What is New Covenant Theology ?

JM · May 15, 2016

This post must've been missed. Accidents happen.

_________________________________________

For those who deny the continue validity and use of the Decalogue (10 Commandments) I must ask, what Law did Christ die to satisfy?

When we preach the Gospel to all men everywhere calling them to repentance what sins do I call them to repent of?

When Christ died on the cross to save His people what demands of justice did Christ satisfy?

"I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me."

What Law is Paul speaking about?

What is Paul calling evil?

Did Christ die for all of the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law? All of the civil aspects of Mosaic Law? All of the moral aspects of the Mosaic Law? When the scripture tells us to repent what are we told to repent from?

You see, the moral Law existed before the 10 Commandments were given, they were restated as a covenant of works on Sinai and will continue to point us to the righteousness of Jesus Christ our Saviour. NCT is assuming the moral Law without acknowledging it. Christ died having fulfilled the moral Law in our stead. To deny the moral Law is the deny the need for Christ to die in our place fulfilling the covenant of works restated at Sinai. It’s a dangerous thing to deny the righteousness that caused Christ to suffering in our place.

Please consider what you have read, ponder what you know and think about how each biblical doctrine relates to each other.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

BABerean2 · May 15, 2016

JM said:
Amen. Get rid of those who would mix Law keeping as a form of righteousness with grace. But that isn’t my position. I’m Reformed. I believe that salvation is by Christ alone through grace.

Brother JM,

If you can get the following things found in scripture to match up with Reformed Covenant Theology, then you are most certainly correct.

The first is the attempt to divide the Sinai covenant into the "moral law" and the "ceremonial law".

Exo_34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

The Sinai covenant is the ten commandments, based on the verse above. The so-called "ceremonial law" explained how the children of Israel were to keep the covenant. The two cannot be separated.

The second is the attempt to apply the 10 commandments to Adam before the fall.
Adam was given one command... "Do not eat of the tree of..."

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam could not have understood adultery or stealing, because all of these were commandments against sin, which he did not understand at the time and he had no mother.

We also have the Apostle Paul saying that the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise to Abraham.
Was Paul confused?

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

In Galatians chapter 4 we do not find Paul saying... "Cast out the ceremonial law, but keep the moral law."

He used the word "covenant" and compared the Sinai covenant to bondage.

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

There must be Two Covenants, instead of one, based on Galatians 4:24.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Paul clearly compared the Sinai covenant to bondage. That only leaves one other covenant to be the "free" covenant.

Either those promoting Reformed Covenant Theology are confused or the Apostle Paul is confused.

New Covenant Theology puts the money on Paul being correct...

Let the Sinai covenant of bondage go, Brother.
It has served its purpose and is now "obsolete".

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

We are under a better "Covenant", with a better mediator, established upon the promise made to Abraham 430 years before Mount Sinai.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

.................................................................

The Seed Promise…

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

2Sa 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
2Sa 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament(covenant), which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

.

JM · May 16, 2016

BA, your attacks are misplaced.

I am not a paedobaptist arguing for paedobaptist covenant theology. Paedobaptists view the old Mosaic covenant of works as a restatement of the covenant of grace while I, along with many others, believe the covenant given on Sinai was a restatement of the covenant of works. The New Covenant was promised in Gen. 3, restated and enlarged throughout the old testament, but remained in promise form until the death of Christ. I believe we are in agreement on that. What you are attacking is the paedobaptist view that God revealed one covenant which included the Mosaic covenant and all of them are the new covenant of grace. This is not what I believe. Not at all, and what you have written completely ignores my questions and my posts refuting your position. Maybe you could deal with my arguments directly?

This might be helpful.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

BABerean2 · May 16, 2016

JM said:
BA, your attacks are misplaced.

If you think I am attacking you, that would not ever be my intent.

Comparing a doctrine to scripture, is not an attack upon my Brothers and Sisters who hold to that system of interpretation.

My allegiance is not to Calvin, or Luther, or even the man who preached the sermon which led to my conversion.

My allegiance is not to those promoting New Covenant Theology or the system itself.

My allegiance is only to the One who bought me by purchasing me with his Blood.

Any system or any words which take the focus off of His work at Calvary should be passed through the filter of scripture until the truth is revealed. I think we can agree on this point.

Any conflict in scripture reveals the cracks in a manmade system of interpretation.

The claim that New Covenant Theology ignores all of the 10 commandments given at Sinai is not based on fact. Nobody that I know of who is teaching the New Covenant position would ever condone stealing, idol worship, adultery, etc. We do generally agree that the 4th commandment is like the sign of circumcision. They are not commanded under the New Covenant.

JM · May 16, 2016

BABerean2 said:
If you think I am attacking you, that would not ever be my intent.

I meant position you thought I was taking. Which I didn't. I also compared scripture to scripture and you ignored them.

Comparing a doctrine to scripture, is not an attack upon my Brothers and Sisters who hold to that system of interpretation.

You are still mistaken my position for that of the Westminster. I asked questions about your “exegesis” of scripture and you ignored them.

My allegiance is not to Calvin, or Luther, or even the man who preached the sermon which led to my conversion.

A couple of points here:

1) By stating you do not have any allegiance you are ignoring the witness of the godly men God has given the church to guide it. It would be pure pride to do so. The final authority in all matters of faith and practice is scripture, on that we agree, but to believe you can live on a theological island without the church is unbiblical.

2) You are implying that I have some special allegiance to Calvin and Luther. I do not, yet, with them I believe sola scriptura.

My allegiance is not to those promoting New Covenant Theology or the system itself.

No offence bro but you started this thread promoting the modern idea of NCT. Your allegiance is to them as you have demonstrated.

My allegiance is only to the One who bought me by purchasing me with his Blood.

Amen. I declare the same. Now what? Will you answer the questions I asked?

Any system or any words which take the focus off of His work at Calvary should be passed through the filter of scripture until the truth is revealed. I think we can agree on this point.

Exactly my point. If you love Him keep His commandments. Focus on the righteousness revealed by God which is a display of His own righteousness!

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

Notice, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Christ makes it clear that, “love thy God” and “love thy neighbour” “hang all the law and the prophets.” The commandments Christ gives us are dependent upon the “law and the prophets.”

In both passages I quoted the motivator is love not legalism. A desire to keep the law, to delight in the law after the inward man, is to delight in the righteousness of Christ don’t you see? We love Him so we do that which pleases Him. We become partakers of His divine nature through grace alone, we are sanctified through grace alone and is wrought in the sinner by his new nature, his new affections for that which is right.

If you love him you will keep his commandments. There is no punished for those in Christ Jesus only grace, mercy and forgiveness. Don’t be afraid to fail in keeping the law because that’s a give in, but don’t throw your hands up in exasperation and say, “I can’t keep them so I don’t have to even try!”

Any conflict in scripture reveals the cracks in a manmade system of interpretation.

True. But that’s why I insist you answer my questions. These questions are aimed at NCT’s exegesis of NT and, I believe, reveal why NCT is a modern invention. It’s new.

The claim that New Covenant Theology ignores all of the 10 commandments given at Sinai is not based on fact.

I agree. I actually stated that NCT acknowledges them unwillingly and denies them theologically, but practically…NCT doesn’t teach anything contrary to them.

Nobody that I know of who is teaching the New Covenant position would ever condone stealing, idol worship, adultery, etc.

Right, because the 10 Commandments are eternally moral and binding.

We do generally agree that the 4th commandment is like the sign of circumcision. They are not commanded under the New Covenant.

I’m still working out my theology on the 4th command. If you will allow me to think “out loud” on the forum maybe you can help me?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

BABerean2 · May 16, 2016

JM said:
Right, because the 10 Commandments are eternally moral and binding.

You cannot have it both ways.

Above you again refer to the "10" commandments as eternally moral and binding, even though you say you are still working through the 4th commandment.

Is it 10? Or is it 9?

You can prove your position correct by showing the verse containing the words "moral law".

Jacob wrestled with an angel. You are wrestling with both Peter and Paul...

Soyeong · May 16, 2016

JM said:
For those who deny the continue validity and use of the Decalogue (10 Commandments) I must ask, what Law did Christ die to satisfy?

God's law is the Mosaic law and Jesus died to satisfy its requirement of death for disobedience.

When we preach the Gospel to all men everywhere calling them to repentance what sins do I call them to repent of?

God's law gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), without God's law we wouldn't even know what sin was (Romans 7:7), and sin is defined as the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4). When Jesus was telling people to repent, he was telling them to repent of their disobedience to God's law.

"I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me."

What Law is Paul speaking about?

What is Paul calling evil?

Paul speaks about a number of different types of laws, such as the Law of God (Romans 3:31, 7:22-25, 8:7), the Law of Sin (Romans 7:23-25), the Law of Sin and Death (Romans 8:2), the Law of the Spirit of Life (Romans 8:2), the Law of Faith (Romans 3:27), the Law of Righteousness (Romans 9:31), and the Law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21)

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 6:8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

The law that we are not under has to do with sin and death no longer having dominion over us, so the law that we are not under is the law of sin and death, which is in direct contrast with the law of God:

Romans 7:21-23 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

Did Christ die for all of the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law? All of the civil aspects of Mosaic Law? All of the moral aspects of the Mosaic Law? When the scripture tells us to repent what are we told to repent from?

We are to repent from any disobedience to the Mosaic law. Messiah fulfilled the law by giving us a perfect example to follow of how to walk in obedience to it, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and to walk as he walked (1 John 2:4-6). The Bible makes no distinctions between ceremonial, civil, and moral laws, but rather it is sinful and immoral to disobey any of them.

You see, the moral Law existed before the 10 Commandments were given, they were restated as a covenant of works on Sinai and will continue to point us to the righteousness of Jesus Christ our Saviour. NCT is assuming the moral Law without acknowledging it. Christ died having fulfilled the moral Law in our stead. To deny the moral Law is the deny the need for Christ to die in our place fulfilling the covenant of works restated at Sinai. It’s a dangerous thing to deny the righteousness that caused Christ to suffering in our place.

God's character has always been holy, righteous, and good, so He has always had such a conduct, and His law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) because it is based on His character and it is His instructions for how to have such a conduct. So the way to have such a conduct existed from the beginning and exists independently of any covenant, and did not change with the New Covenant. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so God has not given any non-moral laws or any laws that we can disobey without sinning, though I agree that the way to have a moral conduct existed from the beginning and existed before God stated it in the Mosaic Law. The New Covenant instructs us to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10), so as God's followers we are to obey God's instructions for how to do that stated in His law. God's law points us to Messiah because he is the one who can pay our penalty for disobeying it and cause us to meet its requirement of obedience (Romans 8:4). Loving others fulfills the entire law (Galatians 5:14), so to say that Christ obeyed the law so we don't have to is like saying that Christ loved others so that we don't have to.

We are no longer under the old covenant of works for our justification, but the lawful use remains, it points us to Christ "that we might be justified by faith."

There has never been a point where anyone was under a covenant of works for our justification, but rather the one and only way to become justified has only been through faith (Romans 4:1-8). The law was not given to instruct us how to become justified through obedience to it, but to instruct how those who have been justified are to live by faith in a way that is pleasing to God.

JM · May 16, 2016

There was never a point where the Law commanded, "do and live?" Besides that, I think we are pretty close. I would change "Mosaic" Law to just Law for all are condemned by the Law even if/when they did not receive the Law at Sinai. I'm not sure why you put forth such an effort when we are so close...but...

In fact, I think NCT is pretty close as well, as stated above already.

BA, the final word?

I'm out.

Peace.

BABerean2 · May 16, 2016

JM said:
No offence bro but you started this thread promoting the modern idea of NCT. Your allegiance is to them as you have demonstrated.

Brother JM,

I want to thank you for correcting me on this one important point.
Your Iron has sharpened mine.

The term "new covenant" is found below.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament (covenant), which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

2Co_3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament (covenant) ; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Heb_8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Heb_8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Heb_12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

You have me trapped between the Chief Corner Stone and the Cross of Calvary.

Since I am a member of the New Covenant found in Jeremiah chapter 31 and the words of Christ himself at the Last Supper, if I ever imply that I am not promoting the New Covenant, please contact Brother Gideon so that he can send a doctor to my home address.
I will have lost my sense of reason and will be in need of medical care.

Thank you for correcting me on this point.

We may wrestle over the relationship between the Sinai covenant and the Law of Christ.

However, I cannot let go of the New Covenant, because I am already in it and the New Covenant is "everlasting".

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

I love you, Brother.

.

Gideon · May 17, 2016

I was asked by the elders in my church to assist in a series on the book of Hebrews, so I chose chapters 8 and 9. The congregation would not want the finer points of the Covt Theology vs. NCT debate, but inasmuch as these are key scripture to the matter, my message is necessarily related.

Anyway, my turn came up last week, and I uploaded the message on to my website. Hoping its adds to our understanding of the Covenants. Here goes: :preach:

(abbreviated notes included)

A Better Covenant

BABerean2 · May 17, 2016

Gideon said:
I was asked by the elders in my church to assist in a series on the book of Hebrews, so I chose chapters 8 and 9. The congregation would not want the finer points of the Covt Theology vs. NCT debate, but inasmuch as these are key scripture to the matter, my message is necessarily related.

Anyway, my turn came up last week, and I uploaded the message on to my website. Hoping its adds to our understanding of the Covenants. Here goes: (abbreviated notes included)

A Better Covenant

Good for you, Brother.

When we are given the opportunity to share the truth, we have been blessed by God.

I look forward to listening to the message.

My Wednesday night Bible study made the choice to study the Book of Hebrews also.
We start on chapter 1 this week at the home of one of our members.
I do not know what chapter I will have yet, but I will try to find the New Covenant in it somewhere.

I would say this is a coincidence, but I have come to understand that these things are normally a part of God's Plan.

.

jimmyjimmy · May 28, 2016

BABerean2 said:
It is not Reformed Covenant Theology.
It is not Dispensational Theology.
It is not a hybrid of the two above.

It is about the Galatians 3:16 One Seed, who is Christ, and those who are in Him.

It is the Covenant which has been misapplied by some and ignored by others in order to get it to fit their manmade doctrines.

It is the thing that unites all denominations, if we are willing to grab hold of it and proclaim it to all who will hear the truth.

Grab it and take it to those you love.

It turns the whole Bible into a book about Christ. After all, He wrote it.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (NKJV)

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

.

BABerean2 · May 28, 2016

thatbrian said:
.

This would be a good place to start for those trying to understand the differences between Reformed Covenant Theology, which is about 400 years old, and New Covenant Theology, which is about 2,000 years old.

jimmyjimmy · May 28, 2016

BABerean2 said:
This would be a good place to start for those trying to understand the differences between Reformed Covenant Theology, which is about 400 years old, and New Covenant Theology, which is about 2,000 years old.

No thanks.

BABerean2 · May 28, 2016

thatbrian said:
No thanks.

During the last few years I have had to examine my understanding of the Bible and change what I once thought was correct, more than one time.

It is difficult, but not impossible to say... " I was wrong."

Legalism is one of the most difficult hurdles for the modern Church to overcome.

There is only one denomination... The Body of Christ.

1Co 1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

.

jimmyjimmy · May 28, 2016

BABerean2 said:
During the last few years I have had to examine my understanding of the Bible and change what I once thought was correct, more than one time.

It is difficult, but not impossible to say... " I was wrong."

Legalism is one of the most difficult hurdles for the modern Church to overcome.

There is only one denomination... The Body of Christ.

1Co 1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

.

Unity is not uniformity. The Trinity proves that. Families proves that. Friendships prove that.

Also, if you were implying that I am a legalist. You could not be more wrong. I eat legalists for breakfast. If you think that I haven't changed my mind on theology, you are wrong again. By God's grace, I'm now a Calvinist after being a rabid Arminian for 20 + years. If you think that my rejection of NCT, is a rejection of God, truth or unity, you are yet again - mistaken.

BABerean2 · May 28, 2016

thatbrian said:
Unity is not uniformity. The Trinity proves that. Families proves that. Friendships prove that.

Also, if you were implying that I am a legalist. You could not be more wrong. I eat legalists for breakfast. If you think that I haven't changed my mind on theology, you are wrong again. By God's grace, I'm now a Calvinist after being a rabid Arminian for 20 + years. If you think that my rejection of NCT, is a rejection of God, truth or unity, you are yet again - mistaken.

If you can get the Westminster Confession to match up with Galatians chapters 3 and 4 then you are a better man than me.

.

Hoghead1 · May 28, 2016

thatbrian said:
Unity is not uniformity. The Trinity proves that. Families proves that. Friendships prove that.

Also, if you were implying that I am a legalist. You could not be more wrong. I eat legalists for breakfast. If you think that I haven't changed my mind on theology, you are wrong again. By God's grace, I'm now a Calvinist after being a rabid Arminian for 20 + years. If you think that my rejection of NCT, is a rejection of God, truth or unity, you are yet again - mistaken.

No , unity means both uniformity and diversity, such as we find in great art, for example.

BABerean2 · Jun 9, 2016

In Acts chapter 15 the Mosaic law was called "the Yoke".

In Galatians chapter 4 Paul called the Sinai covenant a covenant of bondage and compelled the Galatian church to "cast out" the Sinai covenant of bondage.
We are the children of the New Covenant.

New-Covenant Theology Made Simple 'The Yoke'
David H. J. Gay Ministry

JM · Jun 15, 2016

Still stumpin' this new Baptist theology? Haha, good for you bro.

What is New Covenant Theology ?

Augsburg Catholic

Newbie

Augsburg Catholic

Newbie

Augsburg Catholic

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Augsburg Catholic

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Pardoned Rebel

Newbie

Pardoned Rebel

Newbie

Pardoned Rebel

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Augsburg Catholic

Similar threads