At Pentagon Christmas Service, Franklin Graham Praises ‘God of War’ “We know that God loves. But did you know that God also hates?"

ViaCrucis · Thursday at 1:33 AM

Servus said:
"Behave yourself, Billy, or the Christian Nationalists will get you".

Now change "Christian Nationalists" to "Islamists" or "Socialists" and you'll see how silly it sounds to the rest of us

Servus · Thursday at 3:35 AM

ViaCrucis said:
Now change "Christian Nationalists" to "Islamists" or "Socialists" and you'll see how silly it sounds to the rest of us

It's the 'we're just like them' defense again.

Robban · Thursday at 6:40 AM

essentialsaltes said:
Typical Christmas sermon, I suppose.

Speaking at a “Christmas Worship Service” at the Pentagon on Wednesday (Dec. 17), evangelist Franklin Graham celebrated that God is not just a God of love but also of hate and war.

“We know that God loves. But did you know that God also hates? Do you know that God also is a God of war? Many people don’t want to think about that, or forget that,” he declared as he stood on stage near two Christmas trees with a nativity scene and a Hanukkah Menorah in front of them.

Graham briefly recounted a story in Exodus 17, where Joshua led the ancient Israelites in battle against the Amalekites as Moses stood on a mountain holding up his arms. Graham said that not only did they win the battle, but God remembered how the Amalekites had attacked the Israelites. So Graham then turned to 1 Samuel 15, where the prophet Samuel told King Saul to kill all the Amalekites.

"Don’t spare them, but kill them, both man and woman, infant, nursing child, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey.’ So Samuel gave the instructions for the mission. Now, people will say, ‘But, Franklin, that is so hard; that’s not the God I believe in.’ Well, you had better believe in him.”

As Graham notes, some Christians find the story of the genocide of the Amalekites a little difficult to wrestle with; but it seems the new breed of masculine Christianity that has arisen has elevated the story, proclaiming it openly as an example for the troops.

In short, Amal =Doubt.

essentialsaltes · Thursday at 9:04 AM

rjs330 said:
I thought it was Hegseth that said it, nor the government.

It was "SecWar", coming from him in his official capacity.

DaisyDay · Thursday at 9:20 AM

rjs330 said:
Ah, I misunderstood you then. My apologies.

Accepted.

rjs330 said:
Actually it does. Jesus told his disciples that a time was coming when they should sell their cloaks and buy a sword. There is most certainly a time when defense of someone is not forbidden. Jesus never forbade self defense in all circumstances.

"Almost certainly" - that is totally an interpretation as Christ does not say these swords are to be used for self-defense. Can you point out a passage wherein Christ positively okays self-defense? There are a few that go against it - whoever seeks to save their life will forfeit it, turn the other cheek, etc.

rjs330 said:
But we are also to be wise which means we also should not offer self defense in all circumstances either.

When specifically?

rjs330 said:
If you wish to follow the path of a pacifist, then that's okay. There is nothing wrong with that. Myself I will follow the path of defense of the innocent and victim of the evil doer. But will also use wisdom when doing so.

What makes you suppose that pacifists need or want your approval? Then, too, defense does not have to equate with killing.

rjs330 said:
Yes absolutely. Showing love and kindness to your enemies is what sets us apart. For that reason, if my enemy asked me for a drink of water or food or shelter I would personally give it to them. If a criminal needs the same I would give it to them and then call the police.

Okay?

rjs330 said:
Well I could use that, but the more common scenario is the rape and murder of women.

Yes, this is the misogynistic trope big, strong men like to use to justify their impulse to violence. Gotta avenge the wimmen folk!

rjs330 said:
If you wish to be particularly offended at that, then I cannot stop you. But I would guess that if you were rhe one being raped and murdered you would appreciate someone stepping in and using deadly force against that evil doer. But I may be wrong if you are indeed a pacifist.

If you were being raped and murdered, and the only way to put a stop to it would be to kill the person doing that, and if I had the wherewithal, sure, I'd kill the guy for you, BUT why would killing be the only way? How would I make that assessment in the heat of the moment? I'm not convinced that Christ would approve - but, hey, that's what forgiveness is for.

rjs330 said:
No its not stupid at all. These things happen you know. You know how many women have fallen victim to people like that and the only way out would have been to kill their attacker, but they couldn't becauae they had no way of doing that. Sometimes its them or you. Certainly you can try to knock them out, but that may not work and you may end up in rhe situation of you or them. Once again, maybe you are a pacifist and don't want to deal with the realities that so many victims have faced. Thats okay too.

It's a stupid, loaded hypothetical. Yes, crime happens. Women do get raped and murdered, most often by someone they know. Men and children also get raped and murdered. I haven't seen that Christ condones that or killing the bad folk in self-defense or in the defense of others.

rjs330 said:
That may be your interpretation, but that is NOT what it says. No where in scripture does it say that it was virtuous for hom to hand over hos daughters. If Lot was righteous God would have spared Sodom.

Lot is only one man, not ten. 2 Peter 2:7 is somewhere in the Scripture.

rjs330 said:
Don't read into scripture what isn't there. Don't make such a definitive statement of ascribing virtue to an act that scripture doesn't give it.

You should take your own advice (mote, beam).

rjs330 · Thursday at 2:05 PM

essentialsaltes said:
It was "SecWar", coming from him in his official capacity.

So? I can do that. He's just a guy with free speech. He established no religion.

Pommer · Thursday at 2:24 PM

rjs330 said:
So? I can do that. He's just a guy with free speech. He established no religion.

He didn’t post from his Joe Schmoe account though.

rjs330 · Thursday at 2:39 PM

DaisyDay said:
Almost certainly" - that is totally an interpretation as Christ does not say these swords are to be used for self-defense. Can you point out a passage wherein Christ positively okays self-defense? There are a few that go against it - whoever seeks to save their life will forfeit it, turn the other cheek, etc.

He does not forbid self defense. Why would he tell people to get a sword? Just to carry it around? To start a war against unbelievers? Of course it was for self defense, what other purpose for it would there be that would be acceptable for him to tell people to get one? When taken in context with all his other teachings it's clear that the only connotation would be for self defense. Not rebellion or vengence.

You have taken the seeks to save their life out of context. Its clear in that passage that it ia about sacrificing your self for Christ. Denying yourself, picking up your cross and following him. The next verse says it does not profit you to gain the world and lose your soul. The verse you mention has nothing to do with defending the innocent or even defending yourself.

Reading the turning the other cheek passage is often used as you do to support no defense of one's self or others. When he talks about being struck on the cheek that is a very minor offense. The word identifies as a slap. If Jesus really wanted to say that you should let anyone harm you in any fashion, he would have said it. He did not not give a serious example. He did not tell us that if someone wants to stab us we should let them and let them do it more than once. He used a very minor example of minor offense. To claim more is to violate the clear example and make more out of it than is said.

DaisyDay said:
When specifically?

I think when someone is going to be seriously injured or murdered, tortured, kidnapped, raped, that sort of thing. If it is necessary and you have to act immediately with deadly force to stop such brutality to the innocent then that is fine. Sure, you can try something else first like knocking them.out etc. But there is not always that opportunity to do so. If there is then take it. If not, then kill an evil doer to protect an innocent. Otherwise you are putting the evil doers life as more important than the innocent peraons life.

DaisyDay said:
Yes, this is the misogynistic trope big, strong men like to use to justify their impulse to violence. Gotta avenge the wimmen folk!

What kind nonsense is that. It sounds like you have a problem with men. You know another woman could protect a woman from rape and murder too you know. It does not have to be a man. The impulse violence is on the evil doer, not on the defender. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

DaisyDay said:
Yes, crime happens. Women do get raped and murdered, most often by someone they know. Men and children also get raped and murdered. I haven't seen that Christ condones that or killing the bad folk in self-defense or in the defense of others.

Well at least you acknowledged that the crime happens. And Jesus did not forbid it either. I would argue that love for your neighbor is shown when you dedend them and not walk away to let them be harmed in that fashion. That is NOT an act of love.

DaisyDay said:
You should take your own advice (mote, beam).

I'm not the one that claimed an act of handing his daughters over to be raped was a righteous act that scripture supported. Many people in scripture are called righteous despite the fact that they did unrighteous things from time to time. Scripture NEVER teaches that we have to be perfect to be considered righteous in the eyes of God. Abraham did a number of unrighteous things. So dis Moses, David and others. There is none righteous, no not one. Only Jesus is righteous on his own. The rest of us are not, but can be seen as righteous if we believe in God, have faith in him and recognize our need for Him. For all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. The fact that Lot was going to hand over his daughters to be raped, which God forbids, did not mean it was a righteous act.

MotoToTheMax · Thursday at 2:41 PM

rjs330 said:
So? I can do that. He's just a guy with free speech. He established no religion.

How about an analogy that might help make sense of this. You know how when a mod posts on these forums they have the giant font on the top and bottom that says MOD POST or ADVISOR HAT? Those posts are doing "official actions" on behalf of the forum and are suppose to follow all the official rules of the forum. Mods COULD post from a different account where all they do is mod actions I suppose, but this place is not significant enough for that, and it's just easier for them to make clear when mod actions are occurring, versus just regular forum participation like every other member here.

Imagine one of those accounts making a post with a giant ADVISOR HAT on top and then following up with an opinion like "I think Mormons are true Christians and should be discussed as such. Also, all immigrants, legal or not, should be deported." Well, the first sentence is not in accordance of the rules, and saying that with an advisor hat notice is almost certainly going to receive some type of action. If that same user makes that post somewhere without the advisor hat notice, then it should be fine and no action needed.

Apply that to the Official Accounts for government. They should follow all the rules of the Constitution and Office they represent, regardless of who's running it at the time. Pete Hegseth can post whatever he wants on his own account, but putting on that Secretary Hat means those posts need to follow more rules than just the platform rules.

Does that help?

rjs330 · Thursday at 2:43 PM

Pommer said:
He didn’t post from his Joe Schmoe account though.

Doesn't matter. Hes still an individual with free speech and free religion. The Constitution doesn't say you lose your rights when you become a part of the governement. He also established no religion.

rjs330 · Thursday at 2:47 PM

MotoToTheMax said:
How about an analogy that might help make sense of this. You know how when a mod posts on these forums they have the giant font on the top and bottom that says MOD POST or ADVISOR HAT? Those posts are doing "official actions" on behalf of the forum and are suppose to follow all the official rules of the forum. Mods COULD post from a different account where all they do is mod actions I suppose, but this place is not significant enough for that, and it's just easier for them to make clear when mod actions are occurring, versus just regular forum participation like every other member here.

Imagine one of those accounts making a post with a giant ADVISOR HAT on top and then following up with an opinion like "I think Mormons are true Christians and should be discussed as such. Also, all immigrants, legal or not, should be deported." Well, the first sentence is not in accordance of the rules, and saying that with an advisor hat notice is almost certainly going to receive some type of action. If that same user makes that post somewhere without the advisor hat notice, then it should be fine and no action needed.

Apply that to the Official Accounts for government. They should follow all the rules of the Constitution and Office they represent, regardless of who's running it at the time. Pete Hegseth can post whatever he wants on his own account, but putting on that Secretary Hat means those posts need to follow more rules than just the platform rules.

Does that help?

I get that. However I don't think it violates any rules in the Constitution or the governement. There is no Law that establishes he can't do that and as far as I know there is no governmental rule that prohibits that. If there is then his boss can discipline him for it. Or perhaps rhe boss can say, thats no longer a rule for the executive branch.

BPPLEE · Thursday at 2:51 PM

rjs330 said:
He does not forbid self defense. Why would he tell people to get a sword? Just to carry it around? To start a war against unbelievers? Of course it was for self defense, what other purpose for it would there be that would be acceptable for him to tell people to get one? When taken in context with all his other teachings it's clear that the only connotation would be for self defense. Not rebellion or vengence.

You have taken the seeks to save their life out of context. Its clear in that passage that it ia about sacrificing your self for Christ. Denying yourself, picking up your cross and following him. The next verse says it does not profit you to gain the world and lose your soul. The verse you mention has nothing to do with defending the innocent or even defending yourself.

Reading the turning the other cheek passage is often used as you do to support no defense of one's self or others. When he talks about being struck on the cheek that is a very minor offense. The word identifies as a slap. If Jesus really wanted to say that you should let anyone harm you in any fashion, he would have said it. He did not not give a serious example. He did not tell us that if someone wants to stab us we should let them and let them do it more than once. He used a very minor example of minor offense. To claim more is to violate the clear example and make more out of it than is said.
I think when someone is going to be seriously injured or murdered, tortured, kidnapped, raped, that sort of thing. If it is necessary and you have to act immediately with deadly force to stop such brutality to the innocent then that is fine. Sure, you can try something else first like knocking them.out etc. But there is not always that opportunity to do so. If there is then take it. If not, then kill an evil doer to protect an innocent. Otherwise you are putting the evil doers life as more important than the innocent peraons life.

What kind nonsense is that. It sounds like you have a problem with men. You know another woman could protect a woman from rape and murder too you know. It does not have to be a man. The impulse violence is on the evil doer, not on the defender. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?
Well at least you acknowledged that the crime happens. And Jesus did not forbid it either. I would argue that love for your neighbor is shown when you dedend them and not walk away to let them be harmed in that fashion. That is NOT an act of love.

I'm not the one that claimed an act of handing his daughters over to be raped was a righteous act that scripture supported. Many people in scripture are called righteous despite the fact that they did unrighteous things from time to time. Scripture NEVER teaches that we have to be perfect to be considered righteous in the eyes of God. Abraham did a number of unrighteous things. So dis Moses, David and others. There is none righteous, no not one. Only Jesus is righteous on his own. The rest of us are not, but can be seen as righteous if we believe in God, have faith in him and recognize our need for Him. For all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. The fact that Lot was going to hand over his daughters to be raped, which God forbids, did not mean it was a righteous act.

No one has ever died from a slap.
I find it ridiculous to assert that Christians cannot defend themselves
Christ gave his life for a reason.
If I give my life to someone who attacks me what purpose does it serve?

ViaCrucis · Thursday at 4:33 PM

Servus said:
Graham's message was about how time doesn't expunge sin. It's common for people to believe that if wrongdoing and sin took place a long enough of a time ago, it's been swallowed by time. The point he made about God punishing the Amalekites for what they had done 400 years beforehand, was to show that's not how it works. That the only way for sin to be expunged is through Jesus Christ. Graham is an evangelist. His sermons are given to evangelize the individuals listening in the hope that they will come to Jesus.

As far as comparing America to Israel, throughout its history Israel was mostly unfaithful and turned away from God. So for the most part comparing America to Israel would be the opposite of sacralizing it. But that wasn't where Graham was going with his sermon.

I do have some thoughts, but let's continue forward for now.

What is the context for America "turning again to God"?

rjs330 · Thursday at 4:44 PM

BPPLEE said:
No one has ever died from a slap.
I find it ridiculous to assert that Christians cannot defend themselves
Christ gave his life for a reason.
If I give my life to someone who attacks me what purpose does it serve?

Jesus was pretty clear on giving your life. It was always associated with giving your life for him.

ViaCrucis · Thursday at 5:00 PM

BPPLEE said:
If I give my life to someone who attacks me what purpose does it serve?

"[A]nd we who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons — our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage— and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified; [...] Now it is evident that no one can terrify or subdue us who have believed in Jesus over all the world. For it is plain that, though beheaded, and crucified, and thrown to wild beasts, and chains, and fire, and all other kinds of torture, we do not give up our confession; but the more such things happen, the more do others and in larger numbers become faithful, and worshippers of God through the name of Jesus. For just as if one should cut away the fruit-bearing parts of a vine, it grows up again, and yields other branches flourishing and fruitful; even so the same thing happens with us. For the vine planted by God and Christ the Saviour is His people." -St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 110

"We offer you the wholesome help of our mind and advice. And because we may not hate, and we please God more by rendering no return for wrong, we exhort you while you have the power, while there yet remains to you something of life, to make satisfaction to God, and to emerge from the abyss of dark superstition into the bright light of true religion. We do not envy your comforts, nor do we conceal the divine benefits. We repay kindness for your hatred; and for the torments and penalties which are inflicted on us, we point out to you the ways of salvation. Believe and live, and rejoice with us for eternity, you who persecute us in tithe." - St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 5, An Address to Demetrianus Proconsul of Carthage, 25

I'm not going to stand here and say self-defense is wrong. But if you are going to ask what purpose would it serve to give up your life for someone who attacks you, who hates you, then the answer to that is found in Christ's words to us in His Sermon, in the example He established by His life, suffering, and death; in the words and promises of Scripture, and in the testimony of the ancient and holy Fathers of the Church. Two of which I have provided here for consideration.

To wit: Even should our bodies be cut down, our blood and our suffering--in patience, kindness, and unrestrained love--with the faithful confession of Christ in our lips, becomes the seed scattered upon the ground which God shall make grow. So that even in the ones who despise us, who have put us to death, shall grow in their heart a faith which shall become their salvation.

We have lived so distantly and far apart from the time when being a Christian actually cost us something. We who have lived our lives where being a Christian has been to our advantage, not our disadvantage, can scarce contemplate the depth of faith which our spiritual predecessors experienced. They were rock stars, and we are--for the most part--mere poseurs pretending at taking up a cross.

BPPLEE · Thursday at 5:16 PM

ViaCrucis said:
"[A]nd we who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons — our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage— and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified; [...] Now it is evident that no one can terrify or subdue us who have believed in Jesus over all the world. For it is plain that, though beheaded, and crucified, and thrown to wild beasts, and chains, and fire, and all other kinds of torture, we do not give up our confession; but the more such things happen, the more do others and in larger numbers become faithful, and worshippers of God through the name of Jesus. For just as if one should cut away the fruit-bearing parts of a vine, it grows up again, and yields other branches flourishing and fruitful; even so the same thing happens with us. For the vine planted by God and Christ the Saviour is His people." -St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 110

"We offer you the wholesome help of our mind and advice. And because we may not hate, and we please God more by rendering no return for wrong, we exhort you while you have the power, while there yet remains to you something of life, to make satisfaction to God, and to emerge from the abyss of dark superstition into the bright light of true religion. We do not envy your comforts, nor do we conceal the divine benefits. We repay kindness for your hatred; and for the torments and penalties which are inflicted on us, we point out to you the ways of salvation. Believe and live, and rejoice with us for eternity, you who persecute us in tithe." - St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 5, An Address to Demetrianus Proconsul of Carthage, 25

I'm not going to stand here and say self-defense is wrong. But if you are going to ask what purpose would it serve to give up your life for someone who attacks you, who hates you, then the answer to that is found in Christ's words to us in His Sermon, in the example He established by His life, suffering, and death; in the words and promises of Scripture, and in the testimony of the ancient and holy Fathers of the Church. Two of which I have provided here for consideration.

To wit: Even should our bodies be cut down, our blood and our suffering--in patience, kindness, and unrestrained love--with the faithful confession of Christ in our lips, becomes the seed scattered upon the ground which God shall make grow. So that even in the ones who despise us, who have put us to death, shall grow in their heart a faith which shall become their salvation.

We have lived so distantly and far apart from the time when being a Christian actually cost us something. We who have lived our lives where being a Christian has been to our advantage, not our disadvantage, can scarce contemplate the depth of faith which our spiritual predecessors experienced. They were rock stars, and we are--for the most part--mere poseurs pretending at taking up a cross.

Dying because you believe in Christ and are persecuted for it is noble. Dying because you refuse to fight back is not

ViaCrucis · Thursday at 5:41 PM

DaisyDay said:
"Almost certainly" - that is totally an interpretation as Christ does not say these swords are to be used for self-defense. Can you point out a passage wherein Christ positively okays self-defense? There are a few that go against it - whoever seeks to save their life will forfeit it, turn the other cheek, etc.

The historic interpretation held refutes the notion that the swords were meant to be used in self-defense. St. John Chrysostom in his commentary asks, rhetorically, if the point is that the two swords were to be used in self defense and Jesus saying "that is enough" means "two swords are enough"--how exactly are 11 (the Twelve Apostles, minus Judas) men supposed to use only two swords? He also points out that none of the Apostles ever used a sword. The Apostles, at every opportunity where they could retaliate with violence chose not to.

The lack of using any sword or weapon of any sort was so noteworthy among early Christians that it was a defining feature of the Christian community. Early Christian leaders when speaking to those in power poignantly say: We aren't arming ourselves against you, none of us have taken up arms to hurt you, when you hate us we instead choose to love you, when you curse us we choose to bless you, we forgive you, we pray for you, we show you kindness even as you threaten to kill us and hurt our friends and families. Not even the anti-Christian powers of the ancient world could argue against that.

At times the Christian refusal to participate in acts of violence were actually used as part of the accusations against them. Celsus in the 3rd century had a scathing list of criticisms and condemnations against the Christians. One of these was that Christians refused to take up the sword in the name of the Caesar. Origen, in his apologetical text Against Celsus writes that the Christian serves a greater deed for Caesar by offering up prayers for peace and stability; and that even among the Pagans those who served as priests in the temples were exempt from the expectation of military service--and as Christians are a universal priesthood who offer up the sacrifice of praise, who offer prayer and intercession for Caesar, and for all people everywhere throughout the whole world--then isn't the same exemption reasonable?

E.g.
"And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army — an army of piety— by offering our prayers to God."

(See Origen's Against Celsus, Book VIII, ch. 73-74)

ViaCrucis · Thursday at 5:43 PM

BPPLEE said:
Dying because you believe in Christ and are persecuted for it is noble. Dying because you refuse to fight back is not

You're not actually addressing what I've said. You are merely offering your opinion--it would be nice if you could root your opinion in Christian faith, practice, and ethics--rather than merely offering your carnal thoughts.

BPPLEE · Thursday at 6:05 PM

ViaCrucis said:
You're not actually addressing what I've said. You are merely offering your opinion--it would be nice if you could root your opinion in Christian faith, practice, and ethics--rather than merely offering your carnal thoughts.

In the Old Testament, Exodus 22:2–3 describes a scenario where a homeowner who kills a thief breaking in at night is not guilty of murder, implying a right to defend one's home and life. This has been cited as a foundational biblical justification for self-defense as an inalienable right. Similarly, Nehemiah 4:14 shows God's people arming themselves to defend against threats during the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls.
In the New Testament, Jesus' instruction in Luke 22:36–38 to his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword (a lethal weapon at the time) has been interpreted as affirming the use of force for protection, especially in dangerous situations like travel. However, when Peter uses a sword to defend Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (John 18:10–11), Jesus rebukes him, suggesting swords are for general protection but not for advancing the kingdom through violence.
Other passages encourage fleeing danger or using force if escape is impossible, such as Proverbs 25:26 warning against yielding to the wicked, or the principle of loving one's neighbor implying protection of the innocent (including oneself or family). Theologians like Thomas Aquinas later built on this, arguing that repelling force with moderation is lawful, but excessive violence is not
Source Grok
Have you ever had anyone try to kill you? I have on more than one occasion, it would be nice if you could reflect a Christ like love and respect for others in your posts rather than arrogance

Servus · Thursday at 9:04 PM

ViaCrucis said:
I do have some thoughts, but let's continue forward for now.

What is the context for America "turning again to God"?

America used to be a more God fearing nation according to many. Billy Graham preached about America turning back to God many times. I remember that going on back in the 70s. After 9/11 he said the only hope for America was a return to God.

Now you may completely disagree with that sentiment, but the point is that's what both Grahams have been preaching for decades.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

At Pentagon Christmas Service, Franklin Graham Praises ‘God of War’ “We know that God loves. But did you know that God also hates?"

Confessional Lutheran

<><

-----------

Fact-Based Lifeform

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Well-Known Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

<><

Billy Graham Speaks to America America turn back to God​

Similar threads

Billy Graham Speaks to America America turn back to God