Creation – Thesis 2

 

Thesis 2: God is the Creator of everything there is. This means that we do not believe in the absoluteness of time, space, matter, energy, etc., but all of the above have been created ex-nihilo by God. 

 

Following the first thesis, where God is the only unmade, unborn, self-existing, eternal, and  indescribable “I AM”, this second thesis affirms that anything else outside God comes into existence because of God, meaning that: it is created, it is temporal, and it is limited, in other words it is what we call the “Creation”. This belief is also expressed in John 1, 3:All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made”, where John is making a philosophical statement about the eternity of God. 

If nothing existed before God started to create, it follows that the Creation was “ex nihilo” (from nothing), not in an absolute sense (one may suggest that the Creation resulted from God’s energies) but in the sense that God did not use pre-existing matter. This concept is fundamentally different from that of materialism, which states that matter is the only reality, the only ground for being. As to what is matter, many philosophical and scientific concepts have been advanced throughout history, from the prima materia (alluded to in Genesis 1, 2 as Tohu wa-bohu) to the theories of quantum physics, however, physicists have yet to define it. As we will examine more in-depth the language of the Book of Genesis in the articles to come, we need to keep in mind that the language used in Genesis is subject to the culture and knowledge of the time in which the author(s) lived.

Another aspect of Creation is that God is completely different and separated from the Creation, this concept being opposed to the pantheistic views that God and Nature is one and the same. God is eternal, the Creation is temporal, God is infinite, the Creation is finite, God is self-existing, the Creation exists because of God’s action in bringing it in existence and sustaining it continually. This should make us, Christian theists, a bit more careful in how we interpret Biblical notions like “heaven” or “eternal life”. To imagine that God’s “heaven” is somewhere within our physical universe is contradicting the very idea of an infinite God who is outside space and time. The Creation is not eternal, as both forms of matter, inorganic and organic, are subjected to the laws of entropy. Isaiah 65, 17 says “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind”;
Jesus says in Mark 13, 31 that “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away“; 2 Peter 3, 10 says “The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare“; and Revelation 21, 1 states “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more”.

Our theistic concept is also opposed to that of deism, which states that God has created the universe based on laws that God designed and, from that point on, the Creation is self-sustaining and it behaves according to the laws of nature. Deism rejects the idea that God reveals Himself in history and in Scriptures, is skeptical of miracles, and posits that our reason is the only foundation for certitude, thus it provides all the knowledge we need. We agree that God established the natural laws and, as Einstein stated, the Universe is intelligible. But we also believe that this very intelligibility of the natural world has been intended by God as a guide to understand some of His works. We agree that we have been endowed with the capacity to understand, to reason, but we also believe that the Creation has a purpose whose full dimension is not to be known “here and now”, but is part of what Jesus called “the eternal life”, i.e. knowing God.

17 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Florin Lăiu on September 28, 2017 at 9:30 am

    @Adi
    Pretty good dissertation about God.
    I have only to express some smaaaaaaal disagreement. You say: «To imagine that God’s “heaven” is somewhere within our physical universe is contradicting the very idea of an infinite God who is outside space and time.» I don’t think so. Every philosophical model is ultimately based on what people ”imagine”. The phrase ”Our Father, who art in heaven” and hundreds of similar expressions are found in the Bible. Jesus taught us to pray this way. Why such ”needless” or ”misleading” specification? I am aware that the Biblical authors and characters use a pre-scientific language, a popular, phenomenological speech. The Biblical heaven is a name for the apparent (illusionary) sky dome, since people name things like they see them. Beyond that, human imagination created heavens of heavens, with God inhabiting the third one (Dt 10:14; Ps 68:34/33; 148:4; 2Cor 12:2). In the Christian era, both Jews and Christians ”discovered” more heavens, since they were imagined like geocentric spheres, as many as ”planets” move around our ancient world: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn – seven planets moving on seven orbits/spheres. This is simply a popular language, culturally impregnated. It is not Biblical revelation, since there is no Biblical teaching aboout that. It is the pack only, not the content of the Bible. The prophetic visions (see the Book of Revelation) also describe the celestial realities in human drammatic language. God has always a place of residence, a palace, a ”sanctuary”, furnished according to the Mosaic model. And He occupies a majestic heavenly throne, surrounded by representatives of His creatures. Much if not everything of this visionary is only a didactic shadow of reality.

    But however symbolic and figurative may be, they teach a basic truth: that transcendency is not a straitjacket to limit God’s availability, since God is also indwelling His creation. He adapted His self-revelation to the intelligent creatures, so that ”in heaven”, whatever means that, He is visibly adored, since He manifests Himself in a VISIBLE form, even a HUMAN form, the only image fit for intelligent creatures (Mt 18:10; Rev 22:4; Gen 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6).

    «In the beginning, man was created in the likeness of God, not only in character, but in form and feature. Sin defaced and almost obliterated the divine image; but Christ came to restore that which had been lost.» (E G White, GC 644:3) https://egwwritings.org/?ref=en_GC.644.3&para=132.2912

    If God were only transcendent, He would not be available to angels and saints etc. God is inherently (in Himself) transcendent, but He is surely able to manifest Himself to His ”children”. Otherwise, the prayer of Jesus, ”Our Father”, would be a nonsens.

    Now about the Creation’s transitory condition. Yes, Creation is transitory in itself, since it is not God. However, God is able to endlessly support His universe, as well as He supports His angels and saints. Everything is subjected to the laws of entropy by itself. No quark or wave could continue to exist without God’s permanent support (energy and information), much less the highly organized (gray) matter. ”Eternity” has no beginning, so that Creation is not eternal, but it can be as everlasting as the angels. Isaiah 65:17 is poetic imagery that describes some unusual changes in nature and society, that have been planned for a future restoration of Jerusalem and Israel (just read Is 65:18-25, then jump to 66:22-24). Furthermore, Mr 13:31; 2Pt 3:10; Rev 21:1 are not about entropy, but rather destruction at Christ’s Second Advent. This distruction refers to our planetary world, as it is seen (heaven and earth in the ancient, pre-scientific language). It does not involve the distruction of the planet or of the solar system, or of the universe.

    «We agree that we have been endowed with the capacity to understand, to reason, but we also believe that the Creation has a purpose whose full dimension is not to be known “here and now”, but is part of what Jesus called “the eternal life”, i.e. knowing God.» Amen!

  1. @ Florin

    Firstly, I apologize for realizing so late that your comment needed my approval. This is unusual and I don’t know why your each comment has to be approved by me, while others can post comments and they go straight being listed on the site. So, today I saw your comment and approved it, sorry for the delay.

    Thank you for your thoughts. Your “small disagreement” regarding the “heaven” may not be a disagreement after all, just another view using other words. I am not saying that God does not or cannot interact with His creation, since I mentioned already His immanence. We can talk about “heaven” in a popular jargon, or a “phenomenological speech”, to use your term, but scientifically speaking, heaven (if I understand you correctly) is our world, not in the present state, but in a future state as a “new creation”. The problem I have with this view is the entropy. I am asking you: is entropy at work now, in Cosmos and on Earth? Yes, indeed, the entropy is the most pervasive of all natural laws. Did God create this law? Or is it a consequence of sin (I am using your understanding of sin)? After you answer this question, I will continue my thoughts. Come back soon… 🙂

    • Florin Lăiu on October 9, 2017 at 2:39 pm

    @Adi
    There is no problem if my comment was delayed. It is anyway delayed comparing to your article. But you see, I am rewarded by your reply, saying that you agree with me on God’s immanence and on the Biblical autors’ phenomenological language.

    Now some specification: When I said ”heaven”, I didn’t refer to our world in a future state. That future state is called in the Biblical language ”new heaven and new earth”. The Biblical expression ”in heaven” means either on the skydome, or in the spaces above the skydome, where God must be somewhere, higher up.

    I din’t think that the entropy is essentially related to the Fall (Sin). Let’s take for example the problem of immortality. Godhead only is immortal. All the saints (angels and unfallen beings, e.g. Adam and Eve), have no immortality in themselves, they depend on periodical life renewal from God (see the Tree of Life in Genesis 2-3 and Revelation 22). Supposing that Adam had not eat from the forbidden tree, but he also had refused to eat from the Tree of Life, the result would have been the same: he would have suffered under the law of entropy. The biologic life itself is in contradiction to the law of entropy, while the law of entropy is inherent in all things. God permanently infuses energy and laws (information) to His univers, so that it will never collapse.

    • Andrei on October 10, 2017 at 10:36 am

    While this is all very interesting speculation, I have to say I disagree with the notion that Entropy is not related to the Fall; I think it’s a direct result of the Fall. I also disagree that biological life is in contradiction to the Law of Entropy. I think it demonstrates Entropy very clearly. If an organism does not continue to nourish itself and expend energy to maintain order (homeostasis basically, to survive) it will eventually degrade, wither and die. The constituent elements will then be recycled into the environment. That would be equilibrium. But all living things fight against that, which requires constant input of energy.

    The idea that if Adam had not fallen but had also refused to eat from the Tree of Life and therefore would eventually succumb to entropy (death) seems flawed to me. But that’s because I consider the Law of Entropy as a consequence of the Fall, and not a natural law God created the Universe and all living things to be subject to initially.

    For example, the angels (both those in Heaven now and those cast down to the Earth) have been alive since probably well before Creation. The difference is in the way they were created. Man was made “a little lower” than the angels. Consider also that, as spiritual beings, they live in an entirely different dimension which we don’t have access to, and it is very likely this dimension is completely outside of time as we understand time.

    What’s even more interesting is that while God is outside of time and space, He still acts according to a timetable that only He knows beforehand (as prophecies have shown) and He knows when things must take place and when to act. He also sustains those fallen angels and Satan with life, until “the appointed time” when they will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

    I do agree that God constantly provides the Universe with the energy it needs, but the mechanism by which He does this is a mystery to us. It can be through established laws that don’t necessarily require His direct management, or by any number of other ways.

    I believe that when He makes “a new heaven and a new Earth,” this is not just terraforming this planet by fire and starting over. I think the entire local physical part of the Universe we occupy (whether our entire solar system or galaxy) will be reduced to cosmic dust and remade anew. This is because we have contaminated our solar system from the Moon, to Mars, to Saturn and beyond with our probes, robots, satellites and all the junk in space from each of the rocket launches in the last 60 years.

    We can agree to disagree however, since there’s no way to know for sure, at least not in this life.

  2. @Andrei

    So, if someone shows you entropy at work beyond our “local physical part of the Universe”, what then? And how eating from a tree can cause such a law, as entropy, come into action? And, if angels were created “different”, why is there a need for God to sustain life for Satan and the fallen angels? And what is the purpose for the tree of life? I could ask you more difficult questions but I know tomorrow is your birthday and I don’t want to ruin your mood… 🙂

  3. @Florin

    “The Biblical expression ”in heaven” means either on the skydome, or in the spaces above the skydome, where God must be somewhere, higher up.”

    Since the authors use, in your opinion, a phenomenological language and “in heaven” in only an expression, can I ask you what do you personally believe regarding the “residence” of God?

    Regarding the entropy: I agree that the entropy is not the result of sin, but a universal law. That is in agreement with what I said that the Creation is limited in time and space. If anything exists, it is because God sustains it. But as you know, I do not take the Eden story as a literal, factual, description of reality. Both trees, of Life and of The Knowledge of Good and Evil, are metaphors. If you think that the renewal of life came by eating from the Tree of Life, what about the animals? Were they also eating from the Tree of Life? What about the plants? Were they suckling from the juice of the Tree of Life?

    There are also more problems with this entropy. If Jesus has a body like ours, he also is subjected to the law of entropy. Or is His divine side sustaining His human side?

    As I said, I believe that the whole creation was created perishable, limited in time and space. Physical death was always a part of living, not a result of sin. Animals and plants have nothing to do with human sin, therefore Paul must be referring to the other death, “the second” we call it, as a wage of sin. If we leave aside all speculations we may be better off in understanding God’s Creation.

    • Andrei on October 10, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    “So, if someone shows you entropy at work beyond our “local physical part of the Universe”, what then?”

    I would have to see it first, then we can debate. It might just be our observation and reasoning that’s faulty (remember the Uncertainty Principle?) and not actually entropy that is occurring…

    “And how eating from a tree can cause such a law, as entropy, come into action?”

    Much the same as the curse of death was a consequence for disobedience; the law of Entropy took effect from the moment they wanted to be “like gods” themselves, willfully disobeying God and taking it upon themselves to be their own lord. Except they quickly found out they don’t actually possess any of the power that God possesses and with which is able to sustain everything. So they placed themselves under the law.

    “And, if angels were created “different”, why is there a need for God to sustain life for Satan and the fallen angels?

    This is an interesting discussion we could have. Clearly they are created beings, just not of the same kind that man is. So as creatures of God – 1/3 fallen, 2/3 still loyal – they depend on God to sustain their existence. We know man needs food, water, sleep, etc. in order to function and live. However, we don’t know a thing about the requirements for life of angels, who exist in a different dimension other than the one we occupy. It stands to reason that require sustenance as well, we just don’t know what form that comes in…

    “And what is the purpose for the tree of life?”

    Many! for the healing of the nations; as a reward to him that overcomes, as a test of obedience and loyalty to our first parents, and many others I’m likely not aware of.

    “I could ask you more difficult questions but I know tomorrow is your birthday and I don’t want to ruin your mood…”

    Ha! I enjoy debate, my mood doesn’t sour just because I get questions posed. What I think I know, I’ll do my best to answer. What I don’t know, I’ll go research. And 38 doesn’t feel any different than 37…

    • Florin Lăiu on October 16, 2017 at 6:39 pm

    @andrei

    I wrote, ”The biologic life itself is in contradiction to the law of entropy, while the law of entropy is inherent in all things”. You know that life requires continual feeding with energy and preserving the specific information / structure that God gave from Creation. This is not the natural trend of the material world. The natural trend is entropy, decay, from living thing to decomposition. I am not dogmatic on this, but I do not see a real difference between Adam’s state before the fall and and his state after the fall, as regards the presence of entropy. The only difference is that, before the fall, the entropy was successfully overcome by an ever renewed life; while after the fall, the law of entropy reigns. A little discussion of the topic is to be read at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/thermot.htm Compare it to the law of gravity. It was in force even before the fall. If Adam had chosen to jump down from a eucalipt, instead of eating the forbidden fruit, the law of gravity would have acted, except we imagine an Adam with large wings. His fall would have made manifest (or confirmed) the law of gravity, not being the result of the fall, but even the physical cause.

  4. @Florin

    “I do not see a real difference between Adam’s state before the fall and and his state after the fall”.

    Ok Florin, so how do you explain the change that you believe occurred in animals, most of which being now predators?

    • Andrei on October 17, 2017 at 11:21 am

    Thanks for clarifying, uncle. It makes more sense knowing what you meant. We agree that life requires constant input of energy and preservation, and that God is the source of both these things.

    I understand now that you meant to say biological life is in contradiction to entropy in the sense that life continually struggles AGAINST the effects of entropy, so we agree there too. However, since we have no empirical proof of how biological life was before the Fall, we cannot be certain that entropy was inherent in all things as they now are. That’s why personally I believe Entropy became the natural law of a fallen world. You are right in that we cannot and should not be dogmatic about it since we have no way of knowing.

    As for the law of gravity, there is much more involved here than a simple discussion would resolve. There is so very much we don’t understand about gravity. We cannot reconcile it with the Big Bang theory, nor with the standard model of physics. They refuse to play nice, not even Einstein was able to fully account for it in his works. Gravity is a very complicated property of matter, not just a force or a natural law. In many conditions, it is not predictable and shouldn’t be thought of as a natural law per se.

    Your example of Adam climbing a tree and falling due to gravity is a good analogy, and I don’t imagine Adam had wings, so it’s likely he could have fallen. But this scenario implies knowing already that gravity has always worked exactly the same as we observe it now; which may not be the case, and that Adam was always subject to these so-called laws.

    Consider that before the Fall, Adam and God talked and walked together. In Genesis, it says that after Adam sinned and he became aware of his nakedness, he went and hid. God came looking for him in the garden. Now consider, if you believe that this was a true depiction of a true encounter, what properties of matter is God utilizing in order to be visible to walk and talk with Adam? Or is Adam able to see into that other dimension where God and His angels dwell?

    Wherever God exists or makes Himself manifest, the natural laws as we understand them are suspended. They do not apply to God. This could be true for Entropy, Gravity, and all other observable laws when man interacts with God. It is a supernatural power of God that defies our explanation. The burning bush Moses encountered is a good example of this, as is the pillar of fire by night and clouds by day, which God used to lead the Israelites out of Egypt into Canaan.

    That’s why I believe that before the Fall, Adam and Eve in their glorified bodies would have been able to fly without wings, defying gravity. They could have lived forever, defying the aging process (which is nothing but cellular decay leading to systemic death), even without the Tree of Life in the garden. They would not be subject to any natural laws that now affect us. They could decide when to procreate and when to stop, it wouldn’t be a consequence that they had no control over. Obviously I have no proof of this, but to my mind it makes sense that they would have had dominion over all living things on this planet and would be the representatives for our world whenever God called the sons of heaven together, as we know He did from Job’s book.

    I admit it’s not an easy thing to believe and these days when the Bible is constantly being derided and disrespected as God’s word, it may seem foolish even. I have no problem with that either, since all the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God anyway. We really don’t know much at all, and even what we think we know, we can’t really be sure of…

    • Andrei on October 17, 2017 at 1:51 pm

    @Dad

    I believe all animals were created to eat the herb of the field, meaning they were all vegetarian. Everything was created “good, good, and very good.” These two ideas alone, as Genesis clearly testifies, should be sufficient to make the case that God’s original creation was not one of millions of years of suffering, carnage, mass extinctions and death.

    Or else, none of it would then be “very good,” unless we believe this is the kind of God we serve: one who thinks it’s good that His creatures kill each other to the point of extinction even, in order to survive and procreate.

    Even today, some of the largest and strongest animals are still vegetarian. Many more include vegetation into their meat diet, demonstrating that their digestive systems are fully capable of dealing with cellulose and other fibers. These include lions, tigers and most great cats, bears, wolves, even our domesticated dogs. In fact, the most potent source of proteins in the natural world continues to be plants, not meat.

    The Bible teaches very clearly that God’s original creation was perfect. It teaches also, equally clearly, that all evils, both moral and physical, which affect this earth—including the carnivorous nature and suffering of animals—came into the world after Adam and Eve disobeyed God. This teaching is completely incompatible with theistic evolution—and I would add that it is incompatible with most old-earth creationist theories also. According to nearly all these theories, many physical evils were present in the world long before the Fall. Therefore we must either discard Genesis altogether or make out of it a completely unrelated and uninspired fable.

  5. @Andrei

    Did Jesus have a body subjected to entropy?

    • Andrei on October 17, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    @Dad

    Before or after His resurrection? Jesus was fully human, but also fully divine. Probably not a good example to start discussing since his nature is a mystery to us.

    But if you look at what He did – all the miracles of healing, resurrecting dead people, multiplying fish and bread and many other things – it would not be inaccurate to say He directly turned entropy on its head whenever He wanted to.

  6. Andrei, focus: when he came in this world, when he was born, was his body subjected to entropy?

    • Andrei on October 17, 2017 at 5:20 pm

    Since Christ’s entire conception is of miraculous origin, I cannot speculate. How exactly did He come into this world? Where is His seed from?

    Scientifically speaking, if we accept the virgin conception and birth, Christ would have no earthly father’s DNA. He would have received genetic material from Mary only. This in itself precludes any discussion as to what He may or may not be subject to.

    We know that the male sperm determines the sex of a baby since the sperm can either deliver a X or a Y chromosome. Since no sperm was used, we can’t even speculate how it was possible for Christ to be conceived, much less whether or not His body was subject to Entropy as ours are. That he was more often in prayer than he was sitting at the supper table shows where His true sustenance came from.

    Remember that we are fallen, yet He never sinned. Perhaps He wasn’t subject to any laws of nature unless He was willing?

  7. @ Andrei

    So, if you cannot speculate, how do you know he was fully human?

    • Andrei on October 18, 2017 at 11:56 am

    As we discussed a bit yesterday; it’s not that I cannot speculate, but I’d rather not since there is no way anyone can prove or disprove what I believe.

    If we take the Bible at its word, specifically the texts that describe Jesus’ first coming, the conditions required that only He fulfilled (we can discuss other mythologies later) and the fact that He was tempted in all points as we are yet without sin, to me it demonstrates He was fully human as well as embodying the “fullness of God.” The fact that He suffered, bled and died also demonstrates He was fully human.

    These are mysteries and I can’t stress that enough. Even his parents marveled at Him, to say nothing of His disciples and all the people whose lives He affected, directly and indirectly, while He was on this earth. For us to think today, 2000 years later, that we have a better idea of who Jesus was, is hopeful but woefully inadequate. If anything, our society has become less capable of understanding and believing spiritually discerned things.

    The points you shared yesterday – about how if He was fully human (bearing our full fallen, sinful nature) He would have needed a savior as well, or that He came in human form as before the Fall – are just speculations based on faulty assumptions which have survived for hundreds of years, and are the result of gnostics and agnostics alike. Their only goal is to cast doubt on Christ’s divinity poured out into human form, then again poured out as a perfect sacrifice to redeem the human family.

    To go down this road, one must be willing to accept that Christ possibly never was raised from the dead, He never ascended to heaven, He doesn’t represent us before the Father and doesn’t make intercession for our sins. He’s not going to come back a second time and all we have is ourselves to rely on. Nobody is going to save us but our own good behavior and good works.

    This clearly contradicts the entire story thread of the Bible, from Genesis where Adam and Eve were promised a seed that would crush the serpent’s head, to Revelation where John ends with “even so, come, Lord Jesus.”

    For me, the Bible is to be believed all or none. I’m not saying we have to take every word or text literally, since the Bible contains many styles of writing. But all of it is true, even if it defies our common understanding or goes against societal norms or so-called scientific truth. And I’ve said it before, I have no problem that it defies the millions and billions of years that scientists would wish we believed. The evidence for these unimaginable numbers is very limited and very shaky.

    For me, there is much more evidence of a young earth, destroyed by water, creating the strata with all of its fossils – most of which contain soft-tissue and proteins that cannot resist degradation for long – and that the human family has been around for less than ten thousand years. There were no degenerate hominid species before us, no apes that became men.

    Our written history is evidence enough that we have been here only a short time and that we have always looked to the stars and heavens to find our meaning and purpose in life. Were men deceived? Since the very beginning, by the devil and his fallen angels. Did they lead mankind astray with all kinds of lies mixed with truth here and there? It is abundantly clear they succeeded. Would the devil have an interest to make sure people confuse the signs of Christ’s comings? Of course, and since he never knew when that would be, he made sure to lead all mankind into many different mythologies that would confuse them, starting with the Sumerians to the Egyptians, Babylonians, the Chinese, Indians, Aztecs and even native Americans. They all have stories of the origin of life, the destruction of life by a flood, of a savior man-God from the heavens, and that their spirits would go to that heaven. Why else would all the cultures and people share so many similar stories, being thousands of miles apart and never coming into direct contact?

    Mankind has been deceived many times, we have been lied to by many people for thousands of years. The goal is to keep people from knowing God or to destroy people’s faith in the one true God that created everything, to get people to blame God for all the suffering and unfairness going on, to make us afraid of Him (or them, as it varies by culture), and to keep us under control by the ruling elites. This ruling class often was directed by the devil and his host. They slaughtered many innocent people for sacrificial rites or for sport, they killed the prophets of God, many followers of Christ and Christ Himself. They are the source of most of this world’s suffering even today, and it is Satan himself who works feverishly through them to destroy what’s left of Christ’s followers and innocent people. Check out how ISIS executes Christians, by hanging them from their ankles and slitting their throats like cattle. Satan knows it brings suffering to God to see humans being hurt, especially God’s children, and he gets a sadistic pleasure out of it. Anyone who denies this is going on today, and in the last several hundred years even more so, is either not living in the real world or does not believe the Bible.

    There are many counterfeit religions, but only one true God and only one way He desires us to worship Him. There are many writings and ancient texts, but only one Bible that speaks the truth about our origins, purpose, and destiny. There are many gods and deities that people have been deceived into believing, but only one eternal God who is directly involved in man’s history and destiny from his inception. Search everywhere you think is worthwhile and keep that which is good. I believe the Bible, in its entirety, is both true and all good.

Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.