Steve Lortz

"Away with all attempts to introduce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic and dialectic composition!" That's what Tertulian wrote somewhere in North Africa sometime around the turn of the third century. What was this "dialectic" that Tertulian so despised? Was it some abstract philosophical notion invented by Hegel? Dialectic is the middle form of the trivium in classical education, which consists of three progressive forms: grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. Grammar form is roughly equivalent to elementary or grade school (which is why they are sometimes called "grammar schools") The dialectic form is similar to middle school, and rhetoric form is like high school. In the grammar form, the students are taught to deal with questions that have rote answers. The primary method of instruction is lecture, where the instructor presents material and the learner passively listens and memorizes. In the dialectic form, the students are introduced to dealing with questions that don't have rote answers. The answers to these questions have to be arrived at through critical thinking. The primary method of instruction is dialogue in which the learners actively particpate by proposing answers and then by critiquing each others answers. The instructor guides the discussion by modelling critical thinking. Dialectic is sometimes called the "logic form" because it is the form where the students are instructed in formal logic. In the rhetoric form, the students learn the depth and detail of particular subject areas by applying the tools of dialectic, critical thinking, to the bodies of knowledge (or information) that have been built up in those areas. The crowning point of the student's progress through the forms is the oral presentation and defense of a thesis (or research paper) to a question that the student has him- or herself devised. The goal of classical education is not first to teach the students how to come up with answers, but rather to teach the students how to come up with pertinent questions, and then how to find appropriate answers. This was how Tertulian was educated. The dialectic that Tertulian desired to banish from his theology was critical thinking, as developed through persuasive dialogue, or in other words, Tertulian didn't want anybody to ask any questions about what he was teaching. He was reading meanings into the scriptures instead of out from them, and he didn't want his followers to notice. In the last half of his life, or so, Tertulian became a promoter of Montanism. The Montanist movement stood in relationship to mainsteam Christianity then as Pentecostalism stands in relation to mainstream Christianity today. Tertulian didn't find regular Montanism legalistic enough to suit his tastes, so he formed his very own cult which became extremely legalistic, but survived until the time of Augustine. Tertulian was a prototype Wierwille at the turn of the third century. Now my observant reader might ask, "How did you learn that stuff, Steve? I couldn't find it using any search engines?" For several years I taught Humane Letters to the lower dialectic students, fresh out of learning all the rote answers, at a Christian classical academy. It was my job to shock them into realizing that they had to start thinking, and to start teaching them how to do it. There were a number of high points in the year for the school as a whole: the field trip to the opera at Indiana University, the Regency Ball (which was sort of like a costume, early-1800s prom), the school play, the lower rhetoric form's declamations in Latin and the upper rhetoric form's presentations of their theses. The high point of the year for the middle rhetoric form (11th grade) students was a formal debate held before all the dialectic and rhetoric students and the faculty. The juniors were separated into two debate teams. One team championed the position of Justin Martyr, the other stood for Tertulian. The moot was "Philosphy is of no use to Christians." We faculty members were long familiar with both sides of the argument, and we were equal-opportunity "grillers" when the debate came to the "questions from the audience" part. That was our job... as well as our fun! Wierwille's declaration, "We DARE NOT say 'I think it means...'", in the middle of teaching "No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation", in the middle of a class which consisted entirely of Wierwille's own P.I., stands right up there with Tertulian's declaration, "Away with all attempts to introduce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic and dialectic composition." "Training" in Tertulian's cult... or TWI... never went beyond the grammar stage. Why anybody would applaud the suppression of discussion on a website that consists of nothing more than the discussion that was forbidden by TWI is something that is beyond me. Love, Steve

I agree. I'm continuing the Tertulian discussion over on the Exegesis vs. Eisegesis thread. Love, Steve

I did a teaching at one of CES' Chicago meetings, I think it was about 1990, primarily based on Luke 22:24-27 and Hebrews 13:7. John Lynn had me redo the teaching on one of their monthly tapes. I was moved by Jesus' rejection of pyramidal hierarchies with power flowing from the top to the bottom, like we had experienced in TWI. John, John and Mark seemed to pick up on the leader-as-servant idea for awhile, but it was totally wiped away by the Momentus tsunami. I've been working on a bachelor of science in Organizational Leadership, finishing a degree that I originally started 43 years ago. Our cohort did a Leadership Seminar module back in January, and one of the texts we used was a 60 page essay called The Servant as Leader by Robert K. Greenleaf. Greenleaf was one of the prominent business gurus of the mid-to-late 20th century, and his pamphlet was originally published in 1970 (the same year I dropped out of college and joined the Navy). I think Greenleaf drew his inspiration from Luke 22:24-27, but his essay was not an exposition of scripture. It was about how various leaders down through history have exercized leadership, and how those who have viewed their function as serving their constituents (or "stakeholders" according to the current fashion) have achieved better results than those view their function as lording it over their followers (as we all saw with TWI). It's very interesting to see how the idea has traveled around. Love, Steve

In the latest issue of Fantastic Four (#578), Johnny Storm goes to a nightclub he describes this way, "It was an all-inclusive performance art/spa/self-help shrine/bar called The Other Side of Zero." Love, Steve

I've spent part of my leisure today reading several articles from various sources about "sin nature", and tracking the words "nature" and "natural" in the King James Version. Geisha asked me if I thought Jesus had a sin nature. THE LONG ANSWER (if this stuff makes your eyes glaze over and reminds you too much of an in-residence lecture by Walter Cummins, skip to THE SHORT ANSWER) If I were forced to give a "yes" or "no" answer, I'd have to say "no", but not for the same reason others might. I don't find the phrase "sin nature" in the Bible. What I DO find is a section of Romans dealing with sin and what a Christian's attitude should be toward it. The section begins with the question "Should we continue in sin that grace may abound?" in Romans 6:1, and ends with the final verses of chapter 8 where we learn that nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Paul uses at least four analogies in this section of Romans and several other devices to illustrate how Christians should regard sin. Paul uses the contrast of law and grace, the contrast of being dead and alive in relation to baptism, the analogy of being a servant to sin in relation to obedience, the wages of sin versus the gift of God, the analogy of being a wife to sin and then becoming a widow, the idea of being carnally minded versus being spiritually minded, and the contrast of walking in accordance with the flesh versus walking in accordance with the Spirit. Nowhere in these three chapters does the word "nature" occur. I think that the phrase "sin nature" was coined by later theologians to simplify the arguments Paul made in Romans 6-8 and at other places in his writings. Some of the meanings we attach to the phrase "sin nature" seem to me to be Biblically accurate, but some others do not. Part of the reason for this is that the meaning of the English word "nature" has changed since the time of the King James translators at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment. To pursue these changes, I would have to go spend some time with the unabridged Oxford dictionary. Part of the reason I think the phrase "sin nature" is not very instructive is because the concept of "nature" that the King James translators held in 1611 AD didn't exist in antiquity. This can be seen from the variety of Greek words the KJV translators forced together to get the one word "nature". Genesis, "beginning" or "birth", is translated "natural" twice. Variations of phusis, or "physical," are translated "nature" or "natural" most often, while the word psuchikos, or "soulish", is even translated "natural" a few times. The word pneuma, or "spirit" didn't mean the same thing we think of today, either. To us "spirit" is the substance of a parallel, immaterial cosmos inaccessible to the senses, but that meaning didn't come into popular use until several generations after the New Testament had already been written. I don't know exactly what the word pneuma meant to Paul, but I've got a good idea of what it meant to his readers of Gentile background, and the differences aren't simple. There were four generally recognized elements, earth, water, air and fire. The literal meaning of pneuma was "wind" or the element air set in motion by being admixed with the element fire. No part of the cosmos was pure except for the region of fire (the heavenlies). The rest of the cosmos consisted of the four elements mixed in different proportions. Pneuma extended throughout the cosmos where it performed four functions, hexis or "habit", phusis or "nature", psuche or "soul" and nous or "mind". It was by performing the function of hexis that spirit gave form and persistence to all things, both animate and inanimate. Spirit gave growth life and the ability to reproduce to plants, animals, people (earth elementals), demons (air elementals) and gods (fire elementals) through phusis. Psuche was how spirit imparted sentience and the power to move to animals, people, demons and gods. The function of nous was how spirit imparted intelligence to people, demons and gods. I don't think Paul himself necessarily thought of these things these ways, but the Christians of Gentile background to whom he addressed his letters sure did, and he must have taken that into account as he wrote. So how would Paul have responded to the question "Did Jesus have a sin nature?" I can honestly say, "I don't know." THE SHORT ANSWER Did Jesus have a sin nature? No. Was Jesus capable of sinning? Yes. At every point in his life, from the time he reached the age of accountability (whenever that was) until he breathed out his last on the cross, he could have decided to disobey God. Did he ever decide to disobey God? No. Thankfully he did not. Would eating Passover with his disciples before he suffered have been sin? I believe it would have been. I think Jesus died on the cross at the same time the passover lambs were being slaughtered, and I believe God had a purpose for the timing. If, in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus had said, "Yeah, I'm okay with the suffering part, but I'm just gonna put it off a couple of days because I really, REALLY wanna eat Passover with my peeps", that would have been disobedience and sin. Jesus would have risen to the bait, but he didn't. He said, "Not my will, but thine be done." Jesus DECIDED to do his Father's will, even though he didn't want to. Yes, Jesus was tempted in all things like as we are. But he was also tempted in ways no one else ever has been, thankfully, without sin. Love, Steve

Thank you for your quick response, geisha! I logged on to tell you that you no longer needed to explain "sin nature", to me. I googled the phrase. Duh. I am very glad for the discourse you share with me. You force me to view the things I think from a perspective other than my own, and I have found yours to be a thoughtful and considered perspective. Your question about "sin nature" didn't throw me because of the word sin. It threw me because of the word "nature." Paul and his readers didn't understand that word the same way you and I have been taught to understand it. If I answered your question with a simple "yes" or "no." You wouldn't have understood what I intended to communicate, whatever way I answered it. More later... Love, Steve

I don't underastand what you mean by the phrase "sin nature". Could you please explain? Love, Steve

James 1: "12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation [peirasmos 'trial', 'proof']: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. "13 Let no man say when he is tempted [peirazo 'to try'], I am tempted [peirazo] of God: for God cannot be tempted [apeirastos 'incapable of trial'] with evil, neither tempteth [peirazo] he any man: "14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust [epithumia 'over-desire'], and enticed [deleazo 'to catch by bait']. "15 Then when lust [epithumia] hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." People are tempted when they allow their own over-desires to draw them beyond what God wants them to properly desire, and the adversary puts bait in front of them. If the people don't go for the bait, there is no sin. Sin is brought forth when the people go for the bait. Hebrews 4: "14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. "15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted [peirazo] like as we are, yet without sin. "16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. Jesus was indeed tempted in all things like as we are. He was occassionally drawn away of his own over-desire. He was yet without sin because He never rose to the bait. Luke 22: "15 And he [Jesus] said unto them [Jesus' disciples], With desire [epithumia 'over-desire'] I have desired [epithumeo 'to over-desire'] to eat this passover with you before I suffer:" Love, Steve

I'm afraid my weakness for hyperbole clouded my judgment when I wrote the paragraph above. It's God who does the judging. But He does it through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is our advocate. His endurance of temptation without giving in to sin is what qualifies Jesus to be our advocate with God. My bad... Love, Steve

Good stuff, Jeff! When I was looking at uses of "judgment" in the epistles, I was struck by Phillipians 1:9, "And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;" The use of the preposition "in" of this verse is instrumental, that is to say, love increasingly overflows by the instruments of knowledge and all judgment. The word translated "judgment" is aisthesis, which is the Greek word we get "aesthetics" from. Aistheterion, a cognate of aisthesis, also occurs in Hebrews 5, "14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses [aistheteria] exercised to discern both good and evil." I think "judgment" can be viewed as the mental activity of comparing two or more pieces of knowledge and concluding how they are related. I think God designed our minds to do this, and gave us His Word so that we could tell the difference between things that are right and things that are wrong. I think exercising judgment is a key element in walking by the Spirit, which enables our love to overflow yet more and more. However, I know I am not qualified to judge any person, not even myself, in the sense of justifying or condemning that person. Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ ONLY, is qualified to do that, because He is the only one who has been tempted in all things like as we are, yet without sin. That's why God the Father turned the job over to Jesus. God has not been tempted. He CAN'T be tempted. Love, Steve

Thank you for your kind encouragement, Tom! Yeah... what you said about the enchilada. Except, not only do I not think we have the whole enchilada yet, it's more like we can only smell it right now. Salvation is a lot bigger than Wierwille taught. I John 3:1-3 "1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world [cosmos] knoweth us not, because it knew him not. "2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. "3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." Wierwille didn't purify himself. His hope of salvation must have been defective. I think Wierwille's own over-inflated sense of self-importance left little room in his heart for the magnitude of the salvation that Christ wrought. The purpose of thinking that is not to condemn Wierwille, but to remind myself not to over-inflate my own sense of self-importance. Love, Steve

In order to separate the Church completely from Israel, Darby had to insert a "parenthetical" period of time into "God's plan for the ages". Darby chose Pentecost as the time for opening the parenthesis, and invented a "pre-tribulation rapture" of the Church to close it. But Pentecost was not the beginning of a "wholly new thing". It was a well established and understood festival in the Jewish annual cycle. Two Old Testament passages set the understanding of Pentecost, Leviticus 23:15-21 and Deuteronomy 16:9-11. Here is the passage from Deuteronomy 16, "9 Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee: begin to number the seven weeks from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn. "10 And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the Lord thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thy hand, which thou shalt give unto the Lord thy God, according as the Lord thy God hath blessed thee: "11 And thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the Lord hath chosen to place his name there. The feast of Pentecost was the freewill thank offering of the firstfruit of the wheat harvest. The wheat harvest is often used as a symbol for the resurrection. On the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts chapter 2, Jesus Christ, as the High Priest of the New Testament, offered Himself, as firstfruit of the resurrection, to God as a freewill thank offering. God accepted Jesus' sacrifice, exalted Him to the position of Lord of glory, gave Him the promised gift of holy Spirit, and Jesus in turn poured that Spirit out onto whosoever should call on the name of the Lord. The recipients of the gift then gave back to God of that which with which they had been blessed, magnifying God with perfect prayer and praise, speaking in the Spirit. And despite Wierwille's protestation that Peter meant "This is LIKE that which was spoken by the prophet Joel", Wierwille was dead wrong. It WAS that which was spoken by the prophet Joel! Glory! Halleluyah! Praise God! Amen! Love, Steve

Things get much clearer when we read what's actually written in Romans 11:13-25, rather than simply go on Wierwille's unsupported word. The whole book of Romans addresses a rift that had arisen in that city between the believers of Jewish background and the believers of Gentile background. All of the Jews and all of the Gentiles addressed in the book of Romans are among "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints" (Romans 1:7). The Gentiles of Romans 11:13 are already Christians, because Paul calls them "brethren" in 11:25, a term he didn't throw around lightly. He also writes in verse 20 that these Gentiles "stand by faith". The branches broken off were those of Israel who chose not to believe. The branches that were NOT broken off are the believing remnant of Israel, and Paul uses himself as an example of such in Romans 11:1. The branches that were grafted in are Gentiles who also chose to believe. Believe what? The promises God originally made to Israel that found fulfillment, both punishment and reward, in Jesus Christ. The root of the tree are the promises God made to Israel. Gentile believers are not to boast against Jewish believers because the promises God made to Israel support the Gentile believers in Christ, not the other way around. The Church consists of the believing remnant of Israel under the New Testament promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, with believing Gentiles grafted in on the same basis as believing Israel, by grace through faith. The believing remnant in the Gospels, the Bride of Christ, has become the Body of Christ after Pentecost, through the one flesh relationship of Genesis 2:24. Darby, Bullinger, Scofield and Wierwille read foreign meanings into what was written, specifically, they misinterpreted oikonomia to mean "a period of time", in order to teach that the Chuerch is a "wholly new thing", completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. Love, Steve

I don't think the gift of holy Spirit first poured out on the day of Pentecost is salvation itself. I think salvation is the Spirit of resurrection life promised in Ezekiel 37:14 that will be poured out when the Lord appears. I think the gift of holy Spirit first poured out on the day of Pentecost is the earnest of our inheritance (the Spirit of resurrection life) until the redemption of the purchased possession (in the age to come) according to Ephesians 1:14. Receiving the gift of the holy Spirit is conditional upon confessing the Lord Jesus (however a person words it) and believing that God raised Him from the Dead. I think the master/servant relation a person enters into when he or she confesses the Lord Jesus is permanent. I don't think a person can "lose their salvation", but I think there are painful consequences, at least in the short term, for people who turn their backs on their Master. I think that Jesus Christ Himself is going to be the judge of every single one of us, and His judgment will be justice tempered with mercy. I no longer try to put His judgment into my very little box. I can't judge other peoples' hearts. I am decieved by my own. Love, Steve

I was up at the University library about an hour or so ago, scanning the new arrivals as I usually do. I found a book titled The Old Testament Roots of Our Faith by Paul J. and Elizabeth Achtemeier. (Hendrickson Publishers, original copyright 1962). It says just about everything I wanted to say on this thread, but much more cogently than I ever could. Wierwille preached "the integrity of God's Word is always at stake", yet the dispensationalist hermaneutic he taught sliced and diced, pared and compartmentalized God's Word to the point that his version of Christianity was a free-floating construct, based on nothing more solid than Darby's and Scofield's and Bullinger's and Wierwille's hot air. All of God's promises to Israel were summed up in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The benefits we receive by identifying with Him are all benefits originally spoken to Israel. That's what we find when we read meanings out from what is actually written instead of reading foreign meanings into the text. Love, Steve

That was my experience. I've been involved with several interdenominational efforts in the decades since, and found much more love of God than I ever found in the organization called The Way International. Love, Steve P.S. - I never really broke off all my connections with adventure gaming, so that was a route back to normality for me.

You just don't wanna be... LEFT BEHIND! Love, Steve

Ecclesiastes 9:11 "11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." Interesting... the things that turn up when one reads what's actually written... no? Love, Steve

Ephesians 5:28-32 "28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. "29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: "30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. "31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh [Genesis 2:24]. "32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." God had to keep a secret, or the princes of this age would not have crucified Jesus of Nazareth.(Hmmmmm... THIS AGE still has princes that crucufied Jesus Christ???) That's what it says in I Corinthians 2:8. The secret was, that because Jesus died on the cross, God was going to be able to turn Jesus of Nazareth into the Lord of glory (Philippians 2:8-11). This was the BIG SECRET. There were other smaller things that had to be kept secret in order to protect the secrecy of the BIG SECRET. One of these smaller secrets was that the believing remnant of Israel, the Bride in the gospels, was going to become the Body of Christ through the one flesh relationship of Genesis 2:24. Another ancillary secret was that Gentiles, as Gentiles, would be able join the believing remnant on the same basis, by grace through faith. That was part of the secret that wasn't revealed until later, to Paul the apostle, who wrote "that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" in Ephesians 3:6. So we see that the Church of the Body is not some "wholly new thing" as Scofield taught, but rather the believing remnant of Israel, having received the gift of holy Spirit first poured forth on the day of Pentecost, by which we are all baptized into one body (I Corinthians 12:13a), with believing Gentiles also grafted in. Love, Steve

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! As for the question, "Are you drawing a distinction between national Israel and the individual resurrection promised in the NT?" No, I don't draw that distinction. Is there a reason why I should? Love, Steve

I understand what you're saying, Cynic, about the age to come intruding into this age, though I'm not sure if I 've been exposed to Vos. I'll have to look him up. I'm hinky anymore about using the word "spiritual". Since the days of Jerome and Augustine "spirit" has meant the substance of a parallel immaterial cosmos inaccessible to the senses. I seriously doubt that's how the writers of the first century used it. Love, Steve

Well, that's what open and honest discussion is for... for us to recognize when we're talking at cross purposes, and for us to figure out how to tune into a common wavelength. And you do it so well! As for the question, "Are you drawing a distinction between national Israel and the individual resurrection promised in the NT?" I understand now how you are using the phrase, "national Israel". I was very cautious about it, because the phrase "national Israel" took on overtones among dispensationalists during the 19th century, when Zionism was on the rise, overtones which can still be heard on the radio/TV and read on the internet to this day. What do you mean when you use the phrase "individual resurrection promised in the NT"? Love, Steve And by the way, I don't think I've ever discounted the whole idea of Ezekiel 36, 37 being a prophecy of resurrecting Israel as a nation, except that I believe it applies to the believing remnant, and not necessarily to every descendent of the man Israel based on genetics.

It took me awhile to figure out what this sentence means. The modern concept of a nation-state, meaning a politico-ethnic unity, didn't even start budding until the middle ages, and didn't come into full blossom until the 19th century. There were ethnic unities in antiquity that we would roughly think of as "tribes." There were also political unities we would label "kingdoms," but the two concepts didn't necessarily overlap back then as they do in our word "nation". And the idea of being an "individual" was different, too. People were more inclined to identify themselves as members of a family or of a patronage arrangement (I Corinthians 1:12) than they would be to identify themselves as existentially isolated "individuals" like some of us do today. God's promises were to the house of Israel, and I think specifically to the believing remnant of that house. Individuals could receive the benefits of those promises to the extent that they were members of the believing remnant of Israel. The purpose of baptism, both with water AND with holy Spirit, was for an individual person to identify him or herself as a member of the believing remnant, and the function of administering baptism was to sign to the recipient that the believing remnant accepted him or her. The return of an Israelitish government to the promised land in 1948 may be an immediate, partial fulfillment of some of the prophecies in Ezekiel, as was the return in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, but I don't see how it could be a fulfillment of the promise of the resurrection without people rising from the dead (and I don't mean zombies )! How can I avoid reading modern, foreign meanings into Ezekiel 37 if I start out with categories dictated by modern, foreign terms? Love, Steve

Jeff, I am in sympathy with the main thrust of your argument, and I also believe that the mystery first revealed to Paul was only that Gentiles, as ethnic Gentiles, could also get in on God's promises on the same basis as ethnic Israel, by grace through faith. However, the phrase "gather together" in Ephesians 1:10 doesn't come from the same words as "gather together" comes from in other places. The word in Ephesians 1:10 is anakephalaioomai or "to head-up for one's self". I think Ephesians 1:9&10 can be read as follows, "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself, toward management of the decisive opportunities, to head-up for himself all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him." God has made Jesus Christ the head of all things so that he can steward (manage) decisive opportunities. Love, Steve

Dittos! with love and a holy kiss Steve