A Continuing Battle

By Robert Jeffress 2023

     Jesus’s death on the cross removed the penalty of our sin and destroyed the power of sin over us once and for all. But it didn’t eliminate the presence of sin from our lives. The ultimate war is won, yet many battles remain. A defeated enemy with nothing to lose is a dangerous opponent. And Satan knows that the tactic that worked in the garden of Eden is every bit as effective today.

     In his encounter with Eve, the serpent contradicted God and lied about Him. But he knew he couldn’t deceive Eve until he had her attention. To get her attention without scaring her away, the serpent had to be subtle. He had to tap in the point of a wedge that he could use to greater effect later. And he did it with four simple words: “Did God really say . . . ?”

     Tactically, it’s a brilliant strategy. With these four words, Satan is able to plant doubts without directly challenging God. That comes later. “Did God really say?” could be as innocuous as “Are you sure you heard Him correctly?” or “Are you sure that’s what He meant?”

     Today the strategy behind those four words can take any number of forms:

     •     “Jesus never actually claimed to be the Messiah. That was a title His disciples gave Him after He died to bolster their own ministries.”

     •     “God loves you and wants you to be happy. If someone or something makes you truly happy, questions of right and wrong no longer apply.”

     •     “Jesus said, ‘Love your neighbor.’ You can’t love someone if you don’t accept them for who they are.”

     The devil’s goal is to create static in the transmission of God’s Word to our hearts. He wants to make us doubt whether we understand it correctly. When we doubt what we’re most sure of, we’re vulnerable to temptation and susceptible to sin.

     Instead of allowing our understanding of God’s Word to be our Achilles’ heel, we can make it our first line of defense against Satan. We do that by studying Scripture in a purposeful way, seeking answers to difficult questions and working to understand why we believe what we do. We do that by spending time in prayer, asking God to reveal more truths from His Word. We do that by talking with church leaders and mature believers, drawing from their wisdom on difficult topics. We do that by engaging with people who don’t necessarily share our views of God and Scripture, trying to answer their questions and respond to their objections. We do that by finding accountability partners who will challenge us when they see things in our lives that need to be brought to our attention.

The Beating Heart in Believers

     Let’s close this chapter by looking at one of the starkest representations of human sin in all of literature. The narrator of Edgar Allan Poe’s short story “The Tell-Tale Heart” believes he has gotten away with murder after killing an old man and hiding his body under the floorboards of the house. The only hitch in his plan is the sound he hears afterward, which he believes is the beating of the old man’s heart.

     The narrator goes to great lengths to convince the reader of his sanity, even as the beating gets louder. He maintains a pleasant, casual facade when the police come to investigate, though the ever-louder beating starts to unnerve him. Finally, he can take no more. The sound of the beating heart— a manifestation of the narrator’s guilt — drives him to madness and confession.

     In a much less dramatic sense, the Holy Spirit serves as the beating heart in the lives of believers. He makes us aware of our guilt —our sin — and compels us to confess. Not to drive us mad, as in Poe’s story, but to restore our spiritual well-being and our relationship with God.

     Sin ruined God’s original plan for humanity. God, in His infinite mercy, provided a plan of redemption so that our sin would not have the last word. Satan would like nothing more than to tarnish that redemption by coaxing the redeemed back into sin. But God has equipped us with everything we need to counter Satan’s efforts. Thanks to God, humanity and sin are no longer inextricably linked.

Salvation

     If you’re in the mood to start an argument, especially among men of a certain age, all you have to do is say these words: “The best way to get to ___________ is ____________.” You can fill in the blanks with the destination and directions of your choosing. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that regardless of what you say — even if it involves giving directions to your own house — that man will have a better way. It may take you through three industrial parks, down two blind alleys, and across the practice green of a golf course, but he claims it will be better because it shaves seven and a half seconds off your travel time. And he’ll be prepared to defend that claim tooth and nail.

     Imagine what the reaction would be if you claimed to know the only way to get somewhere!

     Yet that very claim of exclusivity lies at the center of the seventh core belief of Christianity: salvation. Remember that Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). Jesus was clear: He is the only way to heaven. He left no room for other ways, other truths, other religions, or other paths to eternal life.1 That’s why the biblical concept of salvation is perhaps the most controversial of the ten core beliefs of Christianity.

     1 For more about the exclusivity of Jesus Christ and salvation, see my book Not All Roads Lead to Heaven: Sharing an Exclusive Jesus in an Inclusive World (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2016).

Understanding Exclusivity

     From the start, exclusivity has marked God’s interaction with His people. In Exodus 20, He said, “I am the LORD your God. . . . You shall have no other gods before Me” (vv. 2–3).

     God doesn’t keep an open mind to a multiplicity of ideas. He doesn’t reward creative alternatives to His plans. Sin caused a devastating rift in our relationship with Him. As a result, God is specific and exacting in His demands of us.

     Consider the instructions He gave to Noah in Genesis 6:14–16 for building the ark. The most expertly crafted seaworthy vessel would not have saved the human race from the flood if it had not been constructed from the exact materials, built to the exact size, and included the exact number of decks and doors God required.

     Consider the instructions He gave Moses in Exodus 25–30 for building the tabernacle. This ornate structure for religious gatherings would not have been sufficient for Jewish worship if it did not include every detail God laid out, down to the intricate design of the priestly garments.

     Consider the instructions He gave His people in Leviticus 16–27 for sacrifices and offerings. The most heartfelt sacrifice to God would not have been acceptable if it did not conform to the exact requirements God spelled out.

     Cain, the first son of Adam and Eve, learned that lesson the hard way when he and his brother Abel presented their offerings to the Lord. Genesis 4:3–5 says, “Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell.”

     Most people get so caught up in the aftermath of this story — the first murder, the first lie to God — that they overlook an important question: Why did God reject Cain’s offering and accept Abel’s?

     The answer may lie in what’s not in the text. Somewhere between the events of Genesis 4:2 and 4:3, God may have given Cain and Abel specific instructions regarding the kind of offering He desired. Perhaps Abel followed those instructions while Cain rejected them. If that’s the case, God likely required from both brothers an animal sacrifice as a reminder of the seriousness of sin and the necessity of blood to cover that sin.

     Abel may not have understood the reasons for God’s command, but still he obeyed it. Cain, on the other hand, opted for a different approach. Perhaps he thought a beautifully displayed arrangement of fruit and grain on the altar would be more aesthetically pleasing than a bloody animal. But God wasn’t interested in a more pleasing approach to sacrifice. He wanted His people to be acutely reminded that their sin was so great that the blood of an innocent animal was required to cover their guilt.

     Two New Testament passages shed additional light on this incident. The writer of Hebrews said, “By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks” (11:4). Jude went even further. He identified Cain’s act of disobedience as the genesis of every false religion in the world today. “Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain” (v. 11).

     “The way of Cain” refers to any attempt to approach God on our own terms rather than on God’s terms.

     “The way of Cain” describes any religious system that attempts to earn God’s favor through works rather than through complete reliance on God’s grace.

     “The way of Cain” is any religious system that appeals to our pride rather than our desperate condition before God.

     “The way of Cain” emphasizes human goodness rather than human sinfulness.

     “The way of Cain” says there are many paths that lead to God rather than one path.

     “The way of Cain” leads to eternal death rather than eternal life: “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Prov. 14:12).

     The message that comes through loud and clear throughout Scripture is this: if you want to be in a right relationship with the one true God, whom you have alienated by your sin, then you must reconcile with Him on His terms, not yours. God is, by His very nature, exclusive.

Four Objections to the Exclusivity of Jesus Christ

     Jesus’s claim to be the only way to God and the only means of salvation for humanity provokes strong objections in our increasingly inclusive culture. If you’ve engaged in conversations about the exclusivity of Jesus’s sacrifice, you’ll likely recognize four of the most common objections.

Objection #1: Exclusivity Is Intolerant

     The first objection goes like this: if you claim that Jesus is the only path to God, you’re being intolerant. And in our culture, there is no greater offense. The word tolerance has undergone a radical transformation in recent years. A generation ago, tolerance meant a respect for people’s right to believe whatever they want to believe. Being tolerant meant acknowledging that people have the right to be wrong or to believe a lie if they so choose.

     Today, however, tolerance requires a much more substantial commitment. To be tolerant today, we must say that all beliefs are equally valid.

     In terms of spiritual beliefs, that leaves us in an awkward position. All major religions answer the question, “What must a person do to be right with God?” And for many religions, the answer is, by nature, exclusive. Yet the modern concept of tolerance doesn’t allow for exclusivity. So our culture has moved the question from the realm of objective truth, in which there is a correct answer, to the realm of subjective truth, in which everyone’s opinion is equally valid. When Christians attempt to shift it back to the realm of objective truth, we’re accused of being intolerant.

     Yet Webster’s New World Dictionary defines tolerate as “to recognize and respect others’ beliefs and practices without sharing them; to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked.”2 If you are truly tolerant, it means you are respectful of beliefs and behaviors with which you disagree. You can only be truly tolerant of something you disagree with. For example, I can be respectful of Muslims, recognizing their freedom to believe whatever they want to believe, without embracing Islam as an alternative pathway to God.

     Tolerance involves a choice. You come to a judgment that what a person is saying or doing is wrong, but you nevertheless show that person respect and give him or her the right to be wrong.

     2 Webster’s New World Dictionary, second college edition, s.v. “tolerate” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982).

Objection #2: How Can So Many People Be So Wrong?

     The second objection goes like this: if Jesus is the only way to be saved, that means an overwhelming number of people are facing eternity in hell. Billions of people throughout history never trusted Christ as their Savior. Instead, they followed the path of Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism or some other religion. How can so many people be so wrong? That question has particular weight in Western culture, which accepts that the majority is usually right and the minority is usually wrong.

     According to the Pew Research Center, roughly 31 percent of the world’s population can be labeled “Christian.”3 The percentage of true followers of Christ is much smaller than that — a miniscule number, when you consider how many people have ever lived. How could such a small percentage of people know the only real path to salvation? How could so many sincere people be wrong?

     To answer these questions, we must acknowledge two truths about ourselves. First, humans were born with an inclination to worship someone or something greater than ourselves. We are spiritual beings. Ecclesiastes 3:11 says God “set eternity” in our hearts. We sense there is something that transcends this life.

     Second, human beings are incurably rebellious. One of the residual effects of the sin virus we all inherited from Adam and Eve is the propensity to reject the knowledge of the true God and instead follow our own hearts. The problem with that approach is made abundantly clear in Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” That’s how it’s possible for so many people to be so wrong.

     Jesus crunched the numbers in Matthew 7:13–14: “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” In other words, the highway that leads to hell is a wide road, and most people in the world are on it. The path that leads to heaven is narrow; few people find it. Jesus Himself predicted that most people will spend eternity in hell.

     As sobering as that thought is, even more jarring is the idea that many of those on the path to hell are religious people. In verse 21, Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.’”

     The fact that most people miss the way to heaven doesn’t negate the truth of exclusivity; it proves it, because Jesus predicted it. Isn’t it logical to assume that Jesus is also right in His prescription of how to escape hell through faith in Him?

     3 Benjamin Wormald, Religious Composition by Country, 2010–2050, Pew Research Center, April 2, 2015, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projection-table/.

Do We Believe the Whole Gospel?

By R.C. Sproul 12/1/2010

     Unbelief. This one word expresses the judgment Emil Brunner, the Swiss “crisis theologian,” used to describe nineteenth-century liberal theology. The rise of such liberalism was a conscious synthesis between naturalism in the world of philosophy and historic Christianity. Liberalism sought to de-supernaturalize the Christian faith and to restrict the modern significance of Jesus and the New Testament to ethical considerations, particularly with respect to the needs of human beings, and especially with respect to their material needs.

     This provoked a significant dilemma for the organized church, first in Europe and then in America. If an institution repudiates the very foundation upon which it is built and for which it exists, what happens to the billions of dollars worth of church property and its numerous ordained professionals? The clergy were left with nothing to preach except social concerns. In order to maintain a reason for the continued existence of Christianity as an organized religion, nineteenth-century liberalism turned to a new gospel, dubbed the “social gospel.” This was a gospel that focused on considerations of humanitarianism and had at the core of its agenda a commitment to “social justice.”

     The use of the term “social justice” involved an ironic twisting of words. What was in view in this philosophy was basically the redistribution of wealth, following the template of socialism. The false assumption of this so-called social justice was that material wealth can be gained only by means of the exploitation of the poor. Ergo, for a society to be just, the wealth must be redistributed by government authority. In reality, this so-called social justice degenerated into social injustice, where penalties were levied on those who were legitimately productive and non-productivity was rewarded — a bizarre concept of justice indeed.

     The rise in importance of the social gospel provoked a controversy known in church history as the “modernist-fundamentalist controversy,” which raged in the early years of the twentieth century. This controversy witnessed an unholy dichotomy between two poles of Christian concern. On the one hand, there was the classic concern of personal redemption accomplished by Christ through His atoning death on the cross, which brought reconciliation for those who put their trust in Jesus. On the other hand there was the consideration of the material well-being of human beings in this world right now. It included the consideration of clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, giving shelter to the homeless, and caring for the poor.

     Many evangelicals at this period in history, in order to preserve the central significance of the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, gave renewed emphasis to evangelism. In many cases, this emphasis upon evangelism was done to the exclusion of the other pole of biblical concern, namely, mercy ministry to those who were poor, afflicted, and suffering. So glaring was the dichotomy between liberal and evangelical concerns that, sadly, many evangelicals began to distance themselves from any involvement in mercy ministries, lest their activities be construed as a surrender to liberalism.

     The fallacy of the false dilemma takes two important truths and forces one to choose between them. The assumption of the either/or fallacy is that of two particular matters, only one is true while the other is false; therefore, one is required to choose between the true and the false. The either/or fallacy that stood before the church in this period was either the gospel of personal redemption or the gospel of social concern for the material welfare of human beings.

     Even a cursory reading of the New Testament, however, makes it clear that the concerns of Jesus and of the New Testament writers cannot be reduced to an either/or dilemma. The problem with this fallacy, as with all fallacies, is that truth becomes severely distorted. The New Testament does not allow for this false dilemma. The choice that the church has is never between personal salvation and mercy ministry. It is rather a both/and proposition. Neither pole can be properly swallowed by the other. To reduce Christianity either to a program of social welfare or to a program of personal redemption results in a truncated gospel that is a profound distortion.

     Historically, before the outbreak of nineteenth-century liberalism, the church did not seem to struggle with this false dichotomy. For centuries, the church understood her task as both to proclaim the saving gospel of the atoning work of Christ and, at the same time, to follow Jesus’ example of ministry to the blind, to the deaf, to the imprisoned, to the hungry, to the homeless, and to the poor. The ministry of the church, if it is to be healthy, must always be firmly committed to both dimensions of the biblical mandate, that we may be faithful to Christ Himself. If we reject either the ministry of personal redemption or of mercy to the afflicted, we express “unbelief.”

Click here to go to source

Robert Charles Sproul, 2/13/1939 – 12/14/2017 was an American theologian, author, and ordained pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America. Dr. R.C. Sproul was founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries, an international Christian education and discipleship organization located near Orlando, Fla. He was also copastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., chancellor of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine. Dr. Sproul has contributed dozens of articles to national evangelical publications, has spoken at conferences, churches, and schools around the world, and has written more than one hundred books. He also served as general editor of the Reformation Study Bible.

With Passion

By R.C. Sproul Jr. 12/1/2010

     One of the troubles with trouble is that it can encourage us toward selfishness. When things are going well for us, it is rather easy to feel magnanimous. When challenges come our way, however, suddenly we feel entitled to be focused on ourselves.

     Not so with Jesus. It is more than shocking that the Lord of glory would, as He did in John 13, take on the form of the lowliest servant and wash the feet of His disciples. What makes it all the more potent is that He did this on the night in which He was betrayed. Jesus was within a day of facing not just Roman crucifixion, the most gruesome death one could imagine, but facing the full wrath and fury of His Father poured out on Him. Yet His immediate concern was not this grave challenge before Him but that He might teach one more lesson to His disciples. A few chapters later, His prayers were focused on two things — that God would be glorified in what was about to take place and that God would bless these same disciples. Jesus was thinking of others. In the face of His passion, His passion was those whom He loved.

     Compassion, rightly understood, means entering into the passion, or suffering, of others. It means setting aside our own concerns, our own fears, our own needs, and not just supplying but feeling the needs of those around us. This, ironically, happens not when we have all that we need. It happens instead when we come to understand that we have nothing and that we need nothing. Compassion flows not out of the wellsatisfied but from those who have not. There is, in turn, only one way to do this — to die to self. When my aspirations, my hopes and dreams, my wants are crucified, I enter into liberty. I am free to take up the concerns of others. A dead man has no need to protect his comfort. He has no need to protect his wealth. He has no need at all to protect his reputation. Perhaps Janis Joplin had it right: freedom may just be another word for “nothing left to lose.”

     The Serpent is more crafty than any of the beasts of the field. His passion is to build up in us misguided passions. Jesus hungered and thirsted after the will of the Father, yet the will of the Devil is that we would hunger and thirst. He delights to fill us with needs, whereas our Father delights to fill our needs. Jesus spoke to this in the Sermon on the Mount. He encourages us: “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” (Matt. 6:25–26).

     We can die to ourselves not because we are so worthless, but because He has ascribed worth to us. The One who gave us our value, who values us, is the same One who meets all of our needs. We who were dead, He has made alive — and He keeps us alive. He meets our needs daily, such that the last thing we need to worry about is our needs. Now we are free to show forth His compassion because we are indeed filled. We lose our cares when we remember we are dead. We care for others out of our fullness because He has made us alive.

     Our passion, then, ought to be that we would identify with our Lord. We enter into His passion as we put to death all our selfish concerns and fears. When we take on the form of servants and wash the feet of our brothers, we become one with Him in dying to self. But we likewise are called to enter into His resurrection — even His ascension. He has, in Him, made us alive. When He walked out into the garden from His tomb, the Firstborn of the new creation, He blazed the trail where we now walk. When He ascended to the right hand of the Father, He took us with Him. He has, in Him, made us kings and queens, seated in thrones of glory in the heavenly places. He has made us joint heirs with Him, such that we inherit the whole of the world. We have nothing, and so have nothing to lose. We have everything, and so have everything to give.

     When we live with Him, when we seek to live like Him, then we are seeking first the kingdom of God. When we put our desires to death, we are seeking first His righteousness. And when we feast before Him, we feast because all these things have been added to us.

     He has given us one holy passion. He has given us His own passion. He has called us to identify with Him, and, in so doing, we identify with His body, the church. Love your brother. Walk with him. Mourn with him when he mourns. Rejoice with him when he rejoices. And in both instances, know that your Father in heaven mourns and rejoices with you.

Click here to go to source

The Covenant Way

By Susan Hunt 12/1/2010

     “Even to old age and gray hairs, O God, do not forsake me, until I proclaim your might to another generation” (Ps. 71:18).

     One of the things I feel an urgency to proclaim to our covenant sons and daughters is that “God created man in his own image … male and female he created them… . And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion’” (Gen. 1:27–28).

     Male and female — created equally in God’s image but assigned different, equally valuable functions in His kingdom. This glorious difference points to our glorious triune God.

     The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in substance and power, but each assumes a different function in the accomplishment of our redemption. The Father chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, the Son redeemed us through His blood, and the Holy Spirit applies this redemption to our hearts (Eph. 1:3–14). These functions are not blurred but are so perfectly complementary that they harmonize to accomplish the grand work of redemption that praises His glorious grace (vv. 6, 12, 14).

     To even think about which person of the Trinity or which Trinitarian function is most important is ridiculous. But this exquisite equality does not negate the functional authority within the Godhead. “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3).

     The Creator stamped the profound unity and diversity of His nature upon His image bearers. The world has highjacked gender distinctiveness by proclaiming that equality means sameness and that submission is demeaning to women. Worse than diminishing the value of our male and female design and function, this absurdity obscures our reflection of God’s glory.

     “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’” (Gen. 2:18).

     God created the man first, indicating headship. Man’s aloneness was not good, so God created a helper. This rich word (Heb., ezer) is often used to refer to God as our helper. Reflecting on how God ministers to us as our helper unfolds the beauty of our female calling. God helps by seeing and caring for the suffering (Ps. 10:14), supporting (20:2), protecting (33:20), delivering from distress (70:5), rescuing the needy and afflicted (72:12–14), and comforting (86:17). These are strong, relational, nurturing, compassionate words. They are covenant words. They characterize our relationship with God and with one another.

     Man and woman are to be fruitful and take dominion by fulfilling their distinctive callings. Satan made his move to torpedo the structure of God’s kingdom by inverting the creation order and going to the woman. When the man and woman sinned, they lost their ability to be and do what God had created and commissioned them to be and do. But God, being rich in mercy, promised the Redeemer who would restore the relationship they lost.

     The man and woman heard the first proclamation of the gospel (Gen. 3:15). The promise would be kept through the offspring of the woman. Adam’s response to this good news was to name his wife, an indicator that he was restored to headship. He named her Eve “because she was the mother of all living” (v. 20). This leaves me breathless. Eve means life-giver. The life-taker was restored to her pre-fall ability to be a life-giving helper because of the gospel.

     Woman’s redemptive calling to be a life-giver is not just biological. The redeemed woman is called to be a life-giver in every season, relationship, and situation. And get this — only redeemed women have the ability to display God’s creation design and redemptive calling. This, too, leaves me breathless.

     Multiplying and taking dominion is still the church’s compelling commission. Headship and submission are still the church’s compelling relational framework for men and women to live out our covenantal privileges and responsibilities. When Paul told Timothy, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12), he referred to judicial or governing authority. And he quickly gave the reason: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (v. 13). The governance of the church is to reflect the creation order, thus reflecting the character of God, thus reflecting the gospel.

     Headship and submission are God’s ordained order to achieve oneness in marriage and unity in the church. Whenever a woman inverts this order, she becomes a life-taker. Instead of nurturing a sense of place and family in her home and church, she sucks the life out of that relationship/situation. Biblical submission liberates us to make the kingdom reality of God’s female design and calling visible to our families, friends, and neighbors, and to the next generation.

     Why would we rebel against such a high and holy calling? The same reason Mother Eve did — pride. We are vain women and we live in Vanity Fair. We need the gospel, and we need the church and other women to help us know how to orient our lives to the gospel — it’s the covenant way

Click here to go to source

Susan Hunt is a wife, mother, and grandmother, and she is former director of women’s ministries for the Presbyterian Church in America. She is coauthor of Women's Ministry in the Local Church.

The Magic Bullet

By Sebastian Heck 12/1/2010

     Within the space of forty-eight hours, one could tour more than a dozen of Europe’s most beautiful historic cathedrals, emblems of Christianity’s once ubiquitous presence. But for the people who live in Europe, and I speak as a German national living in Germany, the familiar-looking steeples and the church bells sounding forth into the night are but tragic reminders of an all-too-distant past.

     What caused this transformation of western Europe from the erstwhile cradle of the Reformation to one of the most secular places on earth within just two centuries? Many reasons could be listed. Among them would be the Enlightenment, higher criticism of the Bible, German liberalism, and finally, not entirely disconnected, the havoc of two World Wars. These all play their part in explaining the current climate in much of western Europe.

     Today, we are faced with the challenging combination of an aggressive “New Atheism,” constant Muslim immigration, negative population growth, and a dwindling Christian presence. In Germany, Italy, and Ireland, evangelical believers comprise at most one percent of the population. In countries such as France, Spain, Austria, and Poland, the percentage is even lower.

     “How can the church possibly survive?” people in Europe are asking. “Is there any hope for us?” While it might be tempting to cave in, throw hands up in the air, and abandon the sinking ship, this is simply not an option. God still has His people there.

     As with our entire Christian walk, our hope does not come from the situation we are in. More often than not, Christian hope actually rises despite the situation. As believers, we are not called to live comfortable and easy lives. We are called to live by faith, not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7). It is “through faith and patience” that we “inherit the promises” (Heb. 6:12). We are called to suffer even as Christ Himself suffered (1 Peter 2:21). Thus, we are not called to minister, evangelize, and plant churches only in places that promise quick success because they are “white for harvest” (John 4:35), but also in those areas that seem more like valleys of dry bones (see Ezek. 37:1–14).

     Germany is a good illustration of the latter, as it has not seen the almost proverbial “revival of the spiritual” taking places in other parts of the West. It is still, for the most part, simply dead and resistant, truly post-Christian. So, what do we do?

     Some argue for a toning down of theological convictions as the way to go forward, thereby simply repeating the sins of their liberal forefathers. Others turn to pragmatism, arguing that times like these demand a “roll-up-your-sleeves” mentality, not a dotting of the doctrinal i and crossing of the theological t. Yet others argue for “thinking outside the box” when it comes to ministry in a post-Christian world, and by “the box” they usually mean the church. Hope in the church as the sole agent for propagating the gospel has been abandoned by many a pastor and missionary here.

     What many think we need is a magic bullet of missions and church planting that will cut through the rock hard soil of western Europe.

     We agree. We need this magic bullet. And we have it, but, alas, we disagree with the pragmatists and progressives as to where it may be found. It is not to be found in the newest fad but in the nature of the church and the promises given to it.

     In Matthew 16, Jesus makes a promise to Simon Peter: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (v. 18). While there is some debate as to what Jesus meant by “on this rock,” what is clear is the import of Christ’s promise to build His church. Jesus is the originator of His church. He is the builder and keeper of His church. And just as He has charged the disciples with making disciples of all nations, including the spiritual wastelands of Europe, by baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that He has commanded them, so He has promised to be with His church, even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:18–20).

     The true church of Christ has always been recognized by the marks of true gospel preaching, baptism, the administration of the Lord’s Supper, and discipline, which are also the means of grace God ordinarily uses and promised to bless. This church is kept by Christ in such a way that not even the gates of hell shall prevail against its mission.

     Admittedly, Christ’s promise to Peter may seem counterintuitive today, especially in Europe. But then again, we must walk by faith, not by sight. We need to rely on God’s promise, draw from God’s strength, and use the means He has given the church. That is our only hope. Such a promise-driven approach to ministry cannot ultimately fail because the church will ultimately survive. This is the magic bullet of ministry if there ever was one.

Click here to go to source

Nine Points about Biblical Slavery and Skeptics’ Condemnation of the Bible

By S.J. Thomason

     “So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.” (Letter from Paul to Philemon about Philemon’s slave)

     The horrific treatment of slaves in the United States between 1619 and 1865 has led many Bible skeptics to question the often-mentioned practice of Biblical slavery, with the assumption that the systems of the U.S. were similar to those in Biblical times. The intention of the present blog is to offer contextual evidence that counters this assertion and other condemnations of the Bible.

     1. The Bible is an historical textbook, which documented actual events in our history.

• If we wanted a book devoid of actual events and our sometimes ugly history, the Bible would have been a fairy tale instead of an historical text.
• Some question the historicity of the Bible. Over a hundred years ago, famed Scottish archaeologist William Ramsay, who was highly critical of the book of Acts, set out to explore the book’s history by conducting digs over two decades in Asia Minor and Greece. He came to the conclusion that Luke’s work was “trustworthy” and “exceptionally valuable” and unsurpassed for its historical and archaeological accuracy. A detailed account can be accessed here:

• 1     Wayward Paths and Golden Handcuffs
• 2     Eyes on the Unseen Prize

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 78

50 He made a path for his anger;
he did not spare them from death,
but gave their lives over to the plague.
51 He struck down every firstborn in Egypt,
the firstfruits of their strength in the tents of Ham.
52 Then he led out his people like sheep
and guided them in the wilderness like a flock.
53 He led them in safety, so that they were not afraid,
but the sea overwhelmed their enemies.
54 And he brought them to his holy land,
to the mountain which his right hand had won.
55 He drove out nations before them;
he apportioned them for a possession
and settled the tribes of Israel in their tents.

56 Yet they tested and rebelled against the Most High God
and did not keep his testimonies,
57 but turned away and acted treacherously like their fathers;
they twisted like a deceitful bow.
58 For they provoked him to anger with their high places;
they moved him to jealousy with their idols.
59 When God heard, he was full of wrath,
and he utterly rejected Israel.
60 He forsook his dwelling at Shiloh,
the tent where he dwelt among mankind,
61 and delivered his power to captivity,
his glory to the hand of the foe.

By John Walvoord

Prophecy about Kedar and Hazor

     Jeremiah 49:28–33. The Babylonian attack on Kedar and Hazor was predicted (v.  28 ). Kedar was a tribe descending from the Ishmaelites ( Gen. 25:13 ). She was renowned for her excellence in archery ( Isa. 21:16–17 ) and for her sheep ( 60:7 ), which were declared destroyed in this attack ( Jer. 49:29 ). The reference to Hazor is not to the city in Israel but a city apparently located somewhere in the Arabian desert. The destruction of these cities happened along with the other conquests of the Babylonians in the period of Nebuchadnezzar’s power.

Prophecy about Elam

     Jeremiah 49:34–39. The prophecy concerning Elam referred to an area east of Babylon, known today as Iran. Elam is described as breaking her bow, for like Kedar, Elam was noted for archery. The complete destruction of Elam does not seem to have been fulfilled in history and may yet have its final chapter in the future in connection with judgments at the second coming of Christ. Elam was promised, however, restoration (v.  39 ).

Prophecy about Babylon

     Jeremiah 50:1–51:64. The final two chapters of  Jeremiah relate to Babylon and its future destruction. The prophecy reveals that a great nation from the north would attack her ( 50:3 ), probably referring to Medo-Persia and its conquest of Babylon described in  Daniel 5. Because Babylon continued to figure in biblical history and prophecy until the time of the second coming of Christ, some of these prophecies may have their ultimate fulfillment at that time (cf.  Rev. 17–18).

     Prophecies concerning Babylon, stated extensively in these final chapters of  Jeremiah, confirm many other prophecies regarding Babylon’s destruction (cf.  Isa. 13:1–14:23; 21:1–9; Jer. 25:10–14, 26 ). The Scriptures are plain on the destruction of Babylon: “Babylon will be captured; Bel will be put to shame” ( Jer. 50:2 ), referring to the god of Babylon ( 51:44; cf.  Isa. 46:1 ). Marduk was an important deity of Babylon. According to the prophecy, “Marduk” will be “filled with terror. Her images will be put to shame and her idols filled with terror” ( Jer. 50:2 ). The nation “from the land of the north” mentioned in verse  9 is also mentioned in verse  3. The invader will “lay waste her land. No one will live in it; both men and animals will flee away” (v.  3 ). Because this, like the prophecies of  Isaiah 13:1–16, was not completely fulfilled in history, it may relate to the final destruction of Babylon at the second coming of Christ (cf.  Rev. 18 ). In the midst of the description of judgment on Babylon, reassurance was given Israel that ultimately she would be restored and forgiven ( Jer. 50:4–5 ).

     In this prophecy, the complete destruction of Babylon is described in detail (vv.  11–16 ). As this and the preceding prophecies of the destruction of Babylon did not occur when the Medes and the Persians conquered Babylon, there seems to be another reference here to the final destruction of Babylon at the time of the second coming.

     In the midst of these prophecies concerning Babylon, prophetic revelation was given concerning Israel. Though crushed both by Assyria and Babylon, God promised to punish Israel’s oppressors. The day would come when Israel’s guilt would be forgiven and Israel would be brought back to her own land (vv.  18–20 ).

     Babylon is described as completely destroyed (v.  26 ). Her enemies are charged with letting none escape (v.  29 ) and instructed to silence her soldiers (v.  30 ). Babylon’s punishment is great because she was “arrogant” (vv.  31–32 ). Though God would again deal with Israel in mercy, He would not deal with Babylon in this way (vv.  33–34 ).

     God called for a sword against Babylon, against her false prophets, against all other Babylonians (vv.  35–38 ). Babylon is described as a city that “will never again be inhabited or lived in from generation to generation. As God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah along with their neighboring towns” (vv.  39–40 ), God declared, “so no one will live there; no man will dwell in it” (v.  40 ). Like other prophecies in connection with the destruction of Babylon, these punishments have never been completely fulfilled and seem to indicate a future destruction of Babylon in connection with the second coming of Christ ( Rev. 17:18 ).

     The army from the north is again mentioned (v.  41 ). Babylon would be anxious and in anguish when they hear reports of the coming army. Again, the complete destruction of Babylon is described (v.  45 ).

     The prophetic revelation concerning Babylon continues as Babylon’s destruction is described ( 51:1–10 ). “Leb Kamai” is an unusual expression apparently meaning “the heart of my attackers.” Those who came to Babylon as foreigners would devastate her completely (v.  2 ). Her young would not be spared, and her army would be completely destroyed (v.  3 ). Though Babylon would be destroyed, Israel and Judah would not be forsaken (v.  5 ). Babylon is declared to fall suddenly and be broken (v.  8 ).

     In this passage (vv.  11–14 ) the attackers are described as “the kings of the Medes,” who actually conquered Babylon in 539 BC. In the conquering of Babylon this promise was fulfilled. The prophetic message is based on the fact that God is sovereign, that He created the world and is able to control its events (vv.  15–16 ). By contrast, the people of Babylon were “senseless and without knowledge” (v.  17 ). Her idols “are a fraud; they have no breath in them” (v.  17 ). God is not like these idols. He is the Lord Almighty (v.  19 ).

     God declared that He would “shatter nations, with you I destroy kingdoms” (v.  20 ). He would also shatter their horses, their chariots, men and women, old men and youth, shepherd and flock, farmer and oxen, governors and officials (vv.  21–23 ). God said that He was repaying Babylon “for all the wrong they have done in Zion” (v.  24 ). Again God declared that Babylon “will be desolate forever” (v.  26 ).

     God revealed that He would summon Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz to fight against Babylon (v.  27 ). These people were all warlike and apparently took part in the battle against Babylon. “The kings of the Medes” again were fighting Babylon (v.  28 ). The destruction of Babylon and her warriors is described in graphic terms (vv.  29–32 ). Babylon is “like a threshing floor at the time it is trampled; the time to harvest her will soon come” (v.  33 ).

     Just as Nebuchadnezzar had devoured Israel, so God would devour Babylon (vv.  34–35 ). Her destruction is described in graphic terms (vv.  36–39 ). Babylon would be led “like lambs to the slaughter, like rams and goats” (v.  40 ). The complete destruction of Babylon would leave it like “a dry and desert land, a land where no one lives” (v.  43 ). Bel, the god of Babylon, would be punished and “the wall of Babylon will fall” (v.  44 ).

     Babylon would be destroyed by attackers from the north, resulting in their idols being punished and the whole land being disgraced. The destruction of Babylon was a result of their cruel dealing with Israel. “‘But days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will punish her idols, and throughout her land the wounded will groan. Even if Babylon reaches the sky and fortifies her lofty stronghold, I will send destroyers against her,’ declares the LORD” (vv.  52–53 ). The destruction of Babylon was caused by “a God of retribution; He will repay in full” (v.  56 ). Even though Babylon’s walls were thick, they would be leveled and her gates set on fire (v.  58 ).

     In this passage Jeremiah delivered a message to Seraiah, the son of Neriah, when he went with Zedekiah to Babylon (v.  59 ). Nebuchadnezzar had summoned his vassal kings to Babylon for a conference, attempting to avoid insurrection. Seraiah was instructed to read the prophecies of Jeremiah concerning the destruction of Babylon (v.  62 ), apparently a copy of the prophecies from the larger manuscript. After the scroll was read, he was instructed, “Tie a stone to it and throw it in the Euphrates River. Then say, ‘So will Babylon sink to rise no more because of the disaster I will bring upon her. And her people will fall’” (vv.  63–64 ). Jeremiah stated that this was the end of his prophecies. The final chapter was appended by someone else.

The Fall of Jerusalem and the Beginning of the Captivity of Judah

     Jeremiah 52:1–34. This chapter is clearly similar to  2 Kings 24:18–25:30. The opening portion of  Jeremiah 52 records Zedekiah’s rebellion against Babylon, with the result that Nebuchadnezzar marched against Jerusalem and destroyed it (vv.  1–8 ). Zedekiah saw his sons killed before his eyes, and he saw the execution of all the officials of Judah. Then he was blinded and taken to Babylon, bound with bronze shackles (vv.  10–11; cf.  39:6–7 ). This was a literal fulfillment of the prophecies given to Zedekiah.

     “In the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon,” the temple, the royal palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem were destroyed by fire ( 52:12–13 ). This occurred in 586 BC, nineteen years after Babylon first conquered Jerusalem. Jerusalem’s walls were destroyed, and many were carried captive (v.  15 ). Only the poorest of the people were left behind (v.  16 ). Various articles and decorations of the temple were broken down and taken away to Babylon (vv.  17–23 ).

     The important leaders of Jerusalem were carried off and later executed (vv.  24–27 ). All of this constituted fulfillment of the many prophecies of Jeremiah concerning the destruction of Jerusalem.

     Those who were carried into captivity were enumerated, including four thousand six hundred people in all.

     The concluding note of the book of  Jeremiah concerns the release of Jehoiachin in 561 BC when Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar’s death. Jehoiachin was taken out of prison, given a seat of honor, and treated as a king at the king’s table for the rest of his life (vv.  31–34 ).

     The book of  Jeremiah, through hundreds of prophecies, contains dramatic proof that biblical prophecy is subject to literal fulfillment. The idea that prophecy is fulfilled in a nonliteral way is almost entirely absent in  Jeremiah.

          __________________________________________________________________

Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times

The Continual Burnt Offering (Luke 17:34-36)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

July 27

What if some day when you and I are standing,
Watching the fitful lightning in the sky,
Hearing the muttered threat of distant thunder,
Knowing humanity’s dread hour is nigh.

What if a sudden thrill should quiver through our being,
Not the death pang that ends all mortal strife,
But in a quickening surge of swift ecstatic power,
“Mortality be swallowed up of life!”

O Blessed Hope that looks beyond the shadows,
That is not troubled by this world’s alarms;
That knows The Life and sees a Transformation,
That waits the welcome of His outstretched arms!
--- W. C. E.

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     17. It now remains to see, as was proposed in the last place, what use the common society of Christians derive from laws, judicial proceedings, and magistrates. With this is connected another question --viz. What difference ought private individuals to pay to magistrates, and how far ought obedience to proceed? To very many it seems that among Christians the office of magistrate is superfluous, because they cannot piously implore his aid, inasmuch as they are forbidden to take revenge, cite before a judge, or go to law. But when Paul, on the contrary, clearly declares that he is the minister of God to us for good (Rom. 13:4), we thereby understand that he was so ordained of God, that, being defended by his hand and aid against the dishonesty and injustice of wicked men, we may live quiet and secure. But if he would have been appointed over us in vain, unless we were to use his aid, it is plain that it cannot be wrong to appeal to it and implore it. Here, indeed, I have to do with two classes of men. For there are very many who boil with such a rage for litigation, that they never can be quiet with themselves unless they are fighting with others. Law-suits they prosecute with the bitterness of deadly hatred, and with an insane eagerness to hurt and revenge, and they persist in them with implacable obstinacy, even to the ruin of their adversary. Meanwhile, that they may be thought to do nothing but what is legal, they use this pretext of judicial proceedings as a defence of their perverse conduct. But if it is lawful for brother to litigate with brother, it does not follow that it is lawful to hate him, and obstinately pursue him with a furious desire to do him harm.

18. Let such persons then understand that judicial proceedings are lawful to him who makes a right use of them; and the right use, both for the pursuer and for the defender, is for the latter to sist himself on the day appointed, and, without bitterness, urge what he can in his defence, but only with the desire of justly maintaining his right; and for the pursuer, when undeservedly attacked in his life or fortunes, to throw himself upon the protection of the magistrate, state his complaint, and demand what is just and good; while, far from any wish to hurt or take vengeance--far from bitterness or hatred --far from the ardour of strife, he is rather disposed to yield and suffer somewhat than to cherish hostile feelings towards his opponent. On the contrary, when minds are filled with malevolence, corrupted by envy, burning with anger, breathing revenge, or, in fine, so inflamed by the heat of the contest, that they, in some measure, lay aside charity, the whole pleading, even of the justest cause, cannot but be impious. For it ought to be an axiom among all Christians, that no plea, however equitable, can be rightly conducted by any one who does not feel as kindly towards his opponent as if the matter in dispute were amicably transacted and arranged. Some one, perhaps, may here break in and say, that such moderation in judicial proceedings is so far from being seen, that an instance of it would be a kind of prodigy. I confess that in these times it is rare to meet with an example of an honest litigant; but the thing itself, untainted by the accession of evil, ceases not to be good and pure. When we hear that the assistance of the magistrate is a sacred gift from God, we ought the more carefully to beware of polluting it by our fault.

19. Let those who distinctly condemn all judicial distinction know, that they repudiate the holy ordinance of God, and one of those gifts which to the pure are pure, unless, indeed, they would charge Paul with a crime, [689] because he repelled the calumnies of his accusers, exposing their craft and wickedness, and, at the tribunal, claimed for himself the privilege of a Roman citizen, appealing, when necessary, from the governor to Cæsar's judgment-seat. There is nothing contrary to this in the prohibition, which binds all Christians to refrain from revenge, a feeling which we drive far away from all Christian tribunals. For whether the action be of a civil nature, he only takes the right course who, with innocuous simplicity, commits his cause to the judge as the public protector, without any thought of returning evil for evil (which is the feeling of revenge); or whether the action is of a graver nature, directed against a capital offence, the accuser required is not one who comes into court, carried away by some feeling of revenge or resentment from some private injury, but one whose only object is to prevent the attempts of some bad men to injure the commonweal. But if you take away the vindictive mind, you offend in no respect against that command which forbids Christians to indulge revenge. But they are not only forbidden to thirst for revenge, they are also enjoined to wait for the hand of the Lord, who promises that he will be the avenger of the oppressed and afflicted. But those who call upon the magistrate to give assistance to themselves or others, anticipate the vengeance of the heavenly Judge. By no means, for we are to consider that the vengeance of the magistrate is the vengeance not of man, but of God, which, as Paul says, he exercises by the ministry of man for our good (Rom. 13:8).

20. No more are we at variance with the words of Christ, who forbids us to resist evil, and adds, "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also" (Mt. 5:39, 40). He would have the minds of his followers to be so abhorrent to everything like retaliation, that they would sooner allow the injury to be doubled than desire to repay it. From this patience we do not dissuade them. For verily Christians were to be a class of men born to endure affronts and injuries, and be exposed to the iniquity, imposture, and derision of abandoned men, and not only so, but were to be tolerant of all these evils; that is, so composed in the whole frame of their minds, that, on receiving one offence, they were to prepare themselves for another, promising themselves nothing during the whole of life but the endurance of a perpetual cross. Meanwhile, they must do good to those who injure them, and pray for those who curse them, and (this is their only victory) strive to overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:20, 21). Thus affected, they will not seek eye for eye, and tooth for tooth (as the Pharisees taught their disciples to long for vengeance), but (as we are instructed by Christ), they will allow their body to be mutilated, and their goods to be maliciously taken from them, prepared to remit and spontaneously pardon those injuries the moment they have been inflicted. This equity and moderation, however, will not prevent them, with entire friendship for their enemies, from using the aid of the magistrate for the preservation of their goods, or, from zeal for the public interest, to call for the punishment of the wicked and pestilential man, whom they know nothing will reform but death. All these precepts are truly expounded by Augustine, as tending to prepare the just and pious man patiently to sustain the malice of those whom he desires to become good, that he may thus increase the number of the good, not add himself to the number of the bad by imitating their wickedness. Moreover, it pertains more to the preparation of the heart which is within, than to the work which is done openly, that patience and good-will may be retained within the secret of the heart, and that may be done openly which we see may do good to those to whom we ought to wish well (August. Ep. 5 ad. Marcell.).

21. The usual objection, that law-suits are universally condemned by Paul (1 Cor. 6:6), is false. It may easily be understood from his words, that a rage for litigation prevailed in the Church of Corinth to such a degree, that they exposed the gospel of Christ, and the whole religion which they professed, to the calumnies and cavils of the ungodly. Paul rebukes them, first for traducing the gospel to unbelievers by the intemperance of their dissensions; and, secondly, for so striving with each other while they were brethren. For so far were they from bearing injury from another, that they greedily coveted each other's effects, and voluntarily provoked and injured them. He inveighs, therefore, against that madness for litigation, and not absolutely against all kinds of disputes. He declares it to be altogether a vice or infirmity, that they do not submit to the loss of their effects, rather than strive, even to contention, in preserving them; in other words, seeing they were so easily moved by every kind of loss, and on every occasion, however slight, ran off to the forum and to law-suits, he says, that in this way they showed that they were of too irritable a temper, and not prepared for patience. Christians should always feel disposed rather to give up part of their right than to go into court, out of which they can scarcely come without a troubled mind, a mind inflamed with hatred of their brother. But when one sees that his property, the want of which he would grievously feel, he is able, without any loss of charity, to defend, if he should do so, he offends in no respect against that passage of Paul. In short, as we said at first, every man's best adviser is charity. Everything in which we engage without charity, and all the disputes which carry us beyond it, are unquestionably unjust and impious.

22. The first duty of subjects towards their rulers, is to entertain the most honourable views of their office, recognising it as a delegated jurisdiction from God, and on that account receiving and reverencing them as the ministers and ambassadors of God. For you will find some who show themselves very obedient to magistrates, and would be unwilling that there should be no magistrates to obey, because they know this is expedient for the public good, and yet the opinion which those persons have of magistrates is, that they are a kind of necessary evils. But Peter requires something more of us when he says, "Honour the king" (1 Pet. 2:17); and Solomon, when he says, "My son, fear thou the Lord and the king" (Prov. 24:21). For, under the term honour, the former includes a sincere and candid esteem, and the latter, by joining the king with God, shows that he is invested with a kind of sacred veneration and dignity. We have also the remarkable injunction of Paul, "Be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake" (Rom. 13:5). By this he means, that subjects, in submitting to princes and governors, are not to be influenced merely by fear (just as those submit to an armed enemy who see vengeance ready to be executed if they resist), but because the obedience which they yield is rendered to God himself, inasmuch as their power is from God. I speak not of the men as if the mask of dignity could cloak folly, or cowardice, or cruelty, or wicked or flagitious manners, and thus acquire for vice the praise of virtue; but I say that the station itself is deserving of honour and reverence, and that those who rule should, in respect of their office, be held by us in esteem and veneration.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion