Werwille and TWI taught that we are now to live by a higher standard than the law of the OT...the law of love. "We don't have to keep the ten commandments, but if we are living the law of love we will not break one of those commandments."
Galatians 3 speaks to people who were going back to the OT law. It speaks to the point of the law and how we are now no longer under the schoolmaster. If we are living the law of love then we are held to a higher standard than the OT law but do not break that law either. Gal. 3 does not make the distinction between the OT law and the law of love but between the OT law and faith.
What do you think? What is it talking about? Is the teaching of the law of love as tauht by twi askew a bit? Isn't it more about what you are focusing on and what you are using as a "rule book" for life (The Law or Faith or love)?
TWI uses this idea to support their ideas of debt.
Wha-choo-think?
yes it really is me posting this. :blink:
to even say that the law of love is a higher standard is making that a law itself. it's about the new birth and how that some had taken what was written then and made it a law. the writtings of Paul and others were being turned into a law. rather then living by the spirit of God that was in their hearts. the schoolmaster is what we have disciplined ourselves to do or not do, then with the new birth there is freedom in the spirit.
so rather then living love they back peddled into making laws to live by. killing the freedom of the spirit, stopping the work that Jesus came to give us to do. putting themselves back under the law, the schoolmaster and not living the freedom that is in Christ.
and like it says-all things are lawful to me but not expedient or edifying
If I may quote Brother Groucho from Oakspear's "The Word of God" thread:
..My inclination is to look within myself. When I'm on my death bed, I will be there alone...my denomination gets to stay here and keep breathing. When I look at the bible and consider "Christian doctrine", it seems like most of it is written to the individual...encouraging them to EXPERIENCE the spiritual reality for themselves...(ie...trust in the Lord with all thine heart...the spirit beareth witness with our spirit, walk circumspectly, etc etc etc etc)...the bible seems to be leading people toward their own individual experience. So what's the problem?
Wierwille taught people NOT to trust their own experiences...but to trust in the "word of Gawd" (which was his interpretation)...In other words, it's a CONTROL issue. If what I tell you what "the truth" is instead of you relying on your own experiences...I control you...it's that simple.
It's kinda like someone spending all their time studying the owners manual for their car, and they never actually drive the car themselves...The bible encourages people to "have fellowship with God"...or in other words...to experience God for themselves. Not to merely read about it, over and over and over and over again...but to develope their own experiences. It's not supposed to be an intellectual excercise of merely learning what the book says, but to experience what the book says.
Wierwille ( and he's certainly not alone in this), would always "trump" your experience by negating it and sending you back to the realm of non-experience. The realm where spiritual reality was not experienced but was filtered through his control mechanisms which gave him mog persona and bolstered his ego.
That's why twi doesn't trust people to make their own decisions.
I look at the bible as a "portal" that leads to experiences.
Like Clay said, all things are lawful but not necessarily good for us. Jesus summed up the whole law into love God and love your neighbor. There's nothing about spying out our liberty in Christ in those verses.
We seem to live our lives according to what WE think God Wants. The Israelis think they're doing what God wants; the people who kill at abortion clinics think they're doing what God wants; the suicide bombers think they're doing what God wants, TWI teaches their own private interpretation of what they think God wants..... How on earth did we get so many differing views of what God wants?
Out of the other side of their mouth, what does TWI teach about why man was created? To have fellowship with Him. To have someone to love and to love him back. Makes the law of love seem pretty simple when you think of it that way, doesn't it? I hope so. It makes sense in my brain. I *hope* I'm communicating it well enough.
I think these are all valid inferences that can be drawn from the scripture in Gal 3. Most, if not all of the Bibleis like this fr me...many layers of meaning that can be drawn from it. But theologically I think Wierwille got this one wrong as well. In his simplistic "hand in a glove" way of thinking, he kept missing Paul's style and the meanings conveyed in it. Paul is talking broader theological concepts here.
The law was "our" (the people of God) schoolmaster unto Christ. and Paul proves that the purpose of the law was to make everybody demonstrably guilty before God so that the only remaining hope for righteousness and acceptance is the free gift of forgiveness accomplished by Christ's shed blood.
Werwille and TWI taught that we are now to live by a higher standard than the law of the OT...the law of love. "We don't have to keep the ten commandments, but if we are living the law of love we will not break one of those commandments."
Galatians 3 speaks to people who were going back to the OT law. It speaks to the point of the law and how we are now no longer under the schoolmaster. If we are living the law of love then we are held to a higher standard than the OT law but do not break that law either. Gal. 3 does not make the distinction between the OT law and the law of love but between the OT law and faith.
What do you think? What is it talking about? Is the teaching of the law of love as tauht by twi askew a bit? Isn't it more about what you are focusing on and what you are using as a "rule book" for life (The Law or Faith or love)?
TWI uses this idea to support their ideas of debt.
Wha-choo-think?
yes it really is me posting this. :blink:
Hi Lindy.
I think CM made some good points. The topic of Galatians 3 is not replacing one law with another. Nor is it about revering the Ten Commandments. Paul said that if you try to keep any part of the law, you're obligated to keep all of it. So it's an all or nothing situation. A "curse". Instead of trying to replace "the law of sin and death" with the "law of love" (which TWI certainly didn't exemplify), we should accept the benefit of Christ's fulfillment of the law by faith and walk by the Spirit.
The emphasis of the beginning of the chapter is the fact that the Galatians had come into the Church by the ministry of men walking by the spirit. They were called, saved, and delivered by the power of the Spirit of God in manifestation, not by someone trying to live according to a written code. So for those of us who have experienced that kind of walk, it's senseless to try to legislate ourselves into God's goodness by drawing up a list of do's and dont's.
But replacing one law with another is easy and apprealing to human nature, because you don't have to start each day seeking the will of God for your life. You just live by the rules you've memorized. It's much less challenging. If you wake up and ask God or Jesus (your preference) what you're supposed to do that day, you might get an answer you don't like. If you have a neat little code to live by, it's less unpredictable, and hooman beans don't like unpredictability.
I think people who obsess over keeping the Ten Commandments miss the whole point of Jesus ministry. I think Paul's message in Galations 3 is this: Believe in the perfect accomplished work of Christ and all that it means for you; for your righteousness with God, and use that gift of righteousness to walk by the Spirit and do God's will in your life day by day.
You basically put what I was thinking into better words. By focus, I meant what yall have said. Are you focused on living according to the law or according to faith or the spirit. Living by the spirit seems to be what the NT repeats over and over again, yet Werwille and others have felt that to be too spiritual, as in "spiritualism." So he even made up a formula on how to walk by the spirit. What a list that was..."It may be necessary to remove unbelievers from the room" lol.
Although, I see where they are coming from. The "all or nothing" concept doesn't seem to fit. The first two commandments are what the rest hang on. Those are still things that we are told to do in the NT. "Thou shalt not kill." That is obviously covered by the first two but it is apart of the Law. So if we do those are we not to do the rest? How can you say all or nothing when these common sense commandments are there. You aren't going to forsake those, so then are you required to do the rest, and if not which ones and why?
Living by the spirit is a mojor point but is that assuming that we are not going to break the law in the process? I don't mean break the law in a "fear of the consequences" sort of way, but in a "concerned about doing the will of God" sort of way. If so are we supposed to already be to a level that we live by a higher standard and don't even have to think about the specifics of the law because we should be in a place where we don't even consider them? With an "old man" how can you not? Bringing it back to debt, are you just to judge each situation on it's own by the spirit or would it be silly to think that living by the spirit would contradict what the law says about debt? OR Is it that we are to live by the spirit and not be concerned with the specifics of the law, only loving God and your neighbor, and use those two to guide your personal decision making whether it fits according to the rest of the Law or not?
Although, I see where they are coming from. The "all or nothing" concept doesn't seem to fit. The first two commandments are what the rest hang on. Those are still things that we are told to do in the NT. "Thou shalt not kill." That is obviously covered by the first two but it is apart of the Law. So if we do those are we not to do the rest? How can you say all or nothing when these common sense commandments are there. You aren't going to forsake those, so then are you required to do the rest, and if not which ones and why?
That's a common misunderstanding Lindy. When Paul refers to the law, he's not just talking about the Ten Commandments. Being a debtor to do the whole law means observing Passover, attending the feast ofWeeks, offering sin offerings, wave offerings, heave offerings, etc, etc. The law was a voluminous code that covered almost every aspect of life. And a lot of it demands severe punishment for violations thereof. According to the Mosaic Law, a rebellious and disobeient child was to be stoned to death by his parents. How many of those who advocate living by the Ten Commandments would support executing disbodeient children? By the way, Jesus made reference to this law according to Matthew. He criticized the Pharisees concerning their interpretation of it. Care to guess which side he came down on? The answer might suprise you. (Matthew 15:4-6). There's so much more to the Law than most Christians consider that the arguments over posting the Ten Commandments in public are really quite stupid.
Jbar wrote: Yes. A look at human history will confirm that. People are inherently selfish, lazy, covetous, fearful, and therefore violent. Have a nice day!
People would include you, me and others.
I am NOT selfish, lazy, covetous, OR Violent!
Sure some people in this world ARE, but that is because the world is full of many kinds of people.
We all have 'sin nature'. We ALL have 'freedom of will'.
We are responsible for our own actions.
Not ALL people are 'born of God'.
Not ALL people have a conscious, and their mind runs wild with 'evil intentions'.
Some People are influenced by drugs, etc.
BUT, to say ALL people are selfish, lazy, etc is NOT TRUE.
I've personally made for myself long-life decisions. Moral and Spiritual.
I have been a victim by certain kinds of "Mean People". Wolves in Sheeps clothing.
I know they exist, and no longer have blinders on to them, but I am not in the same Catagory.
I have a "God conscious". I have a desire to 'please God and others'.
I am both loyal to God and others of the Household.
So, when you say People, You can't include ME or ANYONE ELSE who Lives to Glorify God.
(well you could say it, or even write it, but it doesn't make you RIGHT)
Anyone, really (Christian or otherwise) with half a brain, and a kind heart, would know that Violence and Crime have their consequences. Again and Finally "We all possess Freedom of Will"..
So.. the answer seem to be more that.. SOME people are fundamentally evil, selfish, covetous, lazy, fearful, violent.. that HAVE to be led with a hook in their nose to keep themselves from hurting themselves and others.. but RARELY does it seem to work.. and those who hold the law- the zealously religious- seem to be often the worst.
Primitive- yielding to primitive, godless, knee jerk reactions to situations that are bad enough to begin with..
When it comes to any law it is not there just to say, "hey don't do this." Like, "Hey you're too stupid to figure out that you shouldn't murder someone, so listen here." It is to look at actions and behaviors and decide that certain ones can not go unpunished without hurting the community or society. Yes, there is a percentage of people that don't have normal limits and control over there actions and character. There could be tons of different reasons for someone to have such a personality. Them being extremely stupid, or evil, or unloving could be one of those but not necessarily the only one and not necessarily the root problem.
It is like warning labels. You can always find a warning that just seems like insanity. "Do not injest" on an anti-freeze bottle. "Do not stick up your bum and lite." They make you laugh and wonder who the idiot was that did that. It only takes one idiot for a warning label and it takes a few more idiots for a law. When a law is both a social law and a religious law things tend to get out of hand. Don't smile on Sunday. Don't eat tuna caserole on Friday.
There seems to be an inbetween area here in Galatians 3. Somewhere in between not going around killing people not using the law as a source book for all things Godly. It says that the law isn't unGodly but that we are no longer under the schoolmaster and shouldn't try to use the law as a righteiousness gauge. So where is the line? Is is so cut and dry? Why? Why not?
Yes, the law itself seems to be what it is: black and white..
Seems the "problem" is people. So many individuals.. add people and a standard, and something HAS to break. Unfortunately, its usually the people..
Seems the great command has a lot to do with the answer: "love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom 13:10)
But the opposite is NOT always true, apparently.. and it would be like sweeping the floor with the wrong end of the broom..
You ask "Where is the line?". I think that's the point. The Spirit has no lines. The over-all "test" of whether something is right or wrong / good or bad ... is to see if it fits within Christ's directives of "Love God" and "Love your neighbor". There's a lot of room --- ENDLESS room --- within those parameters.
There is also a lot of room outside of those parameters, which is why we still make mistakes.
I remember a couple of years when TWI was stomping out the popular concept of "following your heart". They even banished a collection of music with that title. But personally I believe that "following your heart" is contemporary language describing the process of making decisions and living life based on spiritual understanding (assuming the person has the Spirit of God within him or her).
Like the folks back in Galatians, we ex-Wayfer people - and others - have trouble with this level of freedom. To use your analogy of "lines" ... it's like the difference between a coloring book and a work of art. We keep looking for the lines. But as genuine Christians, God has given each of us the ability of a great artist, ie Make your own lines, forms, colors, depth. Just keep the paint on the canvas ... and the canvas is very very big.
TWI gave us coloring books. Get out of the lines and you're possessed. Lindy, I suggest that you reclaim your identiy as a Spiritual artist, a creative (yes, I used that dirty word !) a creative and powerful human whose abilities are directly plugged in to the Spirit of God. Play with the possibilities. Xena
Recommended Posts
year2027
God first
Beloved lindyhopper
God loves you my friend
The Law of Love is no law but a blessing
You see one can live love but miss all the little laws or habits taught in OT it a heart of love
Like given is no longer a must to do but a heart to help
When or how we give is our bussiness but in the Way it was the leaders that push it us to give
Looks like you got a hot subject here because there is a big differ but I just do not have the best words
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
to even say that the law of love is a higher standard is making that a law itself. it's about the new birth and how that some had taken what was written then and made it a law. the writtings of Paul and others were being turned into a law. rather then living by the spirit of God that was in their hearts. the schoolmaster is what we have disciplined ourselves to do or not do, then with the new birth there is freedom in the spirit.
so rather then living love they back peddled into making laws to live by. killing the freedom of the spirit, stopping the work that Jesus came to give us to do. putting themselves back under the law, the schoolmaster and not living the freedom that is in Christ.
and like it says-all things are lawful to me but not expedient or edifying
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
If I may quote Brother Groucho from Oakspear's "The Word of God" thread:
Like Clay said, all things are lawful but not necessarily good for us. Jesus summed up the whole law into love God and love your neighbor. There's nothing about spying out our liberty in Christ in those verses.
We seem to live our lives according to what WE think God Wants. The Israelis think they're doing what God wants; the people who kill at abortion clinics think they're doing what God wants; the suicide bombers think they're doing what God wants, TWI teaches their own private interpretation of what they think God wants..... How on earth did we get so many differing views of what God wants?
Out of the other side of their mouth, what does TWI teach about why man was created? To have fellowship with Him. To have someone to love and to love him back. Makes the law of love seem pretty simple when you think of it that way, doesn't it? I hope so. It makes sense in my brain. I *hope* I'm communicating it well enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I think these are all valid inferences that can be drawn from the scripture in Gal 3. Most, if not all of the Bibleis like this fr me...many layers of meaning that can be drawn from it. But theologically I think Wierwille got this one wrong as well. In his simplistic "hand in a glove" way of thinking, he kept missing Paul's style and the meanings conveyed in it. Paul is talking broader theological concepts here.
The law was "our" (the people of God) schoolmaster unto Christ. and Paul proves that the purpose of the law was to make everybody demonstrably guilty before God so that the only remaining hope for righteousness and acceptance is the free gift of forgiveness accomplished by Christ's shed blood.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hi Lindy.
I think CM made some good points. The topic of Galatians 3 is not replacing one law with another. Nor is it about revering the Ten Commandments. Paul said that if you try to keep any part of the law, you're obligated to keep all of it. So it's an all or nothing situation. A "curse". Instead of trying to replace "the law of sin and death" with the "law of love" (which TWI certainly didn't exemplify), we should accept the benefit of Christ's fulfillment of the law by faith and walk by the Spirit.
The emphasis of the beginning of the chapter is the fact that the Galatians had come into the Church by the ministry of men walking by the spirit. They were called, saved, and delivered by the power of the Spirit of God in manifestation, not by someone trying to live according to a written code. So for those of us who have experienced that kind of walk, it's senseless to try to legislate ourselves into God's goodness by drawing up a list of do's and dont's.
But replacing one law with another is easy and apprealing to human nature, because you don't have to start each day seeking the will of God for your life. You just live by the rules you've memorized. It's much less challenging. If you wake up and ask God or Jesus (your preference) what you're supposed to do that day, you might get an answer you don't like. If you have a neat little code to live by, it's less unpredictable, and hooman beans don't like unpredictability.
I think people who obsess over keeping the Ten Commandments miss the whole point of Jesus ministry. I think Paul's message in Galations 3 is this: Believe in the perfect accomplished work of Christ and all that it means for you; for your righteousness with God, and use that gift of righteousness to walk by the Spirit and do God's will in your life day by day.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Thanks guys and gal.
You basically put what I was thinking into better words. By focus, I meant what yall have said. Are you focused on living according to the law or according to faith or the spirit. Living by the spirit seems to be what the NT repeats over and over again, yet Werwille and others have felt that to be too spiritual, as in "spiritualism." So he even made up a formula on how to walk by the spirit. What a list that was..."It may be necessary to remove unbelievers from the room" lol.
Although, I see where they are coming from. The "all or nothing" concept doesn't seem to fit. The first two commandments are what the rest hang on. Those are still things that we are told to do in the NT. "Thou shalt not kill." That is obviously covered by the first two but it is apart of the Law. So if we do those are we not to do the rest? How can you say all or nothing when these common sense commandments are there. You aren't going to forsake those, so then are you required to do the rest, and if not which ones and why?
Living by the spirit is a mojor point but is that assuming that we are not going to break the law in the process? I don't mean break the law in a "fear of the consequences" sort of way, but in a "concerned about doing the will of God" sort of way. If so are we supposed to already be to a level that we live by a higher standard and don't even have to think about the specifics of the law because we should be in a place where we don't even consider them? With an "old man" how can you not? Bringing it back to debt, are you just to judge each situation on it's own by the spirit or would it be silly to think that living by the spirit would contradict what the law says about debt? OR Is it that we are to live by the spirit and not be concerned with the specifics of the law, only loving God and your neighbor, and use those two to guide your personal decision making whether it fits according to the rest of the Law or not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
That's a common misunderstanding Lindy. When Paul refers to the law, he's not just talking about the Ten Commandments. Being a debtor to do the whole law means observing Passover, attending the feast ofWeeks, offering sin offerings, wave offerings, heave offerings, etc, etc. The law was a voluminous code that covered almost every aspect of life. And a lot of it demands severe punishment for violations thereof. According to the Mosaic Law, a rebellious and disobeient child was to be stoned to death by his parents. How many of those who advocate living by the Ten Commandments would support executing disbodeient children? By the way, Jesus made reference to this law according to Matthew. He criticized the Pharisees concerning their interpretation of it. Care to guess which side he came down on? The answer might suprise you. (Matthew 15:4-6). There's so much more to the Law than most Christians consider that the arguments over posting the Ten Commandments in public are really quite stupid.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
What I find interesting in all of this..
Why is it: people "back then" had to be TOLD what loving your neighbor is all about..
That you don't just help yourself to his property..
That you don't just murder somebody cause they don't like you or something..
That if you have an animal that will potentially harm or kill somebody, that you'd BETTER do something about it..
That you are supposed to help your neighbor pull his farm animal out of the ditch even if you HATE him..
The list could go on and on..
Are people THAT inately evil and unloving?
Do they HAVE to be taught HOW to love, down to the minutest detail? And that IS what you find in the "law"..
But it seems that despite all of the careful packaging, and mind-numbing details.. some fail to "get it"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Yes. A look at human history will confirm that. People are inherently selfish, lazy, covetous, fearful, and therefore violent. Have a nice day!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"have a nice day", heh heh heh.
I dunno.. I think I kind of get the message.. but it just seems like common sense to me.. makes no sense to me why others don't/can't..
but fundamentally, are we THAT primitive? Perhaps..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
People would include you, me and others.
I am NOT selfish, lazy, covetous, OR Violent!
Sure some people in this world ARE, but that is because the world is full of many kinds of people.
We all have 'sin nature'. We ALL have 'freedom of will'.
We are responsible for our own actions.
Not ALL people are 'born of God'.
Not ALL people have a conscious, and their mind runs wild with 'evil intentions'.
Some People are influenced by drugs, etc.
BUT, to say ALL people are selfish, lazy, etc is NOT TRUE.
I've personally made for myself long-life decisions. Moral and Spiritual.
I have been a victim by certain kinds of "Mean People". Wolves in Sheeps clothing.
I know they exist, and no longer have blinders on to them, but I am not in the same Catagory.
I have a "God conscious". I have a desire to 'please God and others'.
I am both loyal to God and others of the Household.
So, when you say People, You can't include ME or ANYONE ELSE who Lives to Glorify God.
(well you could say it, or even write it, but it doesn't make you RIGHT)
Anyone, really (Christian or otherwise) with half a brain, and a kind heart, would know that Violence and Crime have their consequences. Again and Finally "We all possess Freedom of Will"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
So.. the answer seem to be more that.. SOME people are fundamentally evil, selfish, covetous, lazy, fearful, violent.. that HAVE to be led with a hook in their nose to keep themselves from hurting themselves and others.. but RARELY does it seem to work.. and those who hold the law- the zealously religious- seem to be often the worst.
Primitive- yielding to primitive, godless, knee jerk reactions to situations that are bad enough to begin with..
Yes, I've had enough encounters with them too..
Just another nice "thought for the day", heh heh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
When it comes to any law it is not there just to say, "hey don't do this." Like, "Hey you're too stupid to figure out that you shouldn't murder someone, so listen here." It is to look at actions and behaviors and decide that certain ones can not go unpunished without hurting the community or society. Yes, there is a percentage of people that don't have normal limits and control over there actions and character. There could be tons of different reasons for someone to have such a personality. Them being extremely stupid, or evil, or unloving could be one of those but not necessarily the only one and not necessarily the root problem.
It is like warning labels. You can always find a warning that just seems like insanity. "Do not injest" on an anti-freeze bottle. "Do not stick up your bum and lite." They make you laugh and wonder who the idiot was that did that. It only takes one idiot for a warning label and it takes a few more idiots for a law. When a law is both a social law and a religious law things tend to get out of hand. Don't smile on Sunday. Don't eat tuna caserole on Friday.
There seems to be an inbetween area here in Galatians 3. Somewhere in between not going around killing people not using the law as a source book for all things Godly. It says that the law isn't unGodly but that we are no longer under the schoolmaster and shouldn't try to use the law as a righteiousness gauge. So where is the line? Is is so cut and dry? Why? Why not?
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yes, the law itself seems to be what it is: black and white..
Seems the "problem" is people. So many individuals.. add people and a standard, and something HAS to break. Unfortunately, its usually the people..
Seems the great command has a lot to do with the answer: "love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom 13:10)
But the opposite is NOT always true, apparently.. and it would be like sweeping the floor with the wrong end of the broom..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xena
Lindy,
You ask "Where is the line?". I think that's the point. The Spirit has no lines. The over-all "test" of whether something is right or wrong / good or bad ... is to see if it fits within Christ's directives of "Love God" and "Love your neighbor". There's a lot of room --- ENDLESS room --- within those parameters.
There is also a lot of room outside of those parameters, which is why we still make mistakes.
I remember a couple of years when TWI was stomping out the popular concept of "following your heart". They even banished a collection of music with that title. But personally I believe that "following your heart" is contemporary language describing the process of making decisions and living life based on spiritual understanding (assuming the person has the Spirit of God within him or her).
Like the folks back in Galatians, we ex-Wayfer people - and others - have trouble with this level of freedom. To use your analogy of "lines" ... it's like the difference between a coloring book and a work of art. We keep looking for the lines. But as genuine Christians, God has given each of us the ability of a great artist, ie Make your own lines, forms, colors, depth. Just keep the paint on the canvas ... and the canvas is very very big.
TWI gave us coloring books. Get out of the lines and you're possessed. Lindy, I suggest that you reclaim your identiy as a Spiritual artist, a creative (yes, I used that dirty word !) a creative and powerful human whose abilities are directly plugged in to the Spirit of God. Play with the possibilities. Xena
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
For me the key of Galatians 3 is verse 27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ
If you truly are a follower and live up to your baptismal covenants then you will have first in your mind "What would Jesus do" and act accordingly
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.