The Biblical Examiner 
An Examination of Biblical Precepts Involved in Issues at Hand 

March 1998

GMI main page

In this issue:

The Teachings of Greater Ministry International Examined
License? Contract? Coverture?
    (See List of Material Available for further information concerning the "forms" for Coverture Marriage.)
Moses' Personality & Righteous Judgment
Empty Promises

The Health and Wealth Gospel

(LUKE 6: 38)


U.S. and international governments used to "increase wealth"

Mr. Payne explains how the Greater Church increases its wealth so it can return the "gifts' to its "givers."

This stated position of Greater Ministries conflicts with another stated position. According to Greater Ministries:

How can Greater Ministries subscribe and advise others to subscribe to these eight points and at the same time increase its wealth with the "approval by the U.S. and international [government] agencies" that is authorized by the issuance of " specific [government] numbers in order to operate in the arena" of monetary trade and profit?
Greater Ministries also reports that it owns the "Greater International Bank of Nauru." (Greater Share News, August '97.)

Bars, Nightclubs, and liquor used to "increase wealth"

The liquor traffic is another way the Greater Church increases its wealth. The March 1998, issue of Greater Share News contains advertising for gold jewelry minted by Greater Ministries International. There is also an ad for the Greater Ministry owned Executive Inn located in Owensboro, KY:

The Greater Ministries claim that "we really are a church," is certainly suspect when money gifted to it is used to purchase the Executive Inn trafficing in the liquor business. God's prophet warned: " Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness (Habakkuk 2:15).

Really a Church

Mr. Payne continues, emphasizing that the Greater Church is really a church:

 Luke 3:38 is the foundational Scripture used by Greater Ministries to solicit gifts:

Luke 6:38 is thus used by GM to encourage Christians to become involved in its "gifting program. The "gift," however, is obviously given with the assurance ("faith promise" -- that is, faith in GM's promise) that GM will return to them at least the value of the initial "gift."
Luke 6:38 must be taken in its context of Luke 6:27-40.

Thus the context gives understanding to Luke 6:38, and that understanding is:

It is clear -- Luke 6:38 is speaking of giving to those in need, with no hope of receiving money back from the ones to whom it is given. If folks were expecting the Lord and not the "Greater Church" to return their money, how much would they give? Let those who are professing their love for the Lord in their giving give to those who need assistance. Let them give to the indigent persons (and/or Christian ministries), as clearly taught by the passage.

Luke 6:38 cannot be used to justify a potential return of one's "gifts," plus an increase, to a church that is preaching a "health and wealth" message as Greater Ministries International is offering. Gifting to Greater Ministries should be based on ones faith in Greater Ministries and not on Luke 6:38.

God's Word is relevant to all of life. God's Word is the foundation for the Christian faith and the practice of Christian living including ones giving.

The natural man is greedy and covetous --- two sins that Christians must constantly guard against. May every Christian remember the words of Acts 20:35:

Christians should give freely and cheerfully as ordained by God's word. But our giving must be solely to the honor and glory of God and not for selfish reward and gain.

In addition, think about this:

Rev. Patsy Tharp is listed as the pastor of Greater Ministries International Church. A woman pastor? (Mr. Payne is listed as Senior Pastor.)

Peter's clear and solemn warning

 Some thoughts concerning v. 16:



 Peter's final warning to Believers concerning those who force the word of God say something that it does not say:

A final word:

 Deuteronomy 13 tells us that the Lord himself permits unscriptural things to "prosper" to see where lies the hearts of his people.

License? Contract? Coverture?

"Forms" for Coverture marriage available from us, Biblical Examiner. Contact me by e-mail. Bro Need

The following is as contrary to modern thought concerning marriage as light is contrary to darkness. But we do ask the reader to examine it, compare it with the word of God, and act accordingly. Humanistic, man-centered thinking has become so prevalent and accepted even by Christians, that every area of though and life must be seriously reconsidered in the light of God's word. It is time for Christians to go throughout the land and burn the weapons of the enemy, the weapons of humanism. We see from the astounding divorce rate, even among Christians, that one of the major areas that must be reconsidered is the area of marriage. (I would use the term "reconstructed according to God's word," but that the word "reconstruction" is very offensive to some. Not wanting to offend anyone, I will not use that dirty word.)

We are confronted with three terms that can describe a marriage relationship: License, Contract and Coverture. The question we need to address is, "Which term best describes a Godly, Scriptural marriage?" (Definitions are from Webster's 1828 dictionary unless otherwise noted.)

Covert--covering or place of protection and shelter. (Thus a man cannot expect a woman to place herself under his protection unless he places himself under the Lord's protection.) However, we will not start with covert, but with license.
License--"1. Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act... To permit by granting of authority; to remove legal restraint by a grant of permission."

Who must we have the authority from or the permission of for marriage? Answer: The Lord and the parents, father of the man and woman. The state should not enter into this in any way as it does through the state marriage license. When the state grants the license to permit marriage, it can grant the dissolving of the marriage, or refuse to grant a license at all.

Contract--"n. An agreement or covenant between two or more persons, in which each party binds himself to do or forbear some act, and each acquires a right to what the other promises ; a mutual promise upon lawful consideration or cause, which binds the parties to a performance ; a bargain ; a compact... 2. The act by which a man and woman are betrothed, each to the other."

Contract makes a marriage a partnership between the parties involved. A contract implies partners of equal authority and responsibility, which is clearly unscriptural. For a more pressing problem at this point, see below in Blackston's comments.

There are many more passages which fit within this thought. Ephesians 5:22-33, v. 31, the one flesh is under the headship of the husband, not the wife. Nor is marriage presented by God's word as a partnership. Notice also the responsibility given to the man by God. (See also 1 Pet. 3:1-7)

Since the fall, the wife (either as a girl at home under her father, a woman under her husband or even as a woman in the work force [which is difficult to justify from Scripture]) has desired to dominate the authority over her. (Gen. 3:16.) As a result of the fall, she was placed under the man for her own protection. Sin causes her to desire to get out from under this place of safety. It goes without saying that the man also desires to be out from under his proper authority--God's through the Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, the obvious Bible teaching is that marriage places the woman under subjection to and the protection of a man, her husband. License places both under the authority of the state; covenant implies equal footing as partners with equal responsibilities.
The third term we need to examine is
Coverture--"n law, the state of a married woman, who is considered as under cover, or the power of her husband, and therefore called a feme-covert, or femme-covert. The coverture of a woman disables her from making contracts to the prejudice of herself or husband, without his allowance or confirmation." (This is clearly Num. 30.)
Blackston's Commentaries (1.442-445. 1771) discuses Coverture at the close of the chapter, "Of Husbands and Wives." But first let me point out how he opens this chapter:

Then at the end of this chapter we find:

Observe what Blackstone said concerning coverture:

First, the woman loses her being and legal existence and has, in fact, come under the wing, protection and cover of her husband. (See below for Blackstone's statement on this.) Therefore, under coverture, the husband and wife are one person in the eyes of the law. (See Ruth 3:9.)

Under coverture we have the two, a man and the woman, becoming one. On the other hand, under covenant, they remain two separate individuals. Coverture places the family under one head--the husband, who, in a Christian marriage, is under Christ. In a Biblical coverture marriage, the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the family, and he exercises loving, godly family authority through the husband. The Biblical teaching is clear: The husband is to be the covering over his wife. However, when we go to the state to get the state's permission to exist as a married couple, the husband is not providing the covering for his wife--the state is her covering.

Second, the woman submits to the man even as her lord, which is required by 1 Peter 3:6, fitting well in the definition of coverture.

Third, the wife is no longer an independent individual, but can only operate from under her husband's authority. Nor is the husband an independent individual, for he must now act in his wife's best interests. The reference? Christ's actions for the benefit of his body, the church. (Note the Proverb's 31 woman was extremely active in many areas, including industry, but she was not independent--she operated from under her husband's authority.)

Fourth, Blackstone points out that though two single persons enter into contract, the marriage dissolves that contract--a person cannot make a contract with him or her self. Accordingly, a marriage contract is void after marriage, for the one person cannot contract with itself.

Fifth, the husband is bound to provide his wife with necessaries by law, as much as for himself, and if she contracts debts for them, he is obliged to pay them. The debts include any indebtedness from before the marriage, for he willingly adopted her and her circumstances together. Everything, including debts, became his (except the dowry; see below).
Sixth, the husband is responsible for the actions of his wife, even to the point that he may mildly chastise her as he would a child or servant. Nor can she take legal action apart from her husband's concurrence (with very few exceptions, which he lists, which is another reference to Num. 30.)

Seventh, under the Coverture, the two are clearly and distinctly one, as required by the word of God. (Gen. 2:24, Mt. 19:5, 6, Eph. 5:31, etc.) Because the two are one, neither can testify against the other; unless, that is, she was forcibly taken away, and married, and then she may witness against her husband to convict him of felony. But marriage against her will is no marriage. The Fifth Amendment prevents a person from testifying against himself, and it is based in coverture. Obviously the principle of coverture has been removed from our laws. Under the state license and under the contract, the wife can be compelled to testify against her husband.

As a final point, I should mention that the above does not address the Old Testament requirement of a dowry, where the man "bought" his wife. She cost him approximately three years wages, and the money went to her and her estate. He could not touch it, e.g., prenuptial agreements. However, that is not the study at this time.

In Blackston's comments we do find this statement:

Then at the end is this:

As another point, we see that a girl is never on her own, or out from under authority. She must either be under her dad's or husband's authority.

The Vow
Now we should address the vow.
According to Webster: "1. A solemn promise made to God, or by a pagan to his deity.. 2. A solemn promise; as the vows of unchangeable love and fidelity. In a moral and religious sense, vows are promises to God, as they appeal to God to witness their sincerity, and the violation of them is the most heinous offense."

Numbers 30 gives a basic law concerning vows--vv. 2, 3, tell us that a vow is to the Lord. The Wise Man, Solomon, says the same thing. (Ecc. 5:4-6.) Therefore, vows that are made in a wedding ceremony are not to be to each other. Vows to each other are clearly a contract, which, according to Blackstone, is void after the marriage. In a marriage ceremony, we speak of exchanging vows; in doing so, we promised the wrong person, man.

The true marriage ceremony exchanges vows to God in the presence of human witnesses, i.e., the couple promise God in the presence of witnesses. In the Christian ceremony, the vows are to God, not to man.

When the woman agrees to come under the man's protection and covering, she is making that promise to the Lord that she will submit to this man for her own protection. When the man promises to be the covering to the woman--to protect, to provide for, to love and keep her--he is making the promise to God, not to her nor to the preacher.
First, I am not at all advocating, as some do, already married Christian couples "remarrying" with a coverture marriage. I am, however, advocating teaching a new generation of young people the Scriptural truth concerning a Christian marriage. Are we not to bring all things into captivity to Christ, including the marriage ceremony?

Second, this pastor has married several people with the Christian Coverture Marriage, and there have been no "legal" complications at all. In fact, I believe that Louisiana has now made special mention of such marriages without a state license.

Third, we must admit that something is seriously wrong with the "modern" state's marriages, for they are disintegrating at a rapid rate, even among Christians. We know the problem is not with the Lord and his plan as laid out in his word. So the problem must be with man and his misuse of the word of God. We have clearly failed to stress the Biblical basis and requirements of Christian marriages, and the men and women have failed to submit to the Biblical requirements of marriage.
Fourth, before we start saying anything, and maybe laying the blame for social ills on women for not being in the home and submissive to their own husbands, we must remember that Scripture clearly lays the family's and society's ills upon the husband--he is not in submission to the Lord God as required by Scripture. (1 Cor. 11:3, Eph. 5:23.) How can we expect wives to be what they should be before God, under their husbands, when husbands refuse to be what they should be under the Lord Jesus Christ?
Fifth, the crying need of the hour is for men to be men under the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ. Throughout Biblical history, God has raised up women as a reproach to men who refuse to take their God-ordained places in their families and in their society.
And Promise Keepers is not the answer--that is, unless men promise to keep the Ten Commandments. From what I have read of the PK movement, the promises have very little, if anything, to do with the Ten Commandments. Moreover, there are many other very serious Scriptural problems with the PK movement, problems very obvious to those with any Scriptural perception at all. (See and

A group of women's "Promise Keepers" met some time ago in Indianapolis. The organizer said that the purpose of her group was to support their husbands in Promise Keepers. She was emphatic to the lady interviewing her on the local TV news: "We are not about subjection to our husbands. We are about being equal partners with them." Anyone with an ounce of Biblical knowledge can readily see that any movement saying "We are about being equal with one another" is unbiblical. A two headed body is a monster in any society.

"Forms" for Christian Coverture Marriage are available from us: 9017 Stonewall Jackson Hwy, Front Royal VA 22630.

 From Exo. 2.

Moses' personality & righteous judgment

Moses has learned all that Egypt had to offer; now he starts his schooling under the mighty hand of God.
Let's pick up a point from vs. 11-17. There are three events in the couple of days covered in this passage which reveal a great amount about this unusual man, Moses.
1) The first event is in V. 11; he saw their burdens. Moses has been hidden from our view for 40 years; now he appears upon the scene with a genuine concern to help the downtrodden and oppressed. But he had been raised in Egypt, and he knows not how to help; he helps in the way he has been trained, i.e. he kills the Egyptian who is abusing the Hebrew.

Observe: the world meets violence with more violence, and the one who is the most violent is proclaimed the winner. Violence is the expected response from those trained in the very best which the world has to offer.

Notice Pharaoh's response upon hearing about Moses, v. 15. Pharaoh is not against violence toward the oppressed slaves (God's people), rather, he is against violence against his protected, violent servants.

Observe: an ungodly state is not concerned about, and might even encourage, violence against God's people, but any resistance or action against one of its faithful servants, even though that servant may be moving violently against the oppressed, will be met with the wrath of the state. Thus the secular state is not against violence, it is against unauthorized violence which fits not into its overall plan.
Furthermore, Moses sees his chance to show the slave people that he is on their side by killing the Egyptian; he thought that he could do this in secret from Egypt, that the Hebrews would keep his secret and that they would accept his leadership. He knew (believed) that God was going to deliver them, and in his opinion, now was the time.
Edersheim points out that Moses was attempting to carry out spiritual ends by carnal means when he killed the oppressor. No one saw him except the one he defended. Moses found his attempt to do spiritual work through carnal means quick and easy, but he also found God's curse against it. Again we are reminded that Egypt's method is that the end justifies the means. But God will not permit His work to be done thusly. Men may do a great work using carnal means, but is it of God? Moses acted on moral principle, not a principle of race or nationality. Moses' motives were right, but his method of carrying out his motives was wrong.
Observe: no doubt he learned that "might makes right" in Egypt; you can accomplish what you want if you are strong enough to enforce your will. Moses learned the hard way the fallacy of Egypt's teaching. What will it take for modern Christianity to learn that carnal worldly means of doing God's work has God's curse against it?
2) We get a further insight into Moses with the second event, 2:13: he attempts to intervene when two Hebrews are contending with each other. Notice that this time Moses tries to reason with the one doing the wrong, siding with the one being wronged, vs. 12, 13.
Exodus 2:14, those to whom he spoke knew that he was trying to judge between right and wrong. He soon found out that: 1) the Israelites were not interested in proper judgement anymore than were the Egyptians, and 2) the Israelites would have nothing to do with him. Israel would not allow him to come among them. He no doubt planned to join with the covenant people of promise by showing them that he also opposed their oppressors, but they turned against him.

This is not at all the way he had it planned, but Divine Providence had it all worked out. God had to cut him off from Egypt as well as show him the uselessness of human power and wisdom. Did Moses expect to lead an insurrection with the 600,000 men of Israel and come out with armed might? Did Pharaoh see Moses as leading an insurrection?
Moses' righteous judgment

Moses knew in his heart between right and wrong, and tried to judge accordingly, but he had not yet the law nor the authority of God upon which to base his judgment; therefore, he judged both matters, between the Egyptian and the Hebrew and between the two Hebrews, based upon his personal opinion rather than upon the law-word of God. The result was resistance on the part of the ones he tried to judge (the one doing the wrong said, who made thee a prince and a judge over us?).
Even though Moses' opinion was correct, he himself was judged; he had to flee for his life. Returning forty years later, he came back as the most powerful judge ever to walk among men other than Christ; those who did not accept his judgment were under the wrath of God.

The question is raised: "What was the difference? Why is Moses judged by those around him even though he is trying to do right as a 40 year old man, yet 40 years latter all who stand against his judgment are under the wrath of God?" The difference is that the Lord God met Moses in the wilderness, and commissioned him according to God's Word. Moses returned in the name of the Lord with the Lord's authority; he judged in the name of the Lord according to the Word of God. Thus when Moses returned, rather than fleeing from Pharaoh, the Lord through Moses renders Godly judgment against Pharaoh.

Keeping in mind these events in Moses' background, look at the Lord's words, judge not that ye be not judged, Matthew 7:1. Judgment of any action apart from its comparison to God's Word of righteousness is judgment after the manner of this world; the one judging becomes the standard, and such personal standard is strictly forbidden by the Lord, John 7:24 (cf. De 4:8; Ps 119:7, 62, 106, 138, 142, 160, 164). Righteous judgment examines every action, thought, and motive in the light of the law of God; anything less establishes man as his own god, able to determine for himself between good and evil, Hebrews 4:12.

Moses judged properly when he said to him that did the wrong, but he established himself and his Egyptian training as the standard; his judgment was not according to God's law because he did not yet know the law (Ex 2:13, 14).

Furthermore, Moses thought he was doing right, and according to human reasoning and Egyptian education he probably was: he was defending the oppressed with the human wisdom and understanding in which he had been well trained. The point here is that no matter how good one's motives might be, the motive and action must be judged according to the law of God or the one judging will be judged by God and man, Matthew 7:2 (cf. Mk 4:24; Lk 6:38). Clearly, Moses did not use the law of God because he did not yet know it. Nor did the Hebrews use the law in their conflict one with the other, and Moses was judged by them when he tried to judge them.

We are commanded to judge righteous judgment according to the law of God, but we can only do so if we are living righteously, Matthew 7:3. If we are living righteously, then any judgement that might come back upon us must also be righteous judgment. Moses came back at the command of God, doing the will of God; therefore, he returned as a righteous man. Consequently, any who tried to judge him were judged by God. But this did not place Moses above judgment. God judged his disobedient servant when He prevented him from going into Canaan.
Moses flees, v. 15. He didn't fear the wrath of the king in his decision, but after the decision and action were made, the king found out where Moses' heart really was. Moses had to flee for his life. Sought to slay him... indicates that Moses was in a place of authority and the king feared that Moses could lead an insurrection; therefore, the king made subtle plans to do away with Moses.

Let us mention that although God did not move Moses to murder the Egyptian, God used it for His glory. Moses was full of self-confidence from which the Lord had to break him. [Note that our society, both the "Christians" and the pagans, are working extremely hard at building self-confidence in the population. What will the Lord have to do to break the self-confidence which they are working so hard to build?] If Moses had been patient, God would have used other means to train and prepare him to do this mighty work. My, how we need God's grace to tell the difference between self-confidence & God-confidence!

(Hebrews 11:27, contains an interesting statement: By faith he forsook Egypt.. The margin of my Bible gives Ex 10:29 & 12:37, for Heb 11:27, meaning that the verse in Hebrews refers to the second time Moses left Egypt. The authors I checked with identify the statement in Heb 11:27, with Moses' first fleeing from Egypt. The context of v. 27, falls before v. 28, and the passover which released the children of Israel from Egypt. I am more inclined to agree with the marginal reference which says that this statement refers to the second time Moses left Egypt. We are expressly told that the first time he left Egypt he feared for his life, Ex 2:14, 15. The second time Moses left Egypt he did so with a high hand; he went out with no fear of Pharaoh nor dread of what the king might do to him, even though the king was pursuing them, Ex. 14:8. The marginal reference to Exodus 2:14, is Hebrews 11:27; I wish the editors would make up their mind. Therefore, regardless of what I think, we must say that Heb 11:27, refers to the first time he fled Egypt.)

Moses had no doubt that God had called him and would preform a great deliverance for the Hebrews, as well as supply their every need. His confidence in the promised deliverance and provision of God caused him to endure all of the hardships which came with that deliverance.
Exodus 2:15, 16, Moses flees, and we next see him stopped to rest at a well. The location is interesting. Abraham's servant found Isaac a wife at a well; when Jacob deceived his father and fled from the wrath of his brother, he stopped at a well where he met Racheal; Jacob had conflicts over wells with the inhabitants of the land where he was living, and he knew he had peace when he could dig wells with no conflict; Joseph was put in a dry well by his brothers before they sold him into slavery into Egypt; when David's spies fled from Absolom who had usurped the throne in Jerusalem, they were hidden in a well; and, of course, Christ preached one of His most powerful messages sitting on the side of a well, John 4.
We now come to the third event in Moses' life which gives us an insight into his personality, Exodus 2:17. For the third time within a short period, Moses again intervenes on the side of the ones being wronged; he stood for righteousness. Clearly, his personality is caring for the downtrodden and oppressed, judging between right and wrong, then doing something about it. He has not a mousy faith; he stands up for righteousness in the face of all odds and oppression, but he is also judged for not bringing his personality under control.
Three times we are shown Moses' character; therefore, we can draw this conclusion. God uses people within their personality, but their personality must be sanctified. Moses was extremely tender toward the weak and oppressed, but his effort to help them had to be submitted to the Lord.

Empty Promises

Many times in Scripture, we read of God's promise to the nations of "salvation," safety, peace and prosperity. We also read of the world's offer of "salvation," safety, peace and prosperity:

God's Offer

The first encounter of God's promise is in Deuteronomy 33:28, 29 where he promises a land of corn and wine. The condition is faithfulness to his law-word as given through Moses.
The next encounter is 1 Kings 4:25. It was fulfilled in the days of Solomon, viz., every man dwelt safely under his vine and under his fig tree.
The next encounter, after Isaiah 36, is in Jeremiah 23:6. This time, it is given to the people of God who obey his word under the reign of THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
The next encounter is Micah 4:4. The context of this passage is v. 2, the law going forth out of Zion. During the Gospel Church age, as the truth (thy law is the truth, Ps 119:142) goes out from faithful pulpits (Heb. 12:22, Isa. 26:1) and his believe and do it, the waring nations turn to peace. That peace is depicted by every man under his vine and under his fig tree...
The last encounter is Zechariah 3:10. Again, the reference is to the time when God is glorified as God, and King Jesus is served as King.
The World's Offer
Notice the offer made by Sennacherib to God's Israel under Hezekiah: vv. 16, 17, are almost identical to the other passages mentioned. The placing of this offer is significant.
The promise made through Moses was that as God's covenant people obeyed their Redeemer's word, he would provide for them prosperity and salvation from social ills.
Following the reign of godly king David, the promised son of peace came. Under him, the covenant people saw the promise fulfilled. But as the people departed from the word of their Redeemer's word, the promises departed from them.
Notice where Sennacherib's offer of peace and prosperity is located. It is between the point of it being fulfilled (Solomon) and its renewal under the promised king, King Jesus.
Sennacherib makes the same offer to God's covenant-people as was made to them by their God through Moses. Both offers required service. The difference was that Snnacherib's offer would be fulfilled by coercion in his land, making it a land of captivity and servitude. The offer by the Lord would be fulfilled in their own land, making it a land of freedom.
The Lord's offer was conditioned on obedience to the law of God. Sennacherib's offer was conditioned on obedience to the laws of man. Both offers were offers of salvation, prosperity and freedom.
Rather than accept the offer of salvation from this pagan, Hezkiah turned him down; he sought the Lord with one of the greatest prayers in Scripture. (37:14-20.) The result of Hezekiah's faith was that God marvelously showed himself strong in behalf of his people.
Today's Offer
The Lord God has clearly shown his people the way of salvation, prosperity and freedom, viz., This is the way, walk ye in it. (Isa. 30:21.) The way is the total word of our God. The way has been proven over and over to be the path of life, salvation and prosperity.
But the pagan king has also made his offer of salvation and prosperity. His plan for life and salvation differs dramatically from God's plan. The pagan king offers life and salvation through a multitude of programs, e.g., education, more man made and man centered laws (centralized control, socialism), more money, more debt, more freedom to do ones own thing and more freedom from God. The endless list can be submersed as whatever is opposite of the Lord's requirements upon mankind as revealed in his word.

The difference between Hezekiah's situation and our day is that he readily saw the offer for what it was --- an attack against God. In our day, the average Christian sees no threat from the pagan's offer of salvation apart from the Lord God. Not only do they see no threat, but they have believed the pagan offer, and are totally sold out to achieve the pagan's salvation.

By His Sovereign Grace Alone,
Bro Need

[an error occurred while processing this directive]