Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

[Download MP3]

What’s the difference between quenching the Spirit and grieving the Spirit? What do I say to a person who had sex-change surgery and doesn’t regret it? Was the book of Isaiah really written by three different authors? Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

 

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: God is absolutely faithful to finish what He started in each of us!  Therefore, let us lean on that faithfulness as we live for Him!

 

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: I know there’s a lot of confusion, a lot of discussion, and a lot of division within the Body; Truth will triumph, don’t worry about it.

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!  

For This Week Only, Order A Copy Of “Son of Sam, Son of Hope: The Powerful Testimony of David Berkowitz” DVD For $15 Postage Paid! (US Only)

Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!

Other Resources:

Cessationist Call-In Day

Lessons from the Book of Esther and Dr. Brown’s Jewish Musings

An Interview with Walt Heyer (Who Went from Man to Woman and Back to Man)

26 Comments
  1. I have respect for John Macarthur also, and I will write that his form of worship and understanding is also a delusion to a degree. He dismisses where the fire is truly spiritual fire, and puts his own calvinistic brand on for his church. That is why in my opinion the form of his church is a dying form. I respect the work that he has done, however we are in the revival period at this time, his church is an old gentile calvinistic form that is now past.

  2. Brother Mike,

    Brother Mike,

    I thought it interesting that Fire Church has in their statement of belief, the following:

    We believe that Baptism in the Holy Spirit, primarily evidenced by speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance, is for all believers as promised by John the Baptist (Mat 3:11), Jesus (Acts 1:4, 5, 8), and Peter (Acts 2:38-41) and as witnessed by the early disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 2:1-4; 10:44-46; 19:6).

    This is a classic COG and AOG statement that goes beyond what the totality of what Scripture teaches. The idea that the “primary” evidence of the baptism is speaking in tongues is grossly overstated. While this is true for many (including myself), the idea of declaring that this gift is the primary evidence helps to add to the divide with cessationists.

    While I recognize that the gift of tongues is evident among many people, one cannot ignore the fact that many people who have been immersed by the Spirit have not spoken in tongues at all. Men such as John Wesley and Duncan Campbell, A.B. Simpson, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and a host of others have preached on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, have had experiences, but never spoke in tongues.

    Beyond the myriads of godly men and women over the centuries who’ve operated a preached under the power of the Spirit that never spoke in tongues, we have scriptural evidence that this is not the primary sign to be taught at all. 1 Corinthians 12 addresses this specifically with the following:

    And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1 Cor 12:28-20)

    Paul is clearly explaining that the above mentioned are all gifts, and that everyone does not have them – to include speaking with tongues. Hence, to declare that all believers, baptized in the Holy Spirit are expected to speak in tongues is a popular doctrine that goes too far, in light of historical precedence, and a proper exegesis of Scripture. While we recognize that the gifts of the Spirit are indeed available and active today, we must not overstate a doctrinal belief that would go beyond what has been declared in Scripture.

  3. Brother Mike,

    I thought it interesting that Fire Church has in their statement of belief, the following:

    We believe that Baptism in the Holy Spirit, primarily evidenced by speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance, is for all believers as promised by John the Baptist (Mat 3:11), Jesus (Acts 1:4, 5, 8), and Peter (Acts 2:38-41) and as witnessed by the early disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 2:1-4; 10:44-46; 19:6).

    This is a classic COG and AOG statement that goes beyond what the totality of what Scripture teaches. The idea that the “primary” evidence of the baptism is speaking in tongues is grossly overstated. While this is true for many (including myself), the idea of declaring that this gift is the primary evidence helps to add to the divide with cessationists.

    While I recognize that the gift of tongues is evident among many people, one cannot ignore the fact that many people who have been immersed by the Spirit have not spoken in tongues at all. Men such as John Wesley and Duncan Campbell, A.B. Simpson, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and a host of others have preached on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, have had experiences, but never spoke in tongues.

    Beyond the myriads of godly men and women over the centuries who’ve operated a preached under the power of the Spirit that never spoke in tongues, we have scriptural evidence that this is not the primary sign to be taught at all. 1 Corinthians 12 addresses this specifically with the following:

    And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1 Cor 12:28-20)

    Paul is clearly explaining that the above mentioned are all gifts, and that everyone does not have them – to include speaking with tongues. Hence, to declare that all believers, baptized in the Holy Spirit are expected to speak in tongues is a popular doctrine that goes too far, in light of historical precedence, and a proper exegesis of Scripture. While we recognize that the gifts of the Spirit are indeed available and active today, we must not overstate a doctrinal belief that would go beyond what has been declared in Scripture.

  4. jon,

    What is the form of the John MacArthur’s worship? I only know him from his radio shows.

    While Calvinism surely doesn’t have the sway it used to, are we gentiles on our way out?

    By the way, do you have any data or research to back up your beliefs or are you going on your own personal impression?

    That’s and honest question by the way — I haven’t researched church demographics for many years.

    My own church has a very old style and we are growing. (We get a lot of “refugees” from charismatic churches, BTW.) However, I don’t assume we are representative of any sort of national trend.

  5. I find Dr. Browns stance against sex-change operations a little hard to get my mind around.

    The basic premise is simple enough — you have a moral/biblical obligation to remain as you were born. God wanted you as he created you.

    But this has to assume that God ordains however you were born. This certainly can’t apply to everybody. How about those born with cleft palates? Or any number of disorders than are functional but could be improved or corrected with surgery?

    And what about purely cosmetic surgery? Is Dolly Parton disobedient to the will of God? Or any of the millions of people getting nose jobs?

    In his example, Dr. Brown went to the very extreme — people getting limbs cut off due to psychosis. But that’s not what’s going in with most corrective surgeries.

    One probably could argue that cosmetic surgeries are based in some sort of self-image dysfunction. Should nose jobs be condemned by the church?

    I expect that some will say — “but, cleft palates are a birth defect.” I have heard people with gender identity problems say they were born with the birth defect of having a body that does not match their brain.

    And who am I to say for them? I think, once a gain, this is a place where we Christians should keep our mouths shut and let people make the hard decisions with their families and doctors.

  6. Brian,

    The church has been around for 2000 years. Pentacostalism has been around for about 100. One would say that this is evidence enough that “tongues” is not the norm for Christianity.

    However, do we know for fact that no tongues were spoken in the first 1900 years of the church?

    And, not to confuse matters, but I have personally seen “tongues” used by non-Christians.

  7. One thing…. MacArthur Church isnt dying out.. and acutally the Reform Baptist group appears to be striving. MacArthur isnt a true Calvinist (reformed Batpist deny infant baptism, which is a big deal to Jean Calvin)

    But as some1 who listened to alot of the confernce… I agree with Dr. Brown that good will come from this. The extremes have to be addressed. AS I said to Dr. Brown on Twitter, I hope the leader and elders of Charismatic get together and root out these bad extremes.. rather than a cessationist vs. Continuiest

    I presume Greg is refering to the Khindulni Hindu group. Yes thre are stark similaries but… out of respect I would not say its the same tongue (but it sounds and looks very similiar)

  8. jon got me curious and I decided to not wait around for his response. Barna has a great page on this subject.

    http://tinyurl.com/mcoajsh

    (BTW: if you don’t know Barna, I highly recommend his work.)

    Here are some highlights:

    >>A decade ago, three out of ten adults claimed to be charismatic or Pentecostal Christians. Today, 36% of Americans accept that designation. That corresponds to approximately 80 million adults

    >>Charismatics are found throughout the fabric of American Christianity. Although just 8% of the population is evangelical, half of evangelical adults (49%) fit the charismatic definition. A slight majority of all born again Christians (51%) is charismatic. Nearly half of all adults who attend a Protestant church (46%) are charismatic.

    >>Many people believe that charismatic Christianity is almost exclusively a Protestant phenomenon. However, the research showed that one-third of all U.S. Catholics (36%) fit the charismatic classification. Framed differently, almost one-quarter of all charismatics in the U.S. (22%) are Catholic.

    >>While the average congregational attendance at each type of church is similar, the non-charismatic churches tend to have larger annual operating budgets: $149,000 compared to slightly more than $136,000 budgeted by the Pentecostal ministries.

    >>Pastoral education is another major distinction. A large majority of the Senior Pastors of non-charismatic churches (70%) have graduated from a seminary. Not quite half of the charismatic pastors (49%) have a seminary degree.

    >>”We are moving toward a future in which the charismatic-fundamentalist split will be an historical footnote rather than a dividing line within the body of believers. Young Christians, in particular, have little energy for the arguments that have traditionally separated charismatics and non-charismatics

  9. Ty,

    I’m impressed… you new the group!

    My knowledge is strictly observational — and almost literally stumbled upon them when I was just goofing around in India.

    It was a surprise! It felt like I was back in America! (except for the elephants).

    This didn’t bother my ecclesiology at all, BTW. Just because other religions may be similar to us Christians, in some ways, it doesn’t make us wrong or less authentic.

  10. I suppose the fact that Hindus also speak in tongues does challenge the argument that “tongues are so impossible to explain scientifically, they must be a miracle from God.”

    But, I don’t know any atheist linguist who can’t explain tongues naturalistically.

    Again, this doesn’t bother me at all. Even if tongues are “babbling” — who cares? It still can be an a genuine, Holy Spirit-filled worship experience.

    Although I am a non-Charismatic, I am an ally of you guys. God bless you in your tongues! Go for it!

  11. If I were to attempt to prove to someone that I have received the holy Spirit, I likely would speak in tongues for them, for one can not speak in tongues any other way than be led by the Spirit of God. Any other attempt to speak in tongues (rather than by the Spirit of God) is a cheap counterfeit, something that anyone who does speak in tongues should be able to identify with little difficulty.

    This would be the primary way that I could “prove” I have received the holy Spirit.

    Some might look at my works, how I live, look for the spiritual fruit, (love, joy, peace, etc.){Gal 5:22}

    If one does not speak in tongues, I can’t very well tell (unless God reveals it by the Spirit) if they have received the Spirit of God, but I can look for fruit in what they say and whatever else might be showing.

    I know I’ve grieved the holy Spirit before. I’ve felt the grief within myself and wondered why. Once I remember, it was strong grief. I had brought up something to someone and it was something I should have simply forgiven and not brought up again.

    I remember being among other Christians and being excited about something I believe the Lord was bringing to my attention, something that revealed and connected with some other scriptures, and while telling about it, another would interupt as if to try to silence me.

    One man in our group seemed to have this fault which showed itself over and over again. It was as if he was trying to “quench” the Spirit.

  12. Ray,

    >>one can not speak in tongues any other way than be led by the Spirit of God

    This is clearly not true. Some non-Christians also speak in tongues.

    In my opinion, the evidence of the Holy Spirit is in your fruit. Are you peaceable? Do you help the poor? Are you a blessing in the world?

  13. Ray,

    You said, ” If I were to attempt to prove to someone that I have received the holy Spirit, I likely would speak in tongues for them… This would be the primary way that I could “prove” I have received the holy Spirit…. If one does not speak in tongues, I can’t very well tell (unless God reveals it by the Spirit) if they have received the Spirit of God”

    Your above statements in judging if someone has received the Holy Spirit being based upon one speaking in tongues is faulty indeed. It can be, but that is not the test of authenticity at all. Mormons speak in tongues, so would you declare that is proof that they have the Holy Spirit? John MacArthur, John Wesley and Billy Graham have never spoken in tongues, so dare you question if they had/have received the Holy Spirit? The proof of the infilling of the Holy Spirit is revealed in the love of God flowing through that vessel leading one to give himself over to the Lord as a living sacrifice.

  14. Brian,

    I was a little surprised when you pointed out that Dr. Brown’s school declares that tongues are for all believers.

    Back in the 70s I often heard charismatics say that but I haven’t heard anyone say it for years.

    It’s such a divisive doctrine.

  15. It’s not faulty to prove one has received the holy Spirit by speaking in tongues, just as not speaking in tongues is no proof that one has not received the holy Spirit, for tongues is only one of the nine manifestations of the Spirit.

    That is to say that many have received of the Spirit of God, have been born from above, but have not yet spoke in tongues.

    Yet, if one does indeed speak in tongues it is absolute proof in this world, that such a one has received the holy Spirit, and has been born from above.

    It’s impossible for anyone to speak in tongues if they have not been born again, if they have not received the holy Spirit through faith in the gospel of Christ.

    God doesn’t give the gift of holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues to those who will not believe in Christ Jesus. Those who will not receive the gospel of Christ will not speak in tongues.

    They might make sounds and be able to deceive the unlearned. They might learn a few phrazes that might sound like tongues, (Oh, She bought a Honda… Honda lie, Honda lie, or Ah otten gotten no moe oats fo no more goat dottin.) but it’s simply a walk in the flesh.

    A man who speaks in tongues can speak in a tongue so you can hear it and it will flow so quickly, as quickly as the man can speak, for God gives what to say and how to say it as fast as the man decides to speak it. You can’t outrun God. He’s too fast to outrun. No man can speak faster than the Spirit of God can give what to say.

    And a man can speak in tongues quickly even though you might have created a world of chaos around him by making so much noise that he doesn’t have time to think, for speaking in tongues isn’t done by thinking, but by doing, by a deliberate decision of the will after having received the gift through faith.

    Have you ever tried to do math problems or read something and answer questions about it when many people are creating chaos and noise around you?

    Try taking a test some time and see how you score in an atmosphere of noisy chaos.
    You won’t be able to concentrate.

    But speaking in tongues doesn’t require concentration. You simply do it because you decided to do it and have received the ability to do so by the Spirit of God who continually fills you as you move.

    It is supernatural. It’s not of the flesh. It’s not “made up” in the mind of a man.

    If a man tries to throw together some constanants and vowels and keep going, making made up sounds, he will be stumbling all over himself, wearing out his carnal mind, tireing himself with futility. It will be jibberish nonsense.

    If a man knows several languages, he might recite by memory something in another language, but sooner or later, if he keeps on with that he will be found out.

    Anyone who claims to speak in tongues by any other means that the genuine ability to speak in tongues… the real manifestation of it, and he will cooperate with you as you examine his sounds, it will soon become evident if it is genuine or not, by someone who does speak in tongues and knows what it’s about.

    The things pertaining to eternal life are not carnal, not of the flesh, not of diverse weights and measures, not a combination of the carnal, and the truth.

    Do people really think they can fool the Lord who made them? I hope not.

    One can not be for sin and the truth of God and expect in a real way that both sin and the truth will be lived out in heaven, though they try to manage both here on earth.

    There is coming a time of judgment. Have you ever asked God to judge you? Have you ever asked God to judge a matter? If many Christians are telling you that you are wrong, it might be a good thing to do.

    Some might want to do that while there is still time. Isn’t the time coming when the Lord will require that the just be just still and the unrighteous be unrighteous still? What will they do then? Do they think they can jump a fence and manipulate God, or fool around with him?

    Some Christians began in the Spirit, but later forget the cross, get comfortable in this world by the things of the flesh, begin to make no sense at all, speaking as a drunken man, and it seems that no man can awake him out of his sleep.

    Have you ever seen anyone talk in their sleep and make any sense at all?

  16. Ray,
    I believe that “speaking in other languages” is for every believer – BUT, because there is so much disturbance and “drama” surrounding that gift, we cannot say “if you don’t ‘speak in other languages’ by the Spirit, you do not have the Spirit.” That is totally wrong. On the other hand, it is wrong for those who have been “disturbed” by the accusations that they are not born of God if they do not ‘speak in other languages’ (by the Spirit) to turn around and condemn all who do.
    It is almost as if the gift will naturally manifest unless forced/stressed. Sometimes, there is too much pressure and/or “stigma” attached to it for it to surface – and God is not going to force it on an unwilling person or “under duress”.
    God is OK with people who do not speak in other languages because though their souls/mind may be unwilling, their spirits are already engaging God. It is almost as if they do not (unknowingly) do not know or accept(i.e.: resist) what they already are.
    Personally, I would NEVER force anyone to speak in another language as a proof of their being born of God (nor use the fact that someone ‘speaks in another language’ as proof of their being born of God – there are demonic spirits who can ‘gift’ people to speak in another language as well: I had an ex-satanic priest who could quote all kinds of Scriptures before he was born again – in order to convert Christians into satanists – which ability he lost when he was born again, BECAUSE IT WAS A DEMONIC GIFTING).

  17. Ray,

    I’m impressed at how thoroughly you’ve thought this through.

    But I see a bit of a contradiction. You talk of tongues as “absolute proof” but also acknowledge that it can be of the flesh or faked.

    Are you always able to tell the difference? Have you ever been fooled?

    I certainly have met people who once were enthusiastic tongues-speakers but then fell away from Pentecostalism or even Christianity.

    Do you think, had you known them back then, that you could have discerned their tongues as “of the flesh”?

  18. Daniel,

    >>It is almost as if the gift will naturally manifest unless forced/stressed.

    I’m happy this is true for you but…

    But how do you explain that the vast majority of Christians, prior to Azusa Street, did not speak in tongues. Christians throughout the world, an every cultures, and throughout time until very recently.

    If tongues just naturally manifested itself, one would expect it to happen in all churches and cultures.

    Or am I misunderstanding you?

    (As you can surely guess, I have a different way of seeing the tongues phenomenon. Even so, I am genuinely interested in how you think of it. — and I do think it is of the Holy Spirit. )

  19. SPECIAL TOPIC: SPEAKING IN TONGUES

    I. Tongues in Acts
    A. The term in Acts 2:4 is “other tongues” (heterais glōssais). The translation “different languages” reflects the understanding of this term based on the context of Acts 2:6 and 11. The other possible translation is “ecstatic utterances,” based on 1 Corinthians 12-14 and possibly Acts 2:13. It is uncertain how many different languages were being spoken at this Pentecost experience, but it was many. If you try to add up all the countries and regions in Acts 2:9-11 it must have been well over twenty. Several of the 120 believers must have spoken the same language.
    God did something unique and powerful to inspire this small group of frightened men and women, waiting in a locked upper room, to become bold proclaimers of the gospel (both men and women). Whatever this initial sign of the coming of the promised Holy Spirit was, God also used it to confirm His acceptance of other groups (e.g., Samaritans, Roman army officers, and Gentiles). “Tongues” in Acts was always a sign to believers that the gospel had overcome another ethnic, geographical barrier. There is a distinct difference between the tongues of Acts and Paul’s later ministry in Corinth (cf. 1 Corinthians 12-14).
    Theologically it is possible that Pentecost is the direct opposite of the tower of Babel (cf. Genesis 10-11). As prideful, rebellious humans asserted their independence (i.e., refusal to disperse and fill the earth), God implemented His will by the use of multiple languages. Now, in the new age of the Spirit, the nationalism which impedes humans from uniting (i.e., one world government of the eschaton) has, for believers, been reversed. Christian fellowship across every human boundary (i.e., age, sex, class, geography, language) is the reversal of the consequences of Genesis 3.
    B. “as the Spirit was giving them utterance” (Acts 2:4) The verb is imperfect active indicative, meaning the Spirit began to give them. The word “utterance” (apophtheggomai) is a present passive (deponent) infinitive. This term is only used by Luke in Acts (cf. 2:4,14; 26:25). It is used in the Septuagint for the speaking of prophets (i.e., Spirit-inspired speech, cf. Deut. 32:2; 1 Chr. 25:1; Ezek. 13:9,19; Mic. 5:11; Zech. 10:2).
    I prefer this interpretation to the Classical Greek etymological meaning “raised volume,” “impassioned speaking,” or “elevated rhetorical speaking.” Luke knew the Septuagint and was influenced by its terminology. The Septuagint was the Bible of the Mediterranean world and became the Bible of the Church.

    II. Tongues in Corinth
    A. The Greek term used in 1 Cor. 12:10 for “tongue” is glōssa.
    It was used in the OT as a synonym for “nation.” In Greek it was used for speaking the language of a nation. This would imply that it had the connotation of a known human language. However, the need for an interpreter, which also is a spiritual gift, instead of a translator, along with Paul’s fuller discussion in chapter 14, leads one to think this was an ecstatic utterance at Corinth.
    Exactly how the “tongues” of Corinth are related to the tongues at Pentecost recorded in Acts is uncertain. The miracle in Acts 2 is of the ear (cf. Acts 2:6,8,11), not the tongue. The “tongues” experiences of Acts communicated the gospel directly to the Jews of the Diaspora who were present. It also functioned as a way to recognize the presence, power, and will of God for the inclusion of other groups, like the Samaritan (cf. Acts 8) and Cornelius, a Roman army officer (cf. Acts 10). The tongues in Acts were a sign to the believing Jews that God had opened the door for Gentiles to be included (cf. Acts 15:8). Notice no need for an interpreter in Acts!
    Tongues at Corinth are similar to the ecstatic speech of the Greek religions (e.g., Delphi). Corinthian tongues were apparently being misused or over-glorified (cf. 1 Cor. 13:1 and 14:1-33).
    Tongues were a way for an individual believer to intimately commune with God, but without understanding. It is a valid gift (cf. 1 Cor. 14:39), but it is not for all believers (cf. 1 Cor. 12:29-30, which has a series of questions that expect a “no” answer). It is not a gift that proves one is saved or shows one is a spiritual person. Tongues plus interpretation was another means of communicating the gospel and its relevance.
    B. “interpretation of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:10).
    Remember, Corinth was a cosmopolitan city, Roman in culture, Greek in geography. The city’s location, combined with the danger of sailing around the cape of Greece in the winter, made it a commercial crossroads of the eastern and western empires. Every nationality would be in Corinth, but tongues needed a spiritual gift to communicate its message for the church, not just a translator. Tongues in Corinth was not a known language.
    1 Cor. 12:11 emphasizes the truth that the Spirit gives to each believer a ministry gift (cf. 1 Cor. 12:7,18); also, which gift is the Spirit’s choice, not the believer’s. There is no hierarchy of gifts. All the gifts are to serve the body of Christ, the church (cf. 1 Cor. 12:7). They are not meit badges, but servant towels.

    Copyright © 2013 Bible Lessons International

  20. Greg, I am just saying that the rigid form of the hymnal singing church (conservative) formal- boring-
    just is not going to be enough for someone who can connect in a true spiritual way.

  21. I believe many began to speak in tongues simply because they were around so many other that did and they too believed and received.

    I trust that sometimes it might not take much to undermine somebody’s faith, and sadly this happens also.

    Tongues might get too much of people’s attention at times. Sometimes too much focus is put on one part of the scripture and we may suffer because of it.

    It seems to me that verses like John 6:54 are every bit as much, if not more important than any particular spiritual gift or manifestation.

  22. jon,
    >>just is not going to be enough for someone who can connect in a true spiritual way.

    I appreciate both types of music… and I’ve done endless hours of both.

    The “praise songs” are emotionally stirring but lack the spiritual depth of the hymns.

    But, I don’t think either style is some measure of “true spirituality.”

    I’ve seen too many saints and frauds in both styles of church.

  23. Ray,

    >>Tongues might get too much of people’s attention at times. Sometimes too much focus is put on one part of the scripture and we may suffer because of it.

    I think the apostle Paul would agree with you. He could not have been clearer that love is above tongues.

  24. So what can we say to someone who had a sex change opperation and thinks they did the right thing?

    It causes me to think they are in effect saying that God made a mistake but they decided to fix it.

    But God doesn’t make mistakes. When God makes a healthy complete male or female child, the sex it was born with is what it is supposed to be.

    To try to be something other than what we are supposed to be is wrong. How could such a thing please God who made us?

    I wonder what such a person will say should God ask them why they did such a thing.

    Since God doesn’t make mistakes when he makes something, shouldn’t we highly suspect that the person who changed something into something other than what God intended…. were not they the one who made a mistake?

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*