Apologetics for the Masses #342 - An Evangelical Pastor and Mary (Part 3)

Social Media - Please Share This Newsletter On...

Topic

The Sinlessness of Mary - A Debate With an Evangelical Pastor (Part 3)

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Introduction

Continuing my debate on the Sinlessness of Mary with Evangelical pastor Greg Smith. His comments will be in italics, mine will be interspersed with his. This one is going to be a little bit longer than usual, but I really want to point out all the errors in what he is saying, so I am going to be a bit more thorough in this one. But, I think you will enjoy it. And, if you stick with me, I should be able to reign things in a bit in the next round and bring it back to just a few main points.

To see the last round of the debate, so as to refresh your memory on what it is I said that he is responding to, click here: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/450-apologetics-for-the-masses-341-an-evangelical-pastor-and-mary

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Pastor Greg Smith

Hi John,

This is a great discussion and I hope your readers will better understand our two differing viewpoints. Thank you for not editing out anything that I have written, putting it in full in your newsletter, and for having a discussion where we can calmly and rationally talk about these issues. It does seem that our responses are getting longer each time because we keep expanding on each other’s questions and arguments.

John Martignoni

I have discussions like this with Protestants - and even atheists - all the time, and I have never cut, changed, edited, any of their comments. Truth does not fear error.

Pastor Greg Smith

Let me first respond briefly to what you said about Mary, the mother of Jesus. If Mary was not a sinner, she would not need a Savior. However, she in fact recognizes that her Son is her Savior (Luke 1:47). Her spirit rejoiced in God her Savior. She said that she rejoices or exalts. This is in the present tense, meaning ongoing and continuous. And please look at her humility. She said God took notice of His lowly servant girl. She lowered herself and exalted God. And that is who she worshipped. She worshipped the Lord. The Lord is Yahweh. He is God. He is God my Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary knew she needed a Savior. She was a sinner. She was not perfect. The Apostle Paul confirms this when he said that all sinned (Romans 5:12).

John Martignoni

Greg, are you a drunkard? Or, a drug addict? A compulsive gambler, maybe? If your answer is, "No," to any or all of these questions, would you say that you were saved from committing those sins by Jesus Christ? Based on what you've said so far, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I believe you would agree that you were saved from any or all of those sinful behaviors by Jesus Christ, right? The principle here is that a person can be saved from sin by Jesus Christ, before they ever commit the sins. Do you disagree with that?

Just so Mary. Jesus is indeed her Savior. He saved her from sin - before she ever committed sin. And the Bible backs the Church up on this. In Genesis 3:15, God says He will put enmity between the woman and Satan. What woman? The woman whose seed will bruise the head of Satan. Who is being referenced here as the seed? Jesus Christ. What woman is Jesus Christ the "seed" of? Mary. God Himself puts enmity between Mary and Satan. If there is divine enmity between Mary and Satan, how would she sin, since sinning puts you and Satan essentially on pretty good speaking terms?

So, I have to ask myself: Am I to believe the Word of God which says there is divine enmity between Satan and Mary, or am I to believe the word of Greg which says Satan was able to overcome God putting enmity between him and Mary?

Also, in Rev 12, we see a passage that parallels Genesis 3:15. Again, we have the "woman." We also have Christ, and we also have Satan. The woman brings forth a male child who is to rule all the nations. Who is the male child who will rule all nations? Jesus Christ. Who is the woman who brought Him forth? Mary. And, then, what do we see in the latter part of Rev 12? We see God, through a special grace, saving Mary from the dragon - Satan - before he ever caught her (verses 6, 14-17). So, God put enmity between the mother of His Son and Satan in Genesis, and saved the mother of His Son from Satan before Satan ever caught up to her in Revelation. So, if Satan never caught her, would you still say she sinned?

Now, regarding Romans 5:12, you correctly state that Paul says "ALL have sinned." But, as I have shown regarding the passage from Romans 3, "all" isn't necessarily an absolute. And that is most certainly the case here. In Romans 5:12, Paul makes the connection between death and sin. He says "death spread to all men because all men sinned." That "because" is very important. So, if absolutely "ALL" men have sinned, as you claim, then we should see from the Word of God that absolutely "ALL" men have died, right? Well, you've got a problem there. Did "ALL" men die? No. The Bible tells us Enoch never died - Hebrews 11:5; Genesis 5:24. So, "all" isn't an absolute, is it? Furthermore, since sin leads to death, and Enoch did not die, he must not have sinned, right?

The Bible also tells us that Elijah never died - he was taken up to Heaven in a fiery chariot - 2 Kings 2:10-12. So, again, "ALL" doesn't mean absolutely "ALL," does it? Furthermore, since sin leads to death, and Elijah did not die, he must not have sinned, right? Also, we know that Jesus died. So, if death is because of sin, and Jesus died, then Jesus must have sinned, right? After all, it says "all" and "all" means absolutely "all", doesn't it? Then did Jesus sin? I think not.

Which means, if you were to interpret Scripture in a consistent manner, and without all of your private and fallible preconceived notions, you would see that the word "ALL" in Romans 5 is not as absolute as you seem to want to make it. Or, do you assert that the first "all" in Rom 5:12 allows for exceptions, but the second "all" in Rom 5:12 does not?

You are yet again inconsistent in your interpretation of Scripture, and I will provide further evidence of that to you. Paul says, "ALL have sinned," so you interpret that as an absolute. Yet, Paul also says, just a few verses on, "Then as one man's [Adam] trespass led to condemnation for ALL men, so one man's [Jesus] act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for ALL men," (verse 18). In the King James Version (KJV), Romans 5:18 says, "Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon ALL men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon ALL men unto justification of life."

So, do you believe ALL men are saved? After all, Paul says "ALL" men are acquitted and receive life because of Jesus. Do you believe in universal salvation? I'll bet you don't. Which means, once again, as you did with Romans 3, you interpret a verse one way - in order to fit your pre-conceived fallible beliefs; while interpreting a nearby verse in a completely different way - in order to fit your pre-conceived fallible beliefs. Your inconsistency in scriptural interpretation leaves great doubt in my mind regarding your claims of being able to preach the truth.

So, no, Mary never sinned, and the Word of God, when interpreted in a consistent and proper manner, backs up the Catholic Church on this.

Pastor Greg Smith

Now, before I begin answering your many questions and arguments, let me give you a brief overview of how I became a pastor, since you asked. Maybe this will help to see where I am coming from.

I grew up in a Christian home and was blessed to receive a Christian education through high school. I became an electrical engineer. While finishing my masters degree, I felt the call of God in my heart to begin seminary at Talbot Seminary at Biola University. As I continued working full time, I graduated seminary (a place like where Paul wrote Timothy to teach faithful men in II Timothy 2:2) and was prayed upon with the laying on of hands and then became an associate pastor. During this time, God opened door after door, providing the funds, the time, and opportunities along the way for ministry. Later, I went back to get my doctorate in ministry at Talbot and before I graduated, God provided another church, a small church, where I was called by the consistory and elders of the church to be the pastor. I continue being a bi-vocational pastor, working as both an electrical engineer and the senior pastor.

God has provided me the opportunities and given me the abilities to be the pastor. God provides all Christians with spiritual gifts. My spiritual gift is pastoring and teaching (Ephesians 4:11). These gifts come from the Holy Spirit to equip the saints for service in the church. My call to preach and the authority to preach did not come through a succession of men that can trace their way back to the Apostle Peter. I was called by a local church who recognized my God-given abilities and gifts to faithfully preach the word.

John Martignoni

So, let me make sure I have this straight. The spiritual gifts, the gifts of preaching and teaching, and the authority that you have, were given to you directly by the Holy Spirit, correct? It was not through the laying on of hands that these gifts and authority were transmitted to you as we see with Timothy in 1 Tim 4:14 and 2 Tim 1:6? In other words, in Scripture we see a leader in the early Church, Timothy, receiving his gifts and authority through the laying on of hands, but for you, the laying on of hands was just some formality that you indulged in, but nothing significant was passed on to you through the laying on of hands, right?

Well, sorry, but you have offered no evidence of any kind that you have any authority from God to preach and teach and pastor and command anything in the Church. So, I reject your claims.

You talk about the gifts God has given you. Well, God has also given me a number of gifts. The gifts of preaching and teaching, amongst others. He has provided me with opportunities to teach far more people than you ever have. My background is in Finance and Business. I have no degree whatsoever in Theology or Ministry of any type. Yet, I am heard on some 300+ radio stations around the country, internationally via shortwave and the internet, seen nationally and internationally on television, have distributed in the neighborhood of 2 million copies of my talks, and this newsletter has almost 40,000 subscribers from all 50 states and at least 80 countries that I know of. So, yes, God has opened a lot of doors for me. God has truly provided for me. Given all of that, may I, according to your theology, start my own church and come up with my own set of doctrines and dogmas, based on my private fallible interpretations of Scripture, that I can then teach to people? Yes or no?

Pastor Greg Smith

This really brings up the subject of apostolic succession that you believe in, that is not a biblical doctrine. Apostolic succession is not in the Scriptures, nor is the idea that Peter was supreme among the apostles, and so therefore it is rejected by evangelical pastors who believe in the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures. If Peter was supreme, he would not have been rebuked by Paul over his relationship with Gentiles, when he was not acting in line with the truth of the gospel (Galatians 2:11 – 14). Peter was one of the leaders of the church in Jerusalem and the leader of the twelve, a great man used by the Lord, but James and Paul too were leaders of the church. Nowhere in Scripture is Peter recognized as the pastor of the Roman church or that he was even in Rome! Where is he in Paul’s mention of the saints in the church in Rome in Romans 16? Where is he when Paul greets ten members from the church in Rome in II Timothy? Instead, it was Paul who was entrusted as the pastor to the circumcised, to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7 – 8), not Peter! And nowhere in Scripture does it ever say that Peter’s successors (of which some of the popes were very ungodly) are absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors. On top of that, nowhere does it say in the Scriptures that the apostles passed on their authority to their successors, nor does it predict that they will pass on that authority to their successors.

And let’s look at the humility of the Apostle Peter himself in I Peter 1. Peter introduces himself as the apostle of Jesus Christ, not as the head of the church. In I Peter 5, Peter exhorted the elders as a fellow elder. I Peter 2:5, he says we are part of a holy priesthood, a people for God’s own possession. There is no priesthood except for the priesthood of believers, of which all believers are a part.

How could there be apostolic succession when the requirement of being an apostle was to be a witness of Jesus Christ and His resurrection. Only the apostles and some (500 at one time) in the first century saw the risen Lord! Apostolic succession ended with the apostles.

John Martignoni

I am going to hold off, for now, on a discussion of apostolic succession. Other than to ask you this question: Will you agree that everything you said above about Peter and apostolic succession could be in error because it is based on your fallible interpretation of Scripture? Yes or no?

Pastor Greg Smith

Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church upon Him the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). They have done that through the New Testament. So we do not need apostolic succession either. What the church needs are the teachings of the apostles to be accurately taught and preached and applied in our churches. This is not being done in many Protestant and Catholic churches today. Yes, there will be false teachers that come. Yes, there will be some who teach false doctrine. There will be different interpretations of the Scripture. But this is the result of Protestant and Catholic teachings interpreting the Scriptures based upon their traditions, instead of teaching the inerrant Scripture as a whole and within its proper context.

John Martignoni

This is the part of these discussions that I always find fascinating.

Pastor Greg: "What the church needs are the teachings of the apostles to be accurately taught and preached and applied in our churches."

Translation: "I teach my fallible understanding of the Scriptures in my church as if it is infallible."

Pastor Greg: "This is not being done in many Protestant and Catholic churches today."

Translation: "Many Protestant and Catholic churches disagree with my fallible interpretations of Scripture, so I infallibly declare them to be wrong in what they teach and preach and practice."

Pastor Greg: "Yes there will be false teachers who come. Yes there will be some who teach false doctrine."

Interpretation: "Not me, of course. Rather, anyone who disagrees with my fallible interpretations of Scripture is a false teacher and they teach false doctrine."

Pastor Greg: "But this is the result of Protestant and Catholic teachings interpreting the Scriptures based upon their traditions, instead of teaching the inerrant Scripture as a whole and within its proper context."

Interpretation: "I claim to be fallible in theory, but I am actually infallible in practice, so, again, if you disagree with my fallible (in theory) interpretations of Scripture, then you are infallibly wrong (in practice), especially you Catholics."

Pastor Greg Smith

Let me now give some brief answers to your other questions:

Where does the Bible say, "All spiritual commands that we must obey come from God through the Scriptures alone?"

It says this in a lot of places. Where else would truth come from? There is no other source of truth.

John 17:17 – Thy Word is truth. What else is truth? Nothing else.

II Timothy 3:15 – 16 – all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for . . . What else is inspired? Nothing else.

Matthew 4:4 – Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Only Scripture. Nothing else.

Mark 7:13 – “You are making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which you have delivered and many such things you do.” Scripture is the final and only authority that we have. Nothing else.

John Martignoni

Actually, Greg, not a single one of those verses you gave me says, and please note the quotation marks: "All spiritual commands that we must obey come from God through the Scriptures alone." In other words, you are interpreting the verses you gave me to say what you want them to say in accord with your fallible, preconceived notions of Scripture. You can't deny that! You cited Scripture verses and then you "interpreted" them. You did not just give me the Word of God, you gave me the word of Greg. Sorry, but I reject your word and I will stick to the Word of God.

So, will you agree with me, or not, that there is no verse in Scripture that states: "All spiritual commands that we must obey come from God through the Scriptures alone?" That those words are from you, not from God? And I will prove you to be false with your own words. You said the following: "I felt the call of God in my heart." Does Scripture somewhere say, "Greg Smith, I, God, am calling you to go to seminary?" No, it doesn't. Your heart said that. So, is your heart a source of truth? I thought only Scripture was a source of truth? Since your heart is not Scripture, why would you believe it? I thought all spiritual things came from God through Scripture "alone"?

John 17:17 - What else is truth besides the Word of God? Nothing you say. Yet, you use all sorts of mathematical and scientific truths, that are not found in the Word of God, to accomplish your work as an engineer, do you not? Is 2+2=4 true? It's not found in the Bible, so it must not be true, according to you.

2 Tim 3:15-17 - I agree that only Scripture is inspired. However, you still have not addressed your faux pas about using 2 Tim 3:15-17 as proof that everything God wants us to know about spiritual matters is in the Bible, since 2 Tim 3:15-17 is speaking specifically about the Old Testament. Do you believe in Sola Old Testament Scriptura?

Matt 4:4 - Does not say, "Only Scripture. Nothing else." Once again, you add your own interpretation.

Mark 7:13 - "Scripture is the final and only authority we have. Nothing else." Mark 7:13 doesn't actually say that, though, does it? Those are your words, not God's. I find it absolutely fascinating, that a man who claims the only authority is Scripture, continually uses his own words as substitutes for the Word of God.

Pastor Greg Smith

Is knowing that the books of the Bible are the inspired, inerrant Word of God "necessary for faith and practice"? I ask, because nowhere does the Bible say, for example, that the Gospel of Mark is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

Let me combine this with the first of your ending questions:

1) Again, you stated the following: "...all of the apostolic teachings and traditions necessary for faith and practice that God wanted communicated to His people are found within the New Testament (II Timothy 3:15 – 17)." I find it remarkable that you cited 2 Tim 3:15-17 there. You do realize, don't you, that Paul was specifically talking about the Old Testament in that passage? He says in v.15, "...and how from CHILDHOOD you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." When Timothy was a child, few - if any - of the books of the New Testament had been written. Also, it would have been from his Jewish mother, not his Gentile father, that Timothy would have learned of the "sacred writings." I.e., the Old Testament. Not a good passage to cite for a Sola Scriptura claim, as it would prove Sola Old Testament Scriptura, if anything.

How do we know that we can accept the whole Bible as God’s inspired, inerrant Word? Great question. I believe that we can agree to accept the Old Testament as being inspired from II Timothy 3:15 – 17 as you stated above. In addition, Peter confirms that Paul’s epistles (II Peter 3:16), though some are hard to understand, but they are part of the rest of Scripture. Paul refers to Luke as Scripture in I Timothy 5:18, when he quotes both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 and refers to both as Scripture. The writings of the apostles themselves (Matthew, Mark (through Peter), John, I and II Peter, I and II and III John, and Revelation) were mostly accepted early as Scripture (the smaller books took more time), as writings from the apostles (II Peter 3:2). By 397 AD, by the council of Carthage, all 66 books were accepted as canonical.

John Martignoni

No, we cannot agree that the Old Testament is inspired based on 2 Tim 3:15-17. How do we know the letters to Timothy are inspired? Peter mentions them you say. No, actually he doesn't...at least, not by name. So, maybe Peter was only speaking of 2 or 3 of Paul's epistles. How do you know? But, even if he did name all of Paul's epistles, how do we know anything Peter says or writes is inspired? Does the Bible somewhere say, "Everything Peter writes is inspired?" How do you know Mark is confirmed as inspired by Peter? Where does the Bible say that? How do you know Mark even knew Peter? Which Mark wrote Mark? And how do you know? And, who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews? Which John wrote John? Which James wrote James? Does the Bible somewhere say, "James the Apostle wrote the Letter of James and he was inspired by God to do it?" If so, where?

Sorry, but you are grasping at straws in an attempt to answer my question, and those straws all contain logical inconsistencies that you simply cannot get around. You are relying on non-biblical traditions in order to prove to me that the Bible alone is the sole authority, the sole source of truth for the Christian, the sole source of all spiritual commands - the Bible and only the Bible! That is a logical contradiction! I mean, you cite a council of Catholic bishops as evidence for your position. Really?! And, by the way, the Council of Carthage accepting all 73 books of the Bible as canonical, not 66 books, as did the Council of Hippo a few years earlier.

The Bible cannot witness to itself in order to prove that it is the inspired inerrant Word of God. It even says as much. Besides, the Koran claims to be the Word of God. Do you accept its witness? No. Why not? By your methodology, we have to accept it. The Book of Mormon, I believe, claims to be the Word of God. Do you accept its witness? No. Why not? I mean, it must be true, right? After all, it says it is.

Sorry, pastor, but you are relying on some authority outside of the Bible in order to not only believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God, but you are also relying on that authority in order to know which books should even be in the Bible in the first place. In other words, you don't have "everything necessary for faith and practice" from just your reading of the Bible. But, what authority is it exactly you are relying on for your knowledge of the Bible and its inspiration?

Pastor Greg Smith

Your second question:

2) I noticed that you studiously avoided answering the first of the questions I had asked you in my last reply: "Are you infallible in your interpretation of God's Word...yes or no?" So, are you? I think, from what you've said about church leaders and chuch councils making mistakes that you would not claim infallibility (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Which, if that is indeed the case, leads me to ask: Why should I accept anything that you have to say as being true, if any or all parts of what you say could be wrong?

Only the Scripture is authoritative. You should accept this statement based upon what I have written above. There is no other way to know the truth. There is no other truth. Again, Jesus said, “Thy word is truth.” I am not infallible. But, as I mentioned before, in my 35 minute long sermons, when I speak from the Scriptures, that is authoritative. I may quote facts from other reliable sources. They are most likely true. In my research, I take it to the point of trying to verify that it is truth. Do I know for sure? No. Is my sermon completely infallible? No. But when I read and command from Scripture, it is infallible. We are to be like the Bereans in Acts 17 to search the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things are so.

John Martignoni

I'm sorry, but how can you claim on the one hand that you are not infallible, but on the other hand also claim that when you speak from the Scriptures that it is authoritative? Something that has a possibility of being wrong...of being false...such as the words you use to convey your fallible understanding of Scripture, cannot, by its very nature, be authoritative. Jesus speaks infallibly. The Holy Spirit speaks infallibly. Pastor Greg speaks fallibly. Therefore, Pastor Greg cannot be guided, as he claims, by the Holy Spirit. If you were, then you would be infallible. Unless, you wish to claim that the Holy Spirit is fallible?

Are you unable to grasp the dangers involved with fallible men proclaiming what they think the Word of God means and having people gambling the fate of their immortal souls not on the Word of God, but rather on the fallible interpretions of the word of Greg? That would give me nightmares were I you. You do know what Scripture says about someone who leads someone else astray, don't you?

By the way, you do realize the Scriptures the Bereans were searching were the books of the Old Testament, don't you? And that they needed an infallible guide - Paul - in order to properly understand the Scriptures, right? Who is your infallible guide?

Pastor Greg Smith

I hope this answers your questions John. I hope you can now answer my questions on why do you consider the doctrine of apostolic succession true when it is not a biblical doctrine. And how can you support any of the following doctrines of the Catholic church like Purgatory, magisterium, and salvation through works and baptism when they are not taught by Scripture. You cannot rely on the traditions of the Catholic church or the Protestant church for truth if they are not found in the pages of Scripture. Salvation / justification / righteousness from God comes only through faith (Romans 3:22 – 25) and trust in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, who saved us from the penalty of sin when He died upon the cross and then rose from the dead, who calls us to turn or repent from our sins and follow Him in obedience. Not from works. Not from the Catholic or Protestant church. Do you believe this? I do.

John Martignoni

Sorry, but I'm not going to go down these many and sundry roads with you at the moment, other than to say, that the Bible backs up - 100% - what the Catholic Church teaches and believes and practices in relation to Purgatory, Baptism, Works, the Magisterium, Mary, and everything else you can think of. Here's the deal, Greg - I believe the Bible 100%. Where you and I disagree, is that I do not believe your fallible, private, man-made, non-authoritative interpretations of the Bible. The Catholic Church can support its teachings using just the Bible much better than any Protestant church, including yours, ever could. I will give you a small demonstration of that right now:

1) The word of Greg says: Baptism does not save you. The Word of God says: "Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah and his family being saved as through water], now saves you." Direct quote.

2) The word of Greg says: Works have nothing to do with your salvation. The Word of God says: "For He [God] will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give ETERNAL LIFE." Direct quote from the Word of God connecting works and eternal life. Now, argue against that just using Scripture. Also, "You see that a man is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE." Direct quote. The only passage in Scripture that uses the phrase "faith alone." NOT BY! Now, give me the passage, the direct quote from the Word of God, not the word of Greg, that says we "Are saved [or justified] by faith alone," and I'll be coming to your church to worship the next Sunday. (By the way, Catholics do not believe works save us, but they are an important part of the process of salvation.)

3) The word of Greg says the Eucharist, or the Lord's Supper, is merely a symbol. The Word of God says, "I am the living bread which came down from Heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." Direct quote. Tell me, Greg, when did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world? On the Cross, right? So, do you say that the flesh that hung on the Cross, which is the bread Jesus gives us to eat - was it real, or symbolic?

I could do this for the next several hours, but this has run a bit long, so I will end here, but please note - I gave you the Word of God, not the word of John.

Closing Comments

Folks, can you see how not having a Church that can teach with the authority of Christ Himself, leads to all of the problems he is having here? How the private interpretation of Scripture, answering to no authority outside of yourself when interpreting the Bible, can cause you all sorts of difficulties? Stick with the Church and her teachings, people, and you will always find safe harbor.

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL 35127. Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter