Can I question some things I hear, in our Charismatic movement?

Frogster · Dec 31, 2013

contango said:
Of course, if both parties insist that the only options are 100% belief or 100% disbelief it would be comical. If both parties can accept that uncertainty is a valid option the hilarity disappears.

In that regard the discussion is no different to so many others on a multitude of topics where each side believes they are 100% correct and therefore everyone else is 100% wrong. Watching two strawmen argue may be entertaining from a distance but is ultimately pointless.

but again, it is not like person A, is arguing with a sound biblical position, healings etc, both a and b are arguing about odd things, and both can be put into the same odd category, see my point now?

kinda like 2 people arguing about some ghosts name, or some ET being, and what he looks like..botj are in the same strange position, arguing from the same odd postition, both make no sense.

Frogster · Dec 31, 2013

On forums, people like to talk about strawmen, but actually they are creating a strawman, by creating the idea that there is one, that is not there!

But hey, the frog loves everyone equally. Happy new year! :clap:

Alive_Again · Dec 31, 2013

No - the whole Emma thing was strange, so were 'financial angels' sounded self-serving. But I did not accuse him of lying

She is stating how she saw these points. Notice how she isn't branding anyone's rear end. Their may be claims or points of doctrine that you don't bear witness to. That's the whole point of judging (weighing for truth).

I was explaining that just bc TB was being deceived did not mean the whole meeting was a deception.

It's an honest assessment if, based on a claim that someone feels is doctrinally unsound to believe there is deception.

It's not based on a sign, it's based on what was said and how it registered on her spirit.

...BECAUSE the Lord was moving I think there was more of a chance the enemy was attacking

This doesn't throw the whole revival into question like some people have done. The Lord really was in that revival and just because a foothold had been obtained, it doesn't mean there weren't miracles in the meetings.

Also, she was actually there so she knows the Lord was present to do what He does. It's not heresay. It's wise to speak carefully about what happened, because people do jump in and speak unadvisedly.

...I have left more then one meeting where I was uncomfortable with the speaker I expect he has been re-examining his theology.

I think people need to sometimes. I'm sure more than a few people he respects have addressed the Emma situation. It seems to be a fair statement that does not condemn or throw into disrepute.

Andrea411 · Dec 31, 2013

Frogster said:
ohhh my..soooo, please look at the red words above, you are now doing what you don't like me doing, calling something for what it was, or is, making a judgment, take a good look at the words in red, be blesssed, thanks! frog....

Frog I have never said that not only did you manipulate my post --- which if I recall you were very upset when someone did that to you but you've said I don't like people being called out. I don't like the self-righteous way you do it and the way you won't concede when you've been proven wrong.
I was answering your questions about TB and angels.
I don't do the whole adversarial debate it is counter-productive in a Christian environment. If someone proves me wrong, I thank them. Not only am I glad to learn something, I find lessons in humility to be some of the most useful personally. It reminds me of how precarious our theological pitfalls and precipices can be. your always climbing or jumping off a cliff and it should be give and take. Otherwise this is a pointless exercise for you and me.
No winners the only true winners are the ones who learn something useful; like how to concede gracefully.
Please don't manipulate my words, I am perfectly willing to tell you when you are correct. We have agreed on some things, but we have totally disagreed about the way you do it it comes off as mean.

You can be correct in your theology but if your delivery is offensive the person receiving it can't accept what you have to offer bc you've offended them.I have repeatedly told you - you have a lot to offer which means you have a good grasp of your personal relationship with Christ it seems mixed with a lot of fear and contentiousness. I try to remind myself, the typed word doesn't emote or discern. no voice inflection or facial features, hand gestures that we often say more with then our words. so we need to make up for that by giving a personal perspective. something to let the other person know where your coming from. You have ignored my questions regarding your theological bent other then to say 'your Charismatic'. I once had a mod on CARM tell me that; while she was actually in total agreement with J.MacArthur but she could call herself charismatic bc she believe the Lord did allow some people to have a language unknown to themselves in order to evangelize but not for personal prayer in other words, she was a cessationist.

Frogster · Dec 31, 2013

Andrea411 said:
Frog… I have never said that… not only did you manipulate my post --- which if I recall you were very upset when someone did that to you… but you've said I don't like people being called out. I don't like the self-righteous way you do it and the way you won't concede when you've been proven wrong….
I was answering your questions about TB and angels.
I don't do the whole adversarial debate… it is counter-productive in a Christian environment. If someone proves me wrong, I thank them. Not only am I glad to learn something, I find lessons in humility to be some of the most useful personally. It reminds me of how precarious our theological pitfalls and precipices can be…. your always climbing or jumping off a cliff and it should be give and take. Otherwise this is a pointless exercise for you and me.
No winners… the only true winners are the ones who learn something useful; like how to concede gracefully….
Please don't manipulate my words, I am perfectly willing to tell you when you are correct. We have agreed on some things, but we have totally disagreed about the way you do it… it comes off as mean.

You can be correct in your theology but if your delivery is offensive the person receiving it can't accept what you have to offer bc you've offended them.I have repeatedly told you - you have a lot to offer… which means you have a good grasp of your personal relationship with Christ… it seems mixed with a lot of fear and contentiousness. I try to remind myself, the typed word doesn't emote or discern…. no voice inflection or facial features, hand gestures that we often say more with then our words…. so we need to make up for that by giving a personal perspective…. something to let the other person know where your coming from. You have ignored my questions regarding your theological bent… other then to say 'your Charismatic'. I once had a mod on CARM tell me that; while she was actually in total agreement with J.MacArthur but she could call herself charismatic bc she believe the Lord did allow some people to have a language unknown to themselves in order to evangelize but not for personal prayer… in other words, she was a cessationist.

My dear sis, i did not manipulate it, just highlighted, big difference, however, your words in red sure seem to be what you don't like that I do, nothing personal, just pointiong out your words, and the context looks pretty clear, thanks, have a great day, frog.

Frogster · Dec 31, 2013

oh, and by the way, I am, God"s anointed

, so please, touch me not, and please do not challenge me directly or indirectly by repsonding to my arguemnt, via another person or their post, or God's judgment will come, after all, good for the NAR to get a protectioinst umbrella, when they call themselves the anointed, good for the frog too, so lets all follow our own rules, and theological preaching, thanks, luv you guys, frog.

Alive_Again · Dec 31, 2013

You would be wise not to bring up the NAR unless you can provide something (in a loving way) that proves them to be fools you portray them to be.

Frogster · Dec 31, 2013

All I ask, is that people please do for me as they do others, respect the fact that I am God's anointed, and please protect me, don't challenge me, or question my teachings, as they would the other anointed ones, thanks, frog.

Alive_Again · Dec 31, 2013

please protect me, don't challenge me, or question my teachings, as they would the other anointed ones,

If you had a family member doing or saying something questionable, it would be perfectly legitimate (under the correct circumstances) to question that behavior. It would not be permissive to bring them into public disrepute.

You would also treat your family members with some degree of dignity. You might demonstrate how that person behaved wrongly.

It's not that "they" are untouchable, it's when they are moving in their anointing. It's the "God" part that is untouchable. That can be a little cloudy sometimes because we don't see everything. Even if they make mistakes, "handle with caution" because they are God's servants. We also had the example of David with Saul and Saul clearly was wrong and David had the opportunity to take care of God's business (but wisely chose not to).

If their is some kind of rebuke, their are clear guidelines in scripture how that is to take place. They don't run the gauntlet and everyone takes swipes at them as they go by.

Even if a person in the ministry did something wrong, it would not make them "false". Also, it is in no way wrong to admit if you walk in the apostolic office. The modern church somehow has the opinion that to be humble, we musn't identify ourselves in that ministry. The signs and fruits should bear that out. God is the one that takes care of each office, but even Paul magnified his ministry as an apostle. We shouldn't choke on someone's admission of that.

We probably do extend a greater degree of scrutiny when they do, but if they've not extended some implied authority towards you, it shouldn't be a big concern for someone to admit they're an apostle. There's no need to feel threatened.

You should expect to see God move in a big way (in the places they're called to).

contango · Jan 1, 2014

Alive_Again said:
If you had a family member doing or saying something questionable, it would be perfectly legitimate (under the correct circumstances) to question that behavior. It would not be permissive to bring them into public disrepute.

You would also treat your family members with some degree of dignity. You might demonstrate how that person behaved wrongly.

It's not that "they" are untouchable, it's when they are moving in their anointing. It's the "God" part that is untouchable. That can be a little cloudy sometimes because we don't see everything. Even if they make mistakes, "handle with caution" because they are God's servants. We also had the example of David with Saul and Saul clearly was wrong and David had the opportunity to take care of God's business (but wisely chose not to).

If their is some kind of rebuke, their are clear guidelines in scripture how that is to take place. They don't run the gauntlet and everyone takes swipes at them as they go by.

Even if a person in the ministry did something wrong, it would not make them "false". Also, it is in no way wrong to admit if you walk in the apostolic office. The modern church somehow has the opinion that to be humble, we musn't identify ourselves in that ministry. The signs and fruits should bear that out. God is the one that takes care of each office, but even Paul magnified his ministry as an apostle. We shouldn't choke on someone's admission of that.

We probably do extend a greater degree of scrutiny when they do, but if they've not extended some implied authority towards you, it shouldn't be a big concern for someone to admit they're an apostle. There's no need to feel threatened.

You should expect to see God move in a big way (in the places they're called to).

The problem I see with people being quick to call themselves apostles and prophets is when they don't seem to be able to live up to the standards of biblical apostles and prophets.

In the Bible we see many places where sick people were brought to Jesus and he "healed them all" (Matt 8:16, Matt 12:15, Luke 4:40, Luke 6:19 etc). In the book of Acts we see Peter healing, and all the people brought were healed (Acts 5:16). The only person I'm particularly familiar with who is referred to as an apostle these days is Bill Johnson. I don't know if he calls himself an apostle but if he doesn't regard himself as an apostle I would have thought he might have mentioned it on his various web sites (even if only in a sense of saying something like "Some people have called me an apostle, I do not believe I am"). Certainly there are healings associated with Mr Johnson and yet he openly admits some people go away from him unhealed on his own web site.

ETA: Furthermore, because it's unlikely I am going to ever meet Mr Johnson in person for any length of time it's very hard for me to judge his fruits. However I can look at his teachings to see if they align with the Bible. For all he quotes the Bible to support some of his assertions in his writing (I have a copy of his book "When Heaven Invades Earth"), he manages to pull a verse here and a verse there to support a theory that dominion over the earth was given to Adam who then gave it to Satan when he sinned, so Jesus had to come to take it back. But the Psalms say things like "The earth is the Lord's". When Jesus walked the earth casting out demons, I have to wonder why they didn't refuse to move if they were the devil's servants doing the devil's bidding on the earth over which the devil had dominion. So obviously Jesus had authority over them even before he was crucified. Johnson goes on to teach that "the Father wanted satan defeated by man... one made in His image" (WHIE page 32). Unless I misread my Bible, Genesis clearly says "let us make man in our own image", so presumably any of us could have gone to the cross and Jesus needn't have bothered. That aside, Johnson writes "When redeeming man, Jesus retrieved what man had given away" (WHIE page 32). He doesn't seem to explicitly state that Jesus then gave dominion back to man or not but does write as if we now have full dominion. From here it seems whichever option is chosen the teachings start to fail - if Jesus took back dominion and gave it back to us then presumably we might still fail and hand it over to the devil, negating the work at the cross. If Jesus took back dominion and didn't give it back to us then it's hard to see the devil paying us any attention at all. If Jesus took back dominion and didn't give it to us but sent us to act in his name (meaning we don't technically have dominion but do act as direct representatives with the authority of Jesus) then we might wonder why God didn't think of doing that in the Eden. We might also wonder why we need a group of apparently self-selecting people to rule when Jesus made it very clear that those who would lead must serve.

What is interesting is the information on the membership section of the web site of the encouragingly named "International Coalition of Apostolic Leaders" (Membership). This is what an apostle is, according to them:

[FONT=tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Membership in ICAL is restricted to individuals who have been recognized by a significant segment of the church, including peer-level apostles, as having the gift and office of apostle and who have been ministering through this gift for a period of time. It is not intended to be a training ground for would-be or “emerging” apostles, but rather it should be seen as a professional society in which confirmed apostles are able to relate to and connect with each other.[/FONT]

[FONT=tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]What is ICAL’s definition of an apostle? An apostle is a Christian leader gifted, taught, commissioned, and sent by God with the authority to establish the foundational government of the church within an assigned sphere of ministry by hearing what the Spirit is saying to the churches and by setting things in order accordingly for the growth and maturity of the church. [/FONT][FONT=tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Since apostles minister in several different ways, ICAL is open to “vertical apostles” (including ecclesiastical, functional, congregational, and team-member vertical apostles), to “horizontal apostles” (including convening, ambassadorial, mobilizing, and territorial horizontal apostles), and to different kinds of “workplace apostles.”[/FONT]

So they are a "professional society". I'm not sure where "vertical apostles", "horizontal apostles" and "workplace apostles" came from, I can't find any mention of any of those in my Bible. On top of that they feel the need for disclaimers that I also don't find in my Bible. From the same page:

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Disclaimer: [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]International Coalition of Apostolic Leaders (ICAL) is a private membership non-profit corporation designed to serve its apostolic members and provide general information for potential members. ICAL assumes no responsibility, liability or guarantee of accuracy or the ‘final word’ on any information, teachings, or opinions expressed in any format including the official website, conferences and seminars, publications or otherwise. It is not to be considered the ‘perfect’ or ‘total’ word or revelation on the subject of the apostolic or apostolic movement. ICAL encourages individuals to seek other sources of information and not rely on ICAL as a complete source of apostolic information. [/FONT]

In ICAL's "definition of an apostle", (found at Definition of ‘Apostle’) the sense of elitism is very present. Apostles are leaders, generals, governors, ambassadors, they have "the right to authority" and so on. They have lots of comments about Greek words as well to prove it. I'd have thought they might also have included at least something on humility, like when Jesus said things like "whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Matt 23:12) or "whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. " (Mark 10:43b-44)

Put it all together and you end up with a group of people, largely self-selecting, who regard themselves as leaders, generals, governors etc with the right to divine authority and yet still want to hide behind disclaimers whereby they get to deny all responsibility if they get it wrong.

It seems to me they can't be claiming that kind of authority without a comparable level of accountability. The two go hand in hand. Here it's almost like they're wanting to be the CEO of the church but if it all goes wrong it's someone else's fault.

Frogster · Jan 1, 2014

"handle with caution" because they are God's servants"

Hello, everyone, please apply the same standard to me, "handle with caution" because I am god's anointed, and people were also informed that david took soldiers from saul, and teamed up with the babylon king against saul.

If people are going to take them, the other anointed people on their words, and submit and trust them, then please be fair, and apply the same standard to me, and submit to that, and trust me that I know what I am doing, is from the Lord

, that after all is part of the submission teaching, that floats about in our churches, again, i posted several texts, where Jesus, peter, paul, Jude, and John, spoke freely against ones deemed to be wrong, or false, or whatever, where others have not posted anything to counter the text I used. Best not to have a double standard, thanks! frog.

Happy new year.

Alive_Again · Jan 1, 2014

Hello, everyone, please apply the same standard to me,

"handle with caution" because I am god's anointed, and people were also informed that david took soldiers from saul, and teamed up with the babylon king against saul.

You want us to go take soldiers against you? Just kidding! Happy New Year Frogster.

If people are going to take them, the other anointed people on their words, and submit and trust them, then please be fair, and apply the same standard to me, and submit to that, and trust me that I know what I am doing, is from the Lord

You are anointed, and you should rejoice that nobody gets a "free pass". But you do deserve a certain dignity and love that everyone no matter who they are (especially the Body) should receive.

We don't just take everyone's (ministers included) words and submit and trust them. But there is a readiness to receive from Body to the Body (especially the ministers) that has agape built into it. We don't let just anybody sow into our spirits and it IS important to draw the line on who we allow to preach to us.

...that after all is part of the submission teaching, that floats about in our churches, again,

A good pastor or apostle or prophet, etc., will point people to the Lord. The submission that is implied is to the dictates of the Spirit within you. It should agree with scripture. The Word says a lot about the good and the bad; from esteeming the anointing (and not coming against the expression of that) and being wary and watching and not readily receiving another Christ and another gospel.

Anyone that would have you bypass that weighing of truth is a cultist and an extremist. Nobody just receives anybody's words, no matter who they are.

When I first came to the forum I "stumbled" into a thing about apparitions (in the Catholic section) and I said that you could expect guidance and that you could judge them by what is said and by the Spirit of Truth within. I was told that I was trying to be my own Pope!

i posted several texts, where Jesus, peter, paul, Jude, and John, spoke freely against ones deemed to be wrong, or false

It may seem that way to you, but they were not "free" to speak without judging (receiving judgment) via the Spirit of God. It was not a free for all. There were elders being told to govern a certain way (and some of the flock were reproved for sin). In fact Paul, Jude, John, were all apostles functioning within and as established authorities. When they instructed those to rebuke, they were primarily talking to those in authority. When it lacked and judgment was needed (in the church and not appealing to civil authority), someone was supposed to be recognized to exercise judgment.

Timothy was an evangelist, but notice the encouragement (from the apostle) and when it concerned an elder, there were established procedures of order not to be bypassed.

...where others have not posted anything to counter the text I used. Best not to have a double standard, thanks! frog.

The text implied accusations and you tacked on that you thought they were lying signs and false apostles. That was your judgment, but you said it (even openly) in a way as though you were an elder in that community and in what has been recognized by some as a spirit of condemnation.

It comes off as mudslinging and not as something you'd say among family members.

Frogster · Jan 1, 2014

Alive_Again said:
You want us to go take soldiers against you? Just kidding! Happy New Year Frogster.

You are anointed, and you should rejoice that nobody gets a "free pass". But you do deserve a certain dignity and love that everyone no matter who they are (especially the Body) should receive.

We don't just take everyone's (ministers included) words and submit and trust them. But there is a readiness to receive from Body to the Body (especially the ministers) that has agape built into it. We don't let just anybody sow into our spirits and it IS important to draw the line on who we allow to preach to us.

A good pastor or apostle or prophet, etc., will point people to the Lord. The submission that is implied is to the dictates of the Spirit within you. It should agree with scripture. The Word says a lot about the good and the bad; from esteeming the anointing (and not coming against the expression of that) and being wary and watching and not readily receiving another Christ and another gospel.

Anyone that would have you bypass that weighing of truth is a cultist and an extremist. Nobody just receives anybody's words, no matter who they are.

When I first came to the forum I "stumbled" into a thing about apparitions (in the Catholic section) and I said that you could expect guidance and that you could judge them by what is said and by the Spirit of Truth within. I was told that I was trying to be my own Pope!

It may seem that way to you, but they were not "free" to speak without judging (receiving judgment) via the Spirit of God. It was not a free for all. There were elders being told to govern a certain way (and some of the flock were reproved for sin). In fact Paul, Jude, John, were all apostles functioning within and as established authorities. When they instructed those to rebuke, they were primarily talking to those in authority. When it lacked and judgment was needed (in the church and not appealing to civil authority), someone was supposed to be recognized to exercise judgment.

Timothy was an evangelist, but notice the encouragement (from the apostle) and when it concerned an elder, there were established procedures of order not to be bypassed.
The text implied accusations and you tacked on that you thought they were lying signs and false apostles. That was your judgment, but you said it (even openly) in a way as though you were an elder in that community and in what has been recognized by some as a spirit of condemnation.

It comes off as mudslinging and not as something you'd say among family members.

lying false teachers, and those who pervert the text, are all in the same boat.

orrrrrrr......if they are not evil unsaved wolves, but teach silly doctrine, they will be confronted, how am i wrong?

look how people twist 2 cor 8-9, that was a one time offering, not for paul, but for the poor, with an exemption clause where the poor do not have to give, with a verse that shows that the sower may not always get cash back, no "seed return"..

yet, the tithe teachers use that to get money for themselves, they turn it into an every sunday forever event, to get money for themselves, forgetting that the money was not for Paul, who for the most part, worked, not to burden people, while this teaching makes people feel like they won't be blessed, if they don't give to them

, all turning into a command, while 2 cor 8:8, says not by command, and they use the tithe word, quoting Mal 3, and the curse, to use fear, a verse that was for temple people, under the old cov.

there ya go, no, some that preach that, maybe are not unsaved but they pervert the text, in their greed, to get cash..as they act like bible scholars, so they can't plead ignorance.

soooo, question for you...

say nothing about this false greed teaching/teachers, because the "touch not" verse?

Paul touched alot of stuff, big time!

Please advise, and please, keep it to the point.

Frogster · Jan 1, 2014

Happy to you too bro! :wave:

God bless, frog.

Alive_Again · Jan 1, 2014

but teach silly doctrine, they will be confronted, how am i wrong?

look how people twist 2 cor 8-9, that was a one time offering, not for paul, but for the poor

I agree that a lot of taught wrongly about money. I DO believe that it does not relieve the Body from the responsibility to give. Grace always exceeds the Law and the tithe is a good place to start.

People everywhere believe different stuff, how are you going to win them over if you're "confronting" people for their different beliefs.

I'm convinced we all believe some things that aren't exactly correct (incomplete at the least). We may be sure about some things, but there are yet great holes in the understanding of us all.

yet, the tithe teachers use that to get money for themselves
...but they pervert the text, in their greed, to get cash..

It's not for us to judge their hearts and imply greed just because they take up tithes. It takes money to run things for the church. It takes money to deal with the many needs that churches are given. They come right to the door and ask.

say nothing about this false greed teaching/teachers, because the "touch not" verse?

I don't think it's wrong to state doctrinally that you don't believe in giving as it is preached in some places, but why would you want to "touch" the person involved and assume their heart is wrong in the matter (usually the heart is right and the head is wrong)?

We should not bring disrepute on the ministry because we don't agree with them. Don't run with them if you choose, but you can't single people out and imply greed. You've criticized the people on Sid's show because they sold their books or CDs. There is nothing wrong in that and to imply greed to everyone doing so is to judge wrongly.

Frogster · Jan 1, 2014

Alive_Again said:
I agree that a lot of taught wrongly about money. I DO believe that it does not relieve the Body from the responsibility to give. Grace always exceeds the Law and the tithe is a good place to start.

People everywhere believe different stuff, how are you going to win them over if you're "confronting" people for their different beliefs.

I'm convinced we all believe some things that aren't exactly correct (incomplete at the least). We may be sure about some things, but there are yet great holes in the understanding of us all.

It's not for us to judge their hearts and imply greed just because they take up tithes. It takes money to run things for the church. It takes money to deal with the many needs that churches are given. They come right to the door and ask.

I don't think it's wrong to state doctrinally that you don't believe in giving as it is preached in some places, but why would you want to "touch" the person involved and assume their heart is wrong in the matter (usually the heart is right and the head is wrong)?

We should not bring disrepute on the ministry because we don't agree with them. Don't run with them if you choose, but you can't single people out and imply greed. You've criticized the people on Sid's show because they sold their books or CDs. There is nothing wrong in that and to imply greed to everyone doing so is to judge wrongly.

As we say in Texas...whooooaaa...you did not cover my point.

If these "teachers", who claim to know the Bible, as some call themsleves "Dr", so and so, implying they have a theolgical or Biblical doctorate, knowingly, or even out of ignorance, though I doubt the ignorance excuse, take money from the poor, old people, or young people, raising familes, as they malign the clear text in their money grab, should they be confronted, or do they seek asylum under the "touch not" verse?

Please advise, thanks! frog.

Alive_Again · Jan 1, 2014

I doubt the ignorance excuse, take money from the poor, old people, or young people, raising familes, as they malign the clear text in their money grab, should they be confronted, or do they seek asylum under the "touch not" verse?

The thing is, you don't know who is who. You can't see their heart.

You seem to take issue with many people. You would be much happier just turning it over to the Lord.

TasManOfGod · Jan 1, 2014

Frogster You seem to have a problem with people asking for money. They do it in shops all the time. It seems that it is a prerequisite to paying bills

Frogster · Jan 1, 2014

duplicate post.

Frogster · Jan 1, 2014

Alive_Again said:
The thing is, you don't know who is who. You can't see their heart.

You seem to take issue with many people. You would be much happier just turning it over to the Lord.

but still, i posted the clear easy to see truth about 2 cor 8-9, so when some twist that, after years of reading a bible, who say they ar Dr's, while taking money from poor using guilt/fear extraction methods using those mentioned texts, should they be confronted, or be given immunity, under the guise of they "are the untouchable anointed ones"? That's all i am asking.

Can I question some things I hear, in our Charismatic movement?

Galatians is the best!

Galatians is the best!

Resident Alien

Andrea411

Guest

Galatians is the best!

Galatians is the best!

Resident Alien

Galatians is the best!

Resident Alien

...and you shall live...

Galatians is the best!

Resident Alien

Galatians is the best!

Galatians is the best!

Resident Alien

Galatians is the best!

Resident Alien

Untatted Saint

Galatians is the best!

Galatians is the best!

Similar threads