeness, rather than subordinate authority. So, for example, he says the jews saw Jesus’s self designation as the Son of God as a claim to deity or equality with God. I should say in parenthesis- I agree that Sonship does imply equality of Being, because, just as a human son is human and the father is human; so, in the Trinity, the Father is divine, therefore, the Son of God is divine. That’s true. But, the question is whether that is all that is affirmed.

Similarly, Kevin Giles objects: ‘The name Father and Son are not used in the New Testament to suggest the divine Father always has authority over the Son. He said, these names speak, rather, of an eternal correlated relationship, by intimacy, unity, equality, and identical authority.

My response: If intimacy and identical authority were all that Jesus wanted to indicate by calling Himself a Son, calling God His Father, He could have spoken of ‘My friend in heaven‘, or ‘my brother in heaven‘, or even ‘my twin in heaven‘. These images were ready at hand. But, He did not. He spoke of ‘My Father in heaven‘. Emphasizing likeness in deity only, while failing to specify the distinctions between the persons of the Trinity is a failure to affirm the distinctions between the 3 persons, which is one important aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity. It seems to me that is a significant doctrinal deviation.(6:00)

2. Denying the Trinity by claiming an act of any one person
is actually an act of all three persons

Even more troubling is the tendency of evangelical feminists to claim that any action, taken by any person in the Trinity is an action of all three persons of the Trinity, when faced with many biblical texts that show that the Son is always subject to the Father (I have over 30 texts that I will allude to, later), and that the Father is not subject to the Son. When faced with many of these texts, Millard Erickson produces a different solution to suggest that the act of any one person in the Trinity is actually an act of all three persons. Here is what Erickson says is an overall principle. I’m quoting from his book ‘Who’s Tampering With The Trinity‘, pp 137-138. Erickson says this, „Although one person of the Trinity may occupy a more prominent part in a given divine action, the action is actually that of the entire Godhead‘- I would agree with him, up to that point. Then he says, ‘and the one person is acting on behalf of the three,” I would agree with him to that point. But then, listen, „This means that those passages that speak of the Father predestining, sending, commanding, and so on, should not be taken as applying to the Father only, but to all members of the Trinity. Thus, they do not count as evidence in support of eternal supremacy of the Father and eternal subordination of the Son.’

How does Erickson argue for this? The way he argues for it is to point out that some of the actions of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are done by more than one person. For instance, the Father and Son are involved in sending the Spirit into the world. The Father and Son are both involved in judging the world. Both the Son and the Holy Spirit intercede before the Father. The Father  and the Son both love the world. Both the Father and the Son receive prayer. Erickson concludes, „The various works attributed to the various persons of the Trinity are in fact works of the Triune God. One member of the Godhead may in fact do this on behalf of the three, and be mentioned as the one who does that work; but, all participate in what is done.’

But, these verses that he quotes, hardly prove Erickson’s point. Yes, it is true that both the Father and the Son sent the Spirit into the world. But, the Holy Spirit does not send the Holy Spirit into the world. And yes, both the Son and the Holy Spirit intercede before the Father. But, the Father does not intercede before the Father. As for actions that are directed toward people in the world, such as loving, judging, indwelling people, it is true that all three persons are involved in a way in these activities, but, that does not prove Erickson’s point because the real issue is the relationship between the Father and the Son in the Trinity. In that issue, the testimony of the Scripture is clear: The Son continuously, throughout eternity, submits to the will of the Father. This is clear, even in some of the passages that Erickson appeals to. At one point, he says, „It is not only the Father who predestined some to be saved, but Jesus also elects some to salvation. As Jesus said in John 5:21 ‘Even so, the Son gives life to whom He is pleased to give it and  no one knows the Father except the Son. And those to whom the Son chooses, reveal Him (John 5:21 and Matthew 11:27). Erickson concludes, „It appears that Jesus chooses those whom He reveals to the Father.” What he is saying, is, „The Father predestines. Yes, but the Son also predestines. They both do this action.”

It is remarkable that  Erickson mentions John 5:21 and Matthew 11:27, because the very context of both of them, Jesus attributes supreme authority to the Father. In John 5:21, he says, „Yes, He gives life to whom He is pleased to give it, but 2 verses earlier, Jesus says, „The Son can do nothing of His own accord. But only what He sees the Father doing. For, whatever the Father does, so the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and show Him all that He is doing.” Nine verses after this, Jesus says, „I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge. Judgment is just cause I seek not my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.” Erickson did not mention these verses, although they occur in the very same context. Therefore, the Son only chooses, in conjunction with what has been shown of the will of the Father.

As for Erickson’s other verse, Matthew 11:27, the beginning of the verse, which Erickson does not quote, says, „All things have been handed over to Me by My Father.” And then Jesus goes on to say, „No one knows the Father, except through the Son, and those whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.” The testimony of Scripture on this matter is consistent. When the Son chooses people for salvation, He is simply following  the directives of the Father. He’s not acting independently of the authority of the Father, yet, both the Father and the Son participate in their choosing, yet their actions are not identical, but distinct. The Father chooses, the Father shows the Son who has been chosen, the Son chooses those who have been given Him by the Father.

What is even more troubling about Erickson’s argument is he seems to be denying that there is any difference between the persons of the Trinity. He’s arguing against the idea that we can say that the Son has eternally been subject to the authority of the Father. Erickson is trying to nullify that idea, by denying that we can say anything that is done by the Son is not also done by the Father and the Spirit. Erickson wants to make that kind of discussion impossible. But, in order to make his point, he is apparently saying that the actions of any one person of the Trinity are the actions of not just the whole being of God, but of every person in the Trinity. And to say that is to deny what is taught by really hundreds of passages of Scriptures that speak of different actions, carried out by different members of the Trinity.

For example: At the baptism of Jesus, God the Father was speaking from heaven, „This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” God the Son was not speaking from heaven in those words, nor was the Holy Spirit speaking from heaven and saying those words. God the Son was being baptized, the Holy Spirit was descending like a dove coming to rest upon Him. God the Father was not being baptized, nor was the Holy Spirit being baptized. The Father was not descending like a dove, nor was the Son descending like a dove. It simply confuses the teaching of Scripture to say or imply that all three persons of the Trinity are doing any one action. But that is what Erickson seems to be saying.  (12:35 min mark – with 44 minutes remaining)

Wayne Grudem Sermon: Guard your heart (video) August 2013

Photo credit marshill.com

Commentary on Wayne Grudem’s sermon from the Christian Post.

„Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life,” Grudem began by reading the verse, and explained that it talks about protecting, guarding, caring for your heart.

Biblical reference to the heart „includes all of your deepest moral and spiritual convictions, along with your feelings and emotions, especially your deepest moral and spiritual convictions in relationship to God,” said Grudem, the general editor of the ESV Study Bible, on Aug. 25.

In this verse, „God is saying basically that the inward spiritual and moral life that you have will determine the course of your life and ministry, whether it will be a life that knows God’s favor and blessing or not,” added Grudem, the author of Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.

Grudem shared three things in his sermon: what it is to keep your heart, why you should keep your heart, and how you keep your heart.

The Hebrew text for „with all vigilance” means, „more than all vigilance, more than all guarding, more than all protecting, keep your heart – more than your job, your health, everything,” he explained.

„Have we been making the condition of our hearts more important than any other concern?” he asked.

Grudem then expanded on the words, „keep it.” „If you are to keep something, it implies that there’s a goodness to it, that there’s a goodness that is to be protected and guarded.”

At the same time, the Bible also says in Jeremiah 17:9 that the heart is deceitful, he acknowledged. But „that’s not the whole truth.”

Several New Testament verses speak in a positive way about the condition of our hearts. „If we’ve been born again and trusted in Jesus as our Savior, there’s a goodness to them that has to be protected.”

Grudem quoted Romans 5:5, „God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”

Our hearts aren’t perfect, but there is a goodness in them still by Jesus’ work within us that needs to be protected and guarded, he explained. Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news

Photo credit wednesdayelegy.blogspot.com

VIDEO by Mars Hill Church Videos Published on Aug 27, 2013

Pastor Dr Wayne Grudem Sermon „Guard Your Heart”. Series Title: „Best Sermons Ever”. Copyright Mars Hill Church Seattle  AUGUST 2013. Message starts at the 3:00 minute mark:

Perseverenta sfintilor (Ramanerea in credinta) Partea 1

de Wayne Grudem

Risca adevaratii crestini sa-si piarda mintuirea? Cum putem sti daca suntem cu adevarat  nascuti din nou?


In discutia noastra anterioara ne-am ocupat de aspectele diverse ale mantuirii complete pe care ne-a cistigat-o Christos si pe care Duhul Sfint o aplica in prezent in vietile noastre. Dar cum putem sti ca vom continua sa ramanem crestini pentru tot restul vietii? Exista ceva care ne va tine sa nu ne indepartam de Christos, ceva care sa garanteze ca vom ramane crestini pina la moarte si ca vom trai impreuna cu Dumnezeu in cer pentru toata vesnicia? Sau ar putea  fi posibil sa-L parasim Christos si sa pierdem binecuvintarile mintuirii noastre? Subiectul perseverentei sfintilor incearca sa raspunda acestor intrebari. Perseverenta sfintilor arata ca toti cei ce sunt cu adevarat nascuti din nou prin puterea lui Dumnezeu vor persevera ca si crestini pina la sfirsitul vietii lor si ca numai cei ce vor persevera pina la sfirsit au fost cu adevarat nascuti din nou.

Definitia aceasta vizeaza doua aspecte. Mai intai ne da de inteles ca exista o asigurare pentru cei ce s-au nascut din nou cu adevarat, fiindca le aminteste ca puterea lui Dumnezeu ii va pastra crestini pina la moarte si ca vor trai in mod sigur cu Christos in cer pentru toata vesnicia. Pe de alta parte, prin cea de-a doua jumatate a definitiei ni se arata clar ca una dintre dovezile ca o persoana este cu adevarat nascuta din nou este raminerea in viata crestina. Este important sa se tina cont de acest aspect doctrinar ca sa nu se dea false asigurari oamenilor care nu au fost niciodata cu adevarat crestini.

Intrebarea aceasta este una in privinta careia credinciosii evanghelici s-au contrazis de foarte mult timp. Multi dintre cei ce fac parte din traditia wesleyana/arminiana au sustinut ca este posibil ca o persoana cu adevarat nascuta din nou sa-si piarda mintuirea, in timp ce credinciosii reformati au sustinut ca lucrul acesta nu este cu putinta in viata celor cu adevarat nascuti din nou! Cei mai multi baptisti au urmat traditia reformata in aceasta privinta; totusi, ei au intrebuintat de multe ori termenul ,,siguranta eterna” sau ,,siguranta eterna a credinciosului” in locul expresiei ,,perseverenta sfintilor”.

A. Toti cei ce sunt cu adevarat nascuti din nou vor persevera pina la capat

Exista multe pasaje care ne invata ca cei ce sunt cu adevarat nascuti din nou, credinciosii autentici, vor continua sa traiasca viata crestina pina la moarte cind se vor duce sa locuiasca impreuna cu Christos in cer. Isus a zis:

Caci M-am coborit din cer ca sa fac nu voia Mea, ci voia Celui ce M-a trimes. Si voia Celui ce M-a trimes este sa nu pierd nimic din tot ce Mi-a dat El, ci sa-l inviez in ziua de apoi. Voia Celui ce M-a trimes este ca oricine vede pe Fiul, si crede in El, sa aiba viata vesnica; si Eu il voi invia in ziua de apoi (Ioan 6:38,40).

In locul acesta, Isus afirma ca toti cei ce cred in Elvor avea viata eterna. El spune ca va invia acea persoana in ziua de apoi – ceea ce, in contextul credintei in Fiul si al certitudinii vietii eterne, inseamna ca Isus va invia acea persoana pentru viata vesnica impreuna cu El (n-o va invia ca sa fie judecata si condamnata). Ni se pare foarte greu sa evitam concluzia conform careia toti cei cu adevarat credinciosi in Christos vor ramane crestini pina in ziua invierii finale pentru binecuvintarile vietii traite in prezenta lui Dumnezeu. In plus, textul acesta subliniaza ca Isus face voia Tatalui care este ,,sa nu pierd nimic din tot ce Mi-a dat El”. Inca o data se spune ca cei care au fost dati Fiului de Tatal nu se vor pierde.

Un alt pasaj care subliniaza acest adevar poate fi gasit in Ioan 10;27-29, unde Isus a zis:

Oile Mele asculta glasul Meu; Eu le cunosc, si ele vin dupa Mine. Eu le dau viata vesnica, in veac nu vor pieri, si nimeni nu le va smulge din mina Mea. Tatal Meu, care Mi le-a dat, este mai mare decit toti; si nimeni nu le poate smulge din mina Tatalui Meu.

Prin aceste cuvinte, Isus adevereste ca celor care Il urmeaza pe El, celor ce sunt oile Lui, li se da viata vesnica. El arata ca ,,nimeni nu le va smulge din mina Mea” (v. 28). Unii au obiectat fata de acest verset si au spus ca desi nimeni nu-i poate smulge pe credinciosi din mina lui Christos, ne putem smulge pe noi insine din mina Lui. Dar afirmatia aceasta pare sa fie un simplu joc pedant de cuvinte – oare cuvintul ,,nimeni” nu-l include si pe cel aflat in mina lui Christos? In plus, stim bine ca nu ne putem increde in inima noastra. De aceea, daca ar ramane posibilitatea sa ne putem scoate din mina lui Christos, nu cred ca textul acesta ar mai fi facut asigurarea intentionata de Isus.

Cu mult mai importanta in acest pasaj este expresia plina de putere ,,in veac nu vor pieri” (v. 28). Constructia din limba greaca (ou me plus aoristul subjonctiv) estein mod special emfatica si poate fi tradusa mai explicit prin constructia ,,este sigur ca niciodata nu vor pieri”. Acest lucru subliniaza ca cei ce sunt ,,oile” lui Isus, care-L urmeaza pe El si carora li s-a dat viata vesnica nu-si vor pierde niciodata mintuirea si nu vor fi niciodata despartiti de Christos – ,, ei nu vor pieri niciodata”.

Exista alte citeva pasaje care sustin ca cei ce cred au ,, au viata vesnica”. Unul dintre acestea este Ioan 3:36: ,,Cine crede in Fiul, are viata vesnica” (comp. si Ioan 5:24; 6:4-7; 10:28, 1Ioan 5:13). Daca aceasta este cu adevarat viata vesnica pe care o au credinciosii, atunci este viata eterna traita  impreuna cu Dumnezeu.Acesta este un dar oferit noua de Dumnezeu si primit o data cu mintuirea (Ioan 3:16-17,36; 10:28 viata aceasta este contrastata cu judecata vesnica si condamnarea). Arminienii obiecteaza spunind ca ,,viata vesnica” este doar a simpla calitate a vietii, un tip de viata traita in relatie  cu Dumnezeu, pe care cineva o poate avea pentru o vreme, dar care se poate pierde uneori. Aceasta obiectie nu ni se pare convingatoare daca tinem cont de nuanta clara a unui timp fara sfirsit implicat in adjectivul etern (greaca aionios ,,etern, fara sfirsit”). Negresit, exista o calitate speciala in aceasta viata, dar accentul pus prin adjectivul etern cade asupra faptului ca este opusa mortii; este opusul judecatii si despartirii de Dumnezeu; este o viata care va continua vesnic in prezenta lui Dumnezeu. Si cel care crede in Fiul are aceasta ,,viata eterna” (Ioan 3:36).

Dovada extrasa din scrierile lui Pavel si din alte epistole ale Noului Testament arata ca cei care sunt cu adevarat nascuti din nou vor persevera pina la sfirsit. Nu mai este nici o condamnare pentru cei ce sunt in Christos Isus (Romani 8:1); de aceea, ar fi nedrept ca Dumnezeu sa pedepseasca vesnic pe cei ce sunt crestini – pentru acestia nu mai ramane nici o condamnare, pentru ca toata pedeapsa pentru pacatele lor a fost platita.

Dupa aceea , in Romani 8:30, Pavel subliniaza legatura existenta intre scopurile eterne ale lui Dumnezeuin predestinare si realizarea acelor scopuri in viata, impreuna cu realizarea lor finala in actul de ,,glorificare”, actul final prin care se vor da trupuri inviate  acelora care au fost uniti cu Christos: ,,Si pe aceia pe care i-a hotarit mai dinainte, i-a si chemat; si pe aceia pe care i-a chemat, i-a si justificat; iar pe aceia pe care i-a justificat, i-a si glorificat” (modificarile din verset apartin traducatorului). In locul acesta, Pavel vede evenimentul viitor al glorificarii ca o certitudine atit de bine evidentiata in scopul lui Dumnezeu incit poate vorbi despre ea ca si cum ar fi fost deja realizata (,,i-a si glorificat”). Acest lucru este valabil pentru toti cei ce sunt chemati si justificati – adica pentru toti cei ce devin cu adevarat crestini. O alta dovada ca Dumnezeu ii pastreaza pe cei ce sunt nascuti din nou in siguranta pentru eternitate  este ,,sigiliul” pe care-l pune Dumnezeu asupra noastra. ,,Sigiliul” acesta este Duhul Sfint care locuieste in noi, care actioneaza si ca o ,,garantie” pe care ne-o ofera Dumnezeu ca vom capata mostenirea care ni s-a promis: ,,Si voi, dupa ce ati auzit cuvintul adevarului (Evanghelia mintuirii voastre), ati crezut in El, si ati fost pecetluiti cu Duhul Sfint, care fusese fagaduit, si care este o arvuna  a mostenirii noastre, pentru rascumpararea celor cistigati de Dumnezeu, spre lauda slavei Lui” (Efeseni 1:13-14). Cuvintul din limba greaca tradus in acest text prin ,,arvuna sau garantie” (arrabon) este un termen juridic si comercial cu inteles de ,,prima rata, deposit, avans, zalog” si reprezinta ,,o plata care obligapartile participante la contract sa faca si platile urmatoare”. Cind Dumnezeu a trimis Duhul Sfint in viata noastra, El S-a angajat sa ne dea toate celelalte binecuvintari ale vietii vesnice si o mare rasplata in cer impreuna cu El. Tocmai de aceea Pavel poate afirma ca Duhul Sfint este  ,,o arvuna” a mostenirii noastre , pentru rascumpararea celor cistigati de Dumnezeu” (Efeseni 1:14). Toti cei care au pe Duhul Sfint in viata lor, toti cei ce sunt cu adevarat nascuti din nou au de la Dumnezeu promisiunea si garantia neschimbatoare  ca mostenirea vietii vesnice in cer le este asigurata. Insasi credinciosia lui Dumnezeu sta ca si garantie ca acest lucru se va intimpla.

Un alt exemplu de asigurare ca cei credinciosi vor persevera pina la sfirsit se gaseste in Epistola lui Pavel catre Filipeni: ,,Sunt incredintat ca Acela care a inceput in voi aceasta buna lucrare o va ispravi pina in ziua lui Isus Christos” (Filipeni 1:6). Este adevarat ca in locul acesta pronumele ,,voi” este la plural (greaca hymas), referindu-se astfel in general la credinciosii din biserica din Filipi, dar totusi, el vorbeste despre credinciosi specifici carora le scrie si le spune ca lucrarea buna a lui Dumnezeu inceputa in ei va continua si se va incheia in ziua reintoarcerii lui Christos. Petru le spune cititorilor lui ca sunt ,,paziti de puterea lui Dumnezeu, prin credinta pentru mintuirea gata sa fie decoperita in vremurile de apoi” (1Petru 1:5). Cuvintul paziti (greaca phroureo) poate sa insemne atit ,,tinut sa nu scape” cit si ,,pazit de atac” si este posibil ca ambele tipuri de pazire sa fie prevazute aici: Dumnezeu Ii tine pe credinciosi sa nu iasa din imparatia Lui  si ii si protejeaza de atacurile exterioare.

Participiul prezent folosit de Petru confera si sensul ,,voi sunteti continuu paziti”. El accentueaza spunind ca pazirea se face prin puterea lui Dumnezeu. Si totusi, puterea lui Dumnezeu nu lucreaza separat de credinta personala a celor ce sunt paziti, ci prin credinta lor. (,,Credinta”, pistis, este vazuta in mod obisnuit in epistolele lui Petru ca o activitate personala a credinciosilor; vezi 1Petru1:7,9,21; 5:9; 2Petru 1:1,5; si in mod obisnuit in Noul Testament.) Exemplele paralele de lucrare a lui Dumnezeu ,,prin” cineva sau ceva sugereaza in scrierile lui Petru (1Petru 1:3,23; 2Petru 1:4, si probabil si in 1Petru 1:12; 2:14; 3:1) ca increderea sau credinta personala este mijlocul folosit de Dumnezeuca sa-i pazeasca pe cei ce sunt ai Lui. Astfel, sensul versetului poate fi urmatorul: ,,Ca sa-Si pazeasca poporul, Dumnezeu Isi foloseste in permanenta puterea prin intermediul credintei acestuia”, o afirmatie prin care se da de inteles ca puterea lui Dumnezeu energizeaza si sustine continuu credinta individuala, personala.

Pazirea aceasta nu urmareste un scop temporar, ci are in vedere mintuirea care asteapta sa fie descoperita in vremurile de pe urma. ,,Mintuirea ” nu este folosita aici cu intelesul de justificare trecuta sau sfintire prezenta (vorbind in categorii teologice), ci cu referire la dobandirea deplina in viitor a tuturor binecuvantarilor rascumpararii noastre – sau implinirea finala si completa a mintuirii noastre (comp. Romani 13:11; 1Petru 2:2). Cu toate ca este deja pregatita sau ,,gata”, ea nu va fi ,,revelata” de Dumnezeu omenirii in general pina in ,,vremea de pe urma”, vremea judecatii finale. Din cauza acestei ultime expresii este greu sau poate chiar imposibil sa intrzarim un sfirsit al activitatii prin care Dumnezeu ii pazeste pe ai Sai. Daca paza lui Dumnezeu are ca scop pastrarea credinciosilor pina cind acestia vor primi mintuirea deplina si cereasca, suntem indreptatiti sa tragem concluzia ca Dumnezeu va realiza acel scop, iar ei vor ajunge la mintuirea finala. In ultima instanta, mintuirea finala a credinciosilor depinde de puterea lui Dumnezeu. Cu toate acestea, puterea lui Dumnezeu lucreaza in permanenta ,,prin” credinta lor. Vor ei sa stie daca Dumnezeu ii pazeste? Daca vor continua sa se increada in Dumnezeu prin Christos, Dumnezeu lucreaza si-i pazeste, asa ca Lui sa I se aduca multumirile.

Aceasta evidentiere a pazirii lui Dumnezeu in combinatie cu credinta noastra asigura o tranzitie fireasca spre cea de-a doua parte a definitiei doctrinei perseverentei.

If we believe in the continuation of all spiritual gifts, should we pursue them?

Sam Storms at Desert Springs Church.

Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!

România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari