Truth and Christianity
The Christian religion places a tremendous premium on truth. If Christianity is not true, then it is not worth following. Indeed, that is the ultimate test as to whether a religion should be followed or not. All other reasons may well be secondary at best.
People should not just choose Christianity because it works, although it does indeed work. People should not choose Christianity because it helps us to be better people, although it certainly does do that. People should not choose Christianity because it emphasises love and peace, although it does do that.
Ultimately, one should accept or reject Christianity based on whether or not it is in fact true. That is the ultimate test, and the only vital test to pin one’s hopes on. If the gospel of Jesus Christ is not true, then it needs to be rejected entirely, and not merely trawled for any possible helpful bits.
C.S. Lewis was insistent on this: “The great difficulty is to get modern audiences to realize that you are preaching Christianity solely and simply because you happen to think it true; they always suppose you are preaching it because you like it or think it good for society or something of that sort. Now a clearly maintained distinction between what the Faith actually says and what you would like it to have said or what you understand or what you personally find helpful or think probable, forces your audience to realize that you are tied to your data just as the scientist is tied by the results of the experiments; that you are not just saying what you like. This immediately helps them realize that what is being discussed is a question about objective fact — not gas about ideals and points of view.”
The Apostle Paul made this clear when he stated that if Christ did not rise from the dead, then our faith is in vain, and we might as well give it all away. Sadly however many people do not have a clear understanding of the essence of the Christian faith, so it is often grossly misrepresented in public discourse.
Many non-believers who may have some sympathy for Christianity can easily mangle the Christian message, and end up parading a caricature of the faith. For example, often non-believers will go on about the ethics of Jesus, or what a nice loving person he was, yet seek to either ignore or play down his actual teachings.
But the truth is, we can no more separate the ethics of Jesus from the teachings of Jesus than we can separate the roof of a house from its walls. The one is based on, and no good without, the other. Yet people often want to divorce the two.
Consider a recent example of a major misreading of who Jesus was and why he came. Columnist Andrew Bolt often has a lot of good to say. As a conservative – yet non-believing – thinker, he usually makes very good sense, and I probably agree with him some 85 per cent of the time.
But when he wades into religious topics, especially Christianity, he messes things up big time. Thus when he quite brazenly chose to write about Jesus for a Christmas day column in the Herald Sun back in 2001 he really got things quite wrong. I was in fact quite disturbed by his total misrepresentation of the Christian faith, so I wrote a column-length response, and submitted it to the paper. It was not printed, so I eventually placed it on my own website: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2003/12/25/another-look-at-jesus/
But he was at it again this week. He wrote a piece about his time in Jerusalem, and complained about how the city is home to such deep religious differences. He complains about these glaring divisions, “As it is, it now stands as a memorial to division, and especially to the way faiths can cut us off from the rest of humanity.”
He does not want to see these sorts of divisions back here, and closes his article with these words: “We’re better off sticking to the creed we’ve developed and now demonstrate so beautifully, if imperfectly, in this country – that people are judged best by their character, and not their skin, faith, sect, origin or ancestry. Really, that was the essence of Christ’s preaching, too, or so St Paul said to the non-Jews he sought to embrace.”
Sorry Andrew, but nothing doing. This was not at all the heart of Jesus’ teaching, or Paul’s for that matter. What they both preached was a message which is much less popular: all of us are estranged from God because of our sin and selfishness. We need a mediator between ourselves and God, and Jesus claimed to be that sole mediator.
He took our sins upon himself, suffering the penalty for them, so that we can be reconciled to God. This is only achieved by agreeing with God about our condition: we are sinners heading to a lost eternity, and we need to personally appropriate what God in Christ has done on our behalf.
That is the Gospel message. Sure, out of that restored relationship with God, all sorts of good things follow. The transformed character and social harmony that Bolt desires are indeed some of the many by-products that come with Christian conversion.
But Bolt wants all the benefits and goods of Christianity, without the only way of obtaining them. Christianity is not just about trying to be nice, or pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps, or moral self-reformation, or doing charitable deeds.
No, Christianity is about being made right with God through Christ. And that must take place on God’s terms, not ours. An impartial reading of the Gospels will make it clear that humanity is in dire straits; that a radical solution to our problem is needed; and that the solution is provided for by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Bolt is of course right to be concerned about global peace and social cohesion. Unity is usually preferable to divisions, and love and harmony certainly trump hatred and enmity. But what we are dealing with here are world religions that offer some very different truth claims.
I am not sure why he can expect anything other from the major religious traditions. After all, at heart they are mutually exclusive. One need not even believe in a personal God to be a Buddhist. A Hindu can believe in millions of gods. Even monotheistic religions like Islam and Christianity differ fundamentally.
For example, in the same Jerusalem that Bolt has recently been to stands the Dome of the Rock. Written on its walls are quotes from the Koran in Arabic. One of these quotes is this: “I [Allah] have no son, and whoever says he is my son is a liar.”
If Bolt would carefully read the Gospels, he would notice that time and time again Jesus claims to be God’s son. If this is true, then Islam is false. Conversely, if Islam is true, then Christianity must necessarily be false. They both cannot be true.
Thus the deep-seated religious divisions which Bolt seems uncomfortable with are simply not going to go away; not when rival truth claims are at stake. And Jesus was most insistent on proclaiming that not all roads lead to God, and that there are in fact false prophets and teachers in the world who are deceiving many.
Contrary to Bolt, the essence of the teachings of Jesus is not some feel good ecumenicism, or some baloney about how we are all one big happy religious family. Quite the opposite. Jesus warned that those who do not come to God by means of himself are doomed to a lost eternity. He said that he did not come to bring peace, but division. He talked about separating the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the chaff.
No one objectively reading the words of Jesus as recorded in the four Gospels can come up with any sort of religious omelette, wherein differing religious eggs are nicely mixed up into one generic product. Jesus would have nothing of this sort of silliness. He did not come into the world so that we could feel good about ourselves. He did not come simply to offer sagacious ethical advice.
Lewis is again right on the money: “You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
Indeed, Jesus made it clear that one’s eternal destiny depended on how one responded to his life and teachings. He told those who claimed to have God as their father, yet refused to accept him, that they were instead of their father the devil. Not very reconciliatory talk there.
That is because Jesus knew that truth was important, and that religious falsehood would lead people away from God, away from eternal life, and away from genuine community. So by all means, let us try to get along where possible.
But at the end of the day, the truth question cannot be swept under the carpet. Either Jesus was who he claimed to be, or he was not. If he was, then our response to him and his claims is of utmost importance, and nothing else in this life will measure up to the importance of this most enduring of decisions.
24 Replies to “Truth and Christianity”
True, true, true!
I think that Christianity has these problems because science has disproved many events in the Bible. If an atheist successfully convinces you that there is no God, then you must give up your beliefs.
To be honest, I’m not hostile to Christians at all (evangelistic atheists get on my nerves), but are you ready to defend your faith against people who have the data to disprove you?
Rawle N. Lucas
But how exactly has science disproved events in the Bible?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
This type of claim … Jesus said …”people are judged best by their character, and not their skin, faith, sect, origin or ancestry” etc, is unfortunately also the same sort of error (make that -lie) that sprouts forth from the leaders of our major Christian denominations in their Easter & Christmas messages to the people of Oz.
Andrew Bolt does not admit to any sort of new birth so we can understand he is not speaking as a believer. What about our friends in fancy dress costumes above? Same category?
Great article Bill. There is a lot of ‘noise’ in our Christian world – let’s cut through it to what really matters. Jesus Christ and Him risen.
We are not called to be tolerant of other ‘ways’ which are a lie, but first we need to be able to recognise truth. I pray that more unreserved truth is preached from our pulpits this coming Sunday to divide the light from the dark.
Bill, I have only recently discovered your website and I would like to say what a blessing it has been to daily read your comments, insights and reviews. Your ministry is keeping me up-to-date and alert as to how developments in the world about me is impacting my faith as a Christian. Thankyou!
Many thanks Grahame
I appreciate the positive feedback. It is good to know that this site is doing a bit of good. Given my many critics, one wonders at times!
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Perhaps what Bolt is confusing himself and others with is the fact that indeed God’s love is impartial. He sends the rain and the sun on the just and the unjust. He does not want any to be lost. Christ came not to condemn but to save; but this offer only lasts as long as a man’s lifetime. After that it is time for judgement and the separating of sheep and goats.
Matthew 13:24-30: Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn’.”
And just so that people understood what he was saying he spelt it out:
Matthew 13:37-43: “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.”
David Skinner, UK
I accept that Christianity is completely true, though I admit an imperfect understanding of it all.
I do wonder, though, how the apostles or early church would have reacted to the ‘clique’ modern Christianity seems to have become. I suspect that the poor would have been helped (whether Muslim poor or Christian), the hungry would have been fed (whether saved or lost), and the naked would have been clothed (whether Hindu, Pagan, or agnostic).
You are correct, of course, when you say that Islam shares nothing in common with Christianity, but I wonder if that, outside of a theological debate, is irrelevant. “Love your neighbor” meant more than just the person next door, who looks, acts, speaks, and believes like you.
I am a conservative Christian, though recently I have begun to rethink exactly what and why I believe what I do. I find that, looking at other Christians, I see something – a glaring lack of Christian Love in their daily life. I see it in my own life, and it scares me.
I am not suggesting that I should study Islam, go to a mosque, and accept the Koran as “Truth”. I am suggesting, though, that I spread Christ’s Love with a soft heart, not beating people with the gospel but showing them the truth of scriptures through my own life. “Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words” is not a bad roadmap for the perfect Christian life. Some will not “convert”, but that is between them and God, not me.
Sorry for rambling. I stumbled across your site while looking for other reviews of “Velvet Elvis” (which I liked, mostly, but found some arguments a little unpersuasive).
There is no question that we all can be a lot more like Jesus in terms of love and compassion. But unlike the emergent church folk, I see absolutely no dichotomy between affirming the importance of love, and affirming the importance of truth. We must do both, simultaneously. Indeed, we are told to “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). So yes let us all be more loving, but never at the expense of truth.
Thus you have me a bit worried when you say, “Islam shares nothing in common with Christianity, but I wonder if that, outside of a theological debate, is irrelevant”. But how in the world could it be irrelevant? I am sure we can find many Muslims who seem to be quite loving. Is that all there is? If they are loving, does it therefore matter not at all that they deny the very heart of the Christian faith? Will a Hindu or an atheist who seems to be loving be going to heaven?
How can truth be irrelevant? If that were the case, all the great church councils and creeds were simply a waste of time. Indeed, most of the New Testament could be abandoned, since it deals so much with issues of doctrine, truth and right belief.
You mention “Love your neighbor”. This of course was preceded by the first great commandment: to love God with all of our being. We can only love our neighbour when we are first right with God, through Christ. Loving God means loving him on his terms. That includes truth. We are to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).
So while you rightly seek to be more loving – something we all should be aiming for as a priority – please do not do it at the expense of truth. One without the other is a dead end, and not reflective of biblical Christianity.
So let us all press on to be both more loving and more concerned about truth. We need to encourage one another in both areas. Sorry too if I am rambling. But thanks for sharing your thoughts.
BTW, I deal with these topics more fully in other articles, such as:
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Well said, Bill.
I have wondered how to respond to Andrew’s column, and everything I thought of eventually became too long – yes, 1500-1600 words probably.
I even thought about rebutting his argument about the visible signs of disunity among the so-called Christian denominations, by referring to the hidden work going on to bring the gospel – both spiritual and social – to the region. But cross-border reconciliation doesn’t make headlines or newspaper copy.
How about sending Andrew a link to your article?
Hi George, thanks for your candid post. You seem authentic in your Christian walk – as in, you say where you are without trying to sugar coat it or excuse it. It is when we are honest with ourselves, when we ask what we truly believe, what truths we would die defending, and whether they are reflected our lives, that we come to a reality of our selves and our faith.
George, can I suggest that there are actually many good examples of Christian lives, of people living out a relevant and authentic Christian life consecrated to Jesus Christ, if we are looking to find them. If you wish to be renewed in your spirit and mind as to how to live, can I recommend “Compelled By Love” or “There Is Always Enough” by Heidi Baker, a Western missionary to Mozambique who, with her husband, have spearheaded a movement of God that is nothing short of amazing. However, their simplicity and authenticity in following Jesus is what really stands out.
The truth of our condition though, is that we are not good – there is only One who is good, and it is through Him and by Him that we can experience and do good in our lives. I was having this very discussion with a parishioner today – as we are saved by grace and live by faith alone 1 Tim 2:17, we must understand our depravity before God that requires a new heart to be put in us, that of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit. So we cannot be ‘good’ of ourselves for our unredeemed intentions are driven by self-interest, but true ‘good’ is driven by God’s love. For true ‘good’ is that of placing the best for others entirely before ourselves and that requires us to walk in the power of the Holy Spirit – we cannot do it in our own strength – it’s impossible.
So the Christian life is an impossibility, made possible by Christ. As such it is reasonable and true to say that there is only one way to living a ‘good’ life and that is through Christ and Him living in and through us. Remember that grace abounds to all, saved and unsaved alike and the commandments of God if followed have universal reward to unbelievers and believers alike – as such you will see good works being carried out by many.
So if you see a lack of love in the walk of Christians around you or in your own life, as in mine, it is purely a result of not dying to self and living to Christ, for it is purely through Him that we come to love others with a pure motivation. A life of good works so results by a life lived with a pure heart and clean hands before the Lord, committed to serving and loving others. However we must remember that ‘works’ in, of and by themselves are empty unless they proceed out of the pure motivation to love others, through faith.
My simplification of this my fellow parishioner was as such: The difference (and at its core it is absolute) is in ‘being’ a Christian not ‘doing’ Christian things. A bee does the things a bee should do, because he is a bee. He doesn’t do them to to become a bee. Likewise we don’t become sinners because we sin – we sin because we are sinners. And again, we do not become a Christian because we do things a Christian does (for in that we can’t of ourselves), we do the things that Christian should because we are a Christian.
In a nutshell, as harsh as this may sound, if we do not do the things Christian (love one another) should do then maybe we are purely attempting to display the trappings and image of Christ-likeness. I should know – that’s where I lived for many years, having a life that displayed a form of godliness but lacked love and power, and I have a long way to go yet before it reflects the lives of many noble souls that mentor me from afar through their lives and love.
Bill, the same thing happened in my university (Sydney) “newspaper/magazine”. The topic was the church’s “outrageous stance against homosexuality” and we had not one but two letters (one written by a Christian even) affirming that Jesus Christ would “want” us to encourage any ‘love’, even that between two men or women. Good fortune was it that another Christian replied to ‘get the facts straight’ for readers (my own response wasn’t printed).
I forget who said it originally, but I remember the saying “Everybody wants Jesus on their side of the debate”.
Tristan Ingle, Sydney
Lewis: “you are preaching Christianity solely and simply because you happen to think it true”
That is weak assertion. It sounds defensive. Just HAPPEN to THINK it true? Why not “KNOW it to be true”? Or firmly believe it to be true? If you deeply believe your religion to be true then you ought not to put the expression of the fact on the level of a mundane yawn.
His statement is false anyway. Sermons are preached because Christ did more than merely happen to think his propositions were true.
From Tristan’s post: “Jesus Christ would “want” us to encourage any ‘love’, even that between two men or women.”
If Jesus believed that he would have said so and specified the age of consent. One of course can play endless word-games about what Jesus would have wanted or would have said. If he had met a Greek man “in love” with his adolescent boy, shacked up in Jerusalem, would he have encouraged it? When Christ’s early followers entered ancient Greece to preach and convert, with His words fresh in their minds, did they applaud the homosexual practices for which the Greeks had a reputation?
But you are being unnecessarily harsh on C.S. Lewis. Indeed, you seem to be misreading him. He certainly was not weak in his affirmation of the truthfulness of Christianity.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I agree with your comments, but would like to add something from the perspective of a Gen X-er who spends much time with Gen Y!
I think that the essence of the Gospel is love. Love without truth is, of course, not love. I agree that the church, and many of my Christian friends, are in grave danger of preaching a Christianity so beige that it cannot possibly make the difference that Jesus designed it to. I agree that we have chosen the soft option too many times.
However, I also think that if we only preach Christianity as truth based, then we risk alienating people before we start. A wise man once said that in order for people to accept salvation, they first need to understand that they are in need of saving. My generation do not believe that they need saving or rescuing (however misguided they might be!). They do not believe that they are lost. They do not believe that they are sinners.
What they do believe, and do acknowledge, is that they are lonely. That their lives are not achieving fullness of purpose. It is my generation who are picking up the call to abolish slavery in their generation, to attack climate change (whatever people’s thoughts on the validity of that issue), and to preserve the environment. I see in this a desire for purpose, to make a difference to something bigger than themselves.
It seems like a tough tightrope to walk, but perhaps if we preached a God who loves them, Jesus who died because he loves them, a Father who wants to give them a calling that will have an eternal legacy, an omnipotent God who says that they have value – exactly as they are – then maybe people would listen.
As the father of the prodigal son first hugged his son, and THEN changed his filthy clothes, so it is with God.
It is our job to understand this love, and preach this. It is also our job to be open and clear on what Jesus taught with no holds barred. But ultimately, it is God’s job to bring people to a place where they see their sin, and their need for forgiveness.
It seems to me, therefore, that a relational perspective on God would be a better place to start than a legal perspective. It seems to me that people will be more open if we first tell them that they are loved, and invite them to discover for themselves what Jesus really said, than if we first tell them how bad they are, or that they have broken a covenant that they had no idea about.
Both are obviously vital. The question for me is where to start.
Yes as I mention in my article, we certainly need to affirm both. As John Stott puts it “Our love for others is not to undermine our loyalty to the truth. On the other hand, we must never champion the truth in a harsh or bitter sprit. . . . Out love grows soft if it is not strengthened by truth, and our truth grows hard if it is not softened by love.”
As to your comment: “It seems to me that people will be more open if we first tell them that they are loved, and invite them to discover for themselves what Jesus really said, than if we first tell them how bad they are, or that they have broken a covenant that they had no idea about,” it seems you have provided the answer yourself with your earlier comment: “A wise man once said that in order for people to accept salvation, they first need to understand that they are in need of saving.”
Ultimately the good news of the Gospel makes no sense unless one first comprehends the bad news. As you say, how best to do all this is always a good question, and we need the Spirit’s leading as we talk to people. Different emphases may well be needed for different people.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
This strikes a chord with me Janna. I truly believe that the church needs to be powerful and relevant before it can be heard. But that relevance is not worldly cultural assimilation or political/social activism but by signs and wonders and preaching the Good News. True relevance in hurting, desperate world is the demonstration of God’s love in practical ways, ‘love with legs’, and the power is the signs and wonders so that people may be able and open to hear the truth: repent and be baptised for your eternal destiny is at stake.
Of course we’d need a church whose heart was breaking for the lost and which was clean and pure hearted so it could carry the weight of God’s glory…
Thanks for another excellent exposition of the truth issues in our society. When we ask the question, “What is truth?” I am convinced that we ought to move beyond the difference between falsehood and that which is the opposite, truth (not a lie).
Doug Groothuis has written a brief article whose emphasis I support: “What is truth?” (http://www.leaderu.com/theology/groothuis-truth.html) The article begins:
“When Pontius Pilate interrogated Jesus before his crucifixion, Jesus proclaimed that “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” (John 18:37). To this, Pilate replied “What is truth?” and immediately left Jesus to address the Jews who wanted Christ crucified (v. 38). As Francis Bacon wrote in his essay “On Truth,” “‘What is truth?’ said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer.” Although we have no record of any reply by Jesus, Christians affirm that Pilate was staring Truth in the face, for Jesus had earlier said to Thomas, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).
“This exchange raises the perennial question of the nature of truth. What does it mean for a statement to be true? This has been a subject of much debate in postmodernist circles, where the traditional view of truth as objective and knowable is no longer accepted. Many even outside of academic discussions may be as cynical about truth as Pilate. “What is truth?” they smirk, without waiting for an answer. But unless we are clear about the notion of truth, any religious claim to truth–Christian or otherwise–will perplex more than enlighten. Before attempting to determine which claims are true, we need to understand the nature of truth itself.
“I will briefly argue for the correspondence view of truth and then pit it against two of its main rivals, relativism and pragmatism. The correspondence view of truth, held by the vast majority of philosophers and theologians throughout history until recently, holds that any statement is true if and only if it corresponds to or agrees with factual reality. The statement, “the desk in my study is brown,” is true only if there is, in fact, a brown desk in my study. The statement, “there is no brown desk in my study,” is false because it fails to correspond to any objective state of affairs (i.e., to the facts of the matter). . .”
Groothuis, in emphasising that truth is that which corresponds to reality, concludes that: “When this is established, we can move on to considering which particular statements are true and reasonable and which are not. Unlike Pilate, we can stay and listen to what Jesus has to say to us.”
Spencer: “we ought to move beyond the difference between falsehood and that which is the opposite, truth (not a lie).”
Spencer seems to be giving us advice but I have no idea what he means. The differences between true propositions and false propositions are relevant facts specified by the meanings of the propositions. And if you heed the correspondence theory, the difference is reality. So what are we doing by moving beyond these differences?
As for Mr Groothuis, I would like to see how he harmonises his particular theory of truth with moral truths, analytical truths and metalogical claims. What does a true theoretical statement about correspondence between true propositions and reality correspond with anyway? And why is reality left undefined? Leaving the door open to pixies?
I thought Bolt attacked a straw man. He talked about a division between Christian denominations fighting over a church. The cause of the conflict is not theological and I’m guessing the division doesn’t exist outside of the conflict surrounding the ownership of the church in the countries were the denominations originate (some of the Eastern Orthodox churches may well be in communion with Rome). So the cause of the conflict was not on the basis of differences of faith in as much as it was about a location which had little to do with any wider divisionism in the context of which Bolt was talking of.
You wrote of Dr. Groothuis:
“As for Mr Groothuis, I would like to see how he harmonises his particular theory of truth with moral truths, analytical truths and metalogical claims. What does a true theoretical statement about correspondence between true propositions and reality correspond with anyway? And why is reality left undefined? Leaving the door open to pixies?”
I provided your comment to Dr. Groothuis and overnight he came back with this response:
“What do pixies have to do with anything?
“Murder is wrong” is true because the proposition “Murder is wrong” objectively exists in the mind of God. The same for analytical truths. There is a difference between the statement made by us and the proposition (or abstract object) that makes it true. These are eternally in the mind of God. I deal with this to some extent in chapter three of Truth Decay,
Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary
Truth Decay is available from Koorong: ttp://orders.koorong.com/search/details.jhtml?code=0851115241
As a Christian for fifty years, I found that history compliments Christianty. Most people forget, that Jesus said it was important to go back to the Father, so he could send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit to live in us, and my spirit knows he is living in me.
There are so many false prophets, churches, and now as a nation, that has been blessed more than any other. But!! Now God is removing his blessings, and our great country is crumbling down. We can cross the Ts, and dot the Is, but first we have got to repent, and mean it, so God can heal our land again. I pray we do so, as time is short. Thank you for nice site, and I look forward to joining all of you.