Will You Let God Set You Free!?

The Power to Break the Chain of Lies so you can be FREE“ Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” Gal. 4:16! This page belongs to Minister Clarence F. Sargent


January 11, 2011

Part 1 -The Doorway to Belief: How FAITH Opens the Proof of God! Atheist, Agnostic, and Skeptic of every stripe DEMANDS “Prove God Exists, then I’ll believe!” or “I’ll believe it WHEN I see it or feel it for myself!”
Well, the main problem should be obvious to all but it isn’t, NOTHING in life that we do everyday works this way, NOTHING happens by faith until we FIRST ACT. 
Do you FIRST wait to see the specks on the chair your about to sit in to find out if it will break when you sit in it?
Do you wait to get all the info and proof from your car that you will not get into an accident when you go to work?
Before you get up in the morning, do you wait to gather every possible bit of information for the day or do you in faith get up and face the day?
This will be said to be to simplistic by those who don’t want to be painted into a corner by Logic but it clearly is an example of how we hypocritically expect God to be different than the rest of life, to have different rules for Him and what he expects from everyday life and what we naturally do in life. We don’t ever work our life the way we expect God to rule our life, its just unfair standard for anyone to expect all the PROOF BEFORE we start to act upon his expectations. 
Why does our mind expect proof before action here and absolutely NO PROOF before doing mundane everyday life?
The Bible plainly teaches us WHY, because the Doorway into Belief is THROUGH GOD’S KIND OF FAITH. Why do I say “God’s Kind”? Its simple, what we term faith is completely different from BIBLICAL FAITH in its power, but it works the same as everyday faith in results by requiring us to jump into action without the proof the chair we’re going to sit in will break, the car we’re getting into to go to work is safe from harm, the next day is going to be safe to live in but we act like it is, and GO anyway, but where is the PROOF of such actions?
Why do we not need to get all the evidence required in our daily walk of life as we seem to require from God before we’ll believe? It is HYPOCRITICAL on its face but we don’t see it!
Why is the “Daily faith” we practice logical and the Faith of God not logical? They work exactly so the requirements are the same, the basic difference is the contents of both kinds of faith are NOT the same!
What do I mean by that? CONTENTS OF FAITH, what are these “contents” and what does it mean in regards to my belief in God. How does the content of the faith I hold make the difference.
Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.
Latin fidem or fidēs, meaning trust, derived from the verb fīdere, to trust.  
The English word is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem or fidēs, meaning trust, derived from the verb fīdere, to trust.
The term is employed in a religious or theological context to refer to a confident belief in a transcendent reality, a religious teacher, a set of teachings or a Supreme Being. It may be used to refer to a particular religious tradition or to religion in general.
Since faith implies a trusting reliance upon future events or outcomes, it is often taken by some people as inevitably synonymous with a belief “not resting on logical proof or material evidence.” is the mistake Atheists, Agnostics and Skeptics make in defining “The God Kind Of Faith” with the same definition as everyday Faith that while they WORK in a similar way are “Light years apart” in their content!
Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true, belief in and assent to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her supposed authority and truthfulness. trust or belief‘.

Informal usage can be quite broad, and the word is often used as a mere substitute for trust or belief’.
The content of daily faith is a confident trust in those who made the chair we sit in, or the Car we are about to get into, or the next day will be as the day before was and thus we get up to do the mundane!

THIS is a better definition of DAILY FAITH we use all the time than the God kind of Faith in the Bible because it has not mentioned the contents of Biblical faith that the Bible so aptly does!

Here is what Atheists define as Faith from their Web-site: will place this from the site completely intact so my readers can see what I’m dealing with and the Logic used to get there, sense this will be answered in many parts over time I can afford the Context of their Argument to be complete.

“faith from the skeptic’s dictionary

There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain’t so. –Mark Twain, Following the Equator, “Pudd’nhead Wilson’s Calendar”
Faith is a non-rational belief in some proposition.
A non-rational belief is one that is contrary to the sum of the evidence for that belief. 
A belief is contrary to the sum of the evidence if there is overwhelming evidence against the belief, e.g., that the earth is flat, hollow, or is the center of the universe. belief is also contrary to the sum of the evidence if the evidence seems equal both for and against the belief, yet one commits to one of the two or more equally supported propositions.
A common misconception regarding faith—or perhaps it is an intentional attempt at disinformation and obscurantism—is made by Christian apologists, such as Dr. Richard Spencer, who wrote the following:

A statement like “There is no God, and there can’t be a god; everything evolved from purely natural processes” cannot be supported by the scientific method and is a statement of faith, not science “

 (Richard Spencer, Ph.D., associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at UC Davis and faculty adviser to the Christian Student Union. Quoted in The Davis Enterprise, Jan. 22, 1999).

The error or deception here is to imply that anything that is not a scientific statement, i.e., one supported by evidence marshaled forth the way scientists do in support of their scientific claims, is a matter of faith. 
To use ‘faith’ in such a broad way is to strip it of any theological significance the term might otherwise have.
Such a conception of faith treats belief in all non-empirical statements as acts of Thus, belief in the external world, belief in the law of causality, or belief in the fundamental principles of logic, such as the principle of contradiction or the law of the excluded middle, would be acts of faith on this view. 
There seems to be something profoundly deceptive and misleading about lumping together as acts of faith such things as belief in the Virgin birth and belief in the existence of an external world or in the principle of contradiction.
Such a view trivializes religious faith by putting all non-empirical claims in the same category as religious faith. In fact, it would be more appropriate to put religious faith in the same category as belief in superstitions, fairy tales, and delusions.
Physicist Bob Park explains this difference in a way even the most devious casuist should understand. 
The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, he notes, gives two distinct meanings for faith:

 “1) complete trust or confidence, and strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.”

A scientist’s “faith” is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word “faith,” therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites.*

There are reasons for trusting science and there are reasons for religious convictions, but the reasons for our trust in science are called evidence and the reasons for our religious convictions all reduce to hope.
William James, a scientist and a man of faith, understood this distinction well. In his essay “The Will to Believe,” James opines that the evidence for God and an afterlife equals the evidence for non-belief and that his hope is for survival of the soul.
In science when the evidence is equal for two opposing propositions, James argued, we should suspend judgment until the scales are tipped to one side or the other. We don’t make a leap of faith in such cases, hoping our favored hypothesis is true. we do give our assent to one scientific hypothesis over another it is because the evidence compels it, not because we hope it is true.
an erroneous view of faith
If we examine Dr. Spencer’s claims, the error of his conflation of two senses of ‘faith’ should become obvious. He claims that the statement ‘there is no God and there can’t be a god; everything evolved from purely natural processes’ is a statement of faith. There are three distinct statements here. One, ‘there is no God’. 
Two, ‘there can’t be a god’. And three, ‘everything evolved from purely natural processes’. Dr. Spencer implies that each of these claims is on par with such statements as ‘there is a God’, ‘Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior’, ‘Jesus’s mother was a virgin’, ‘a piece of bread may have the substance of Jesus Christ’s physical body and blood’, ‘God is one being but three persons’, and the like.
The statement ‘there cannot be a god’ is not an empirical statement. Anyone who would make such a claim would make it by arguing that a particular concept of god contains contradictions and is, therefore, meaningless. For example, to believe that ‘some squares are circular’ is a logical contradiction. 
Circles and squares are defined so as to imply that circles can’t be square and squares can’t be circular. James Rachels, for one, has argued that god is impossible, but at best his argument shows that the concepts of an all-powerful God and one who demands worship from His creations are contradictory. concept of worship, Rachels argues, is inconsistent with the traditional Judeo-Christian God concept.
Rachels makes an argument. Some find it convincing; others don’t. But it seems that his belief is not an act of faith in the same sense that it is an act of faith to belief in the Incarnation, the Trinity, transubstantiation, or the Virgin birth. 
The first three articles of faith are on par with believing in round squares. They require belief in logical contradictions. Virgin births, we now know, are possible, but the technology for the implantation of fertilized eggs did not exist two thousand years ago. 
The belief in the Virgin birth entails the belief that God miraculously impregnated Mary with Himself. Such a belief defies experience but not logic. The Virgin birth is conceivable (to make a bad pun), unlike the Trinity. 
All arguments regarding these articles of faith are quite distinct from Rachel’s argument. To defend these articles of faith, the best one can hope for is to show that they cannot be shown to be false. 
However, the consequence of arguing that logical contradictions may nevertheless be true, seems undesirable. Such a defense requires the abandonment of the very principles required to make any argument and is therefore self-annihilating. 
The fact that arguments such as Rachel’s and those defending articles of religious faith are not empirical or resolvable by scientific methods hardly makes them equally matters of faith.
The statement ‘there is no God’ is quite different from the claim that there can’t be a god. The latter makes a claim regarding possibility; the former is an actuality or existential claim.
I doubt that there are many theologians or Christian apologists who would claim that all their faith amounts to is a belief in the possibility of this or that. One can believe there is no God because there can’t be a god, but one might also disbelieve in God while admitting the possibility of the Judeo-Christian or any other god.
Disbelief in God is analogous to disbelief in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny. Yet, those who believe in Bigfoot and Nessie, for example, aren’t known for claiming they believe out of faith. To say you have faith in Bigfoot or faith in Nessie sounds ludicrous. 
Believers in Bigfoot think there is good evidence for their belief. Disbelievers argue that the evidence is not strong at all and does not deserve assent to the proposition that Bigfoot exists. Disbelievers in Bigfoot do not disbelieve as an act of faith; they disbelieve because the evidence is not persuasive. Belief in God, on the other hand, could be either an act of faith or a belief based on conclusions from evidence and argument. the theistic belief is an act of faith then the one holding the belief either thinks the evidence against belief outweighs or equals the evidence for belief, or the belief is held without regard for evidence at all. Otherwise, the belief is not an act of faith but of belief that the evidence is stronger for belief than against.
Another scientist, physicist Paul Davies, represents another kind of deceptive misconception of faith: that science and religion are equally grounded in ‘faith’. Here is how he puts it:

…science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified. (“Taking Science on Faith,” New York Times, Nov. 24, 2007)

The claim that the assumptions of science are of the same kind as the belief in the Trinity, the Virgin birth, or the existence of God is as wrong as Dr. Spencer’s belief that the claim that ‘everything evolved from natural processes’ is an act of faith. uses ‘faith’ to refer to beliefs that are uncertain or can’t be proved to be necessarily true, but that is not the essential characteristic of religious faith. We can’t prove that it is necessarily true that the laws of nature won’t change drastically tomorrow, but that doesn’t make the countless instances of experienced order and pattern by countless individuals of no evidential importance. 
Assuming that invisible green angels move objects to appear as if gravity were real is not on par with assuming there are laws of nature. Neither can be proved to be necessarily true but the latter is backed by evidence in support of it. To lump evidence-based belief with beliefs not based on any evidence as both being faith-based is absurd.
If the only alternatives are that everything evolved from either supernatural or natural forces, and one is unconvinced by the arguments and evidence presented by those who believe in supernatural forces, then logically the only reasonable belief is that everything evolved from natural forces. if the evidence supporting a supernatural being were superior or equal to the evidence and arguments against such a belief, would belief that everything evolved from natural forces be a matter of faith.
Those of us who are atheists and believe that everything evolved from natural forces nearly universally maintain that theists and supernaturalists have a very weak case for their belief, weaker even than the case for Bigfoot, Nessie, the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus.
But, more important, we are convinced by the overwhelming nature of the evidence that natural forces have brought about the universe as we know it. Thus, our disbelief in a supernatural creator is not an act of faith, and therefore, not non-rational as are those of theists and Christian apologists., if Christian apologists insist on claiming that science is faith-based or that their version of Christianity and the rejections of their views are equally acts of faith, I will insist that the apologists have a non-rational faith, while their opponents have a rational faith. Though I think it would be less dishonest and less misleading to admit that atheists and naturalists do not base their beliefs on faith in any sense close to that of religious faith.”

I thought I would give their entire Article in fairness to them, so that later on no one could say I took their words out of context, being fair to good points is what good debate is based upon in the first place!

Faith: The Proof your looking for and so much more!

When people ask for evidence of God or of Creation they fail to take the most important step to receive it in the first place, as I’ve said many times Concerning Skeptics of the Truth:“Until a person accepts Jesus BY FAITH as the bible instructs them too NO PROOF is ever known by them as true, they will COUNTER every evidence presented with counter evidence, they will get mad and curse, they will demand BETTER evidence, they will walk away, BUT they can’t see what is in front of them. WHY?

Because FAITH as described in scripture is NOT the same faith as defined by those who fight God or that religion abuses, they are not one and the same.

True biblical Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1,  is where ALL the questions of God and about God are answered completely, where PROOF is found. Faith CONTAINS the proof, First acceptance then the proof not the other way around.
To many times I have seen definitions of Faith from Atheist web pages that are outright FALSEHOODS, distortions of fact that bring their minds rest in the short term but bring NOTHING to the table of debate. It is dishonest to FALSELY-DEFINE your enemies intentions to win a false argument for a short time!

HERE IS THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT BIBLE FAITH!!! 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Now let’s see it from the Amplified bible

NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, [a]the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses].”

If Atheists are going to get their facts right they must first stop defining Faith like this:

Faith means believing something without proper evidence to support it.

This is the kind of dishonest debate that Atheists practice openly without the least bit of remorse. 
Shady word play and outright lie’s define their tactics, now I would ask one simple question here, IF your stand upon your is that shaky and unfounded that you must lie about the enemy you face, then I think you’ve already lost!  
This is simply an unfair and inaccurate definition of faith on which to base your denial, it causes you to come to a wrong conclusion concerning God and the evidence before you start.

This may seem like “circular reasoning” to you but it is a fact, its how the system was set up by God, you FIRST ACCEPT his word on faith, by faith and through faith THEN the faith God gives you releases the PROOF of the evidence your seeking.

When I came to this faith I didn’t believe anything in the bible was true but once I came to the end of myself and let him deliver me the BLINDERS were removed and I could see the truth.

We can see this principle in regular every day life as well, have you ever looked hard for something, looked in every place it could be and couldn’t find it, then decided it wasn’t there and got a new one at the store, brought it home and THEN found the old one right where you looked for it at? sure have, and its frustrating at best, but just because I couldn’t find it didn’t mean it wasn’t there!

You had the same eyes before that you had later yet you could not see it, its a matter of perspective, being in hurry, or being angry when you first looked plus we all have internalized presuppositions as to the outcomes and understandings we’ve grown up with which determine how we look at the world.

Does the statement “I’ll believe it when I see it, apply, well I hope not because IT WAS THERE even though I didn’t see it and got another one, wasted my money and time, sometimes we CAN’T believe our eyes, they can be very unreliable, as all our human emotions are without being grounded in something greater.

The concept of God is no different, and no matter how long or how hard we seek God after our ways and means the pure and holy means of FAITH is the final frontier of proof!

That something greater is FAITH! takes over where our emotions leave us high and dry, something Christians sometimes get backwards, trusting in emotions can be very dangerous as they are moving as the waves of the ocean. But solid belief that is grounded in an absolute cannot be shaken because you know the source of your belief and trust it.

This may be simplistic but it follows the same premise as God revealing himself in all his glory to you once you follow his plan to get the evidence to reveal the proof.

Religion does not have this absolute source, it mimics it in name only, but is actually only based in what men say God says instead of the source, the Bible.

BOTH sides have evidence that’s true, but that evidence must be supported by ALL the facts involved, all the Laws of physics and Science must be obeyed by that evidence or it is not true evidence. 

The Second Laws of Thermodynamics is a LAW, if your evidence breaks this Law then your conclusions on your evidence are wrong plain and simple, no way around it. Evolution breaks the Law outright, “The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, a measure of randomness, cannot decrease in a isolated system. Our planet is not a isolated system.” This is the study of heat power; a branch of physics which studies the efficiency of energy transfer and exchange.

Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder.

Simply watch the News and you’ll see that this is not true, life degenerates into decay and disorder every day but Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.

Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.

A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

“What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun’s energy can be taken and make the thing grow – increasing its order” [temporarily].

Teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. 

Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? 

It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative.

Dr. Wilder-Smith:


“The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules.”

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

It is evidence like this that should give pause at the very least, each piece of evidence (This is just one) adds up to proof once Faith completes the circle of evidence. But I know that you will see it this way as yet, I’m only explaining how I see it. Thank you for your time and I hope to talk more soon!

You are absolutely RIGHT if you say:
“I don’t believe any Christian can show proof that God exists or doesn’t exist; so until any of you can do that, this whole topic is nothing more than personal opinion, or FAITH in what you believe to be truth, but in no way makes any of it absolute.”

But you would be totally wrong about one thing I WON’T CONDEMN YOU AT ALL!

I mean that, you have every right to feel that way about religion, IT IS A TOTAL FAILURE in representing God, always has been and always will be because it is owned and operated by Human Beings. What Christians need to learn when talking about this subject is that NO ONE can come to the conclusion of PROOF until it goes from external Talking to internalized FAITH.

Until a person accepts Jesus BY FAITH as the bible instructs them too NO PROOF is ever known by them as true, they will COUNTER every evidence presented with counter evidence, they will get mad and curse, they will demand BETTER evidence, they will walk away, BUT they can’t see what is in front of them. 

WHY? FAITH as described in scripture is NOT in any way the same as the faith defined by those who fight God or that religion abuses, they are not one and the same.

True biblical Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1, this is where ALL the questions of God are answered completely, where PROOF is found. Faith CONTAINS the proof, First acceptance then the proof not the other way around.

It is no different than on your Job, your employer requires that you FIRST WORK, then he’ll Pays you for the work you’ve DONE, your employer will not give you the reward first or most would take the money and run.
God is no different, he requires FIRST faith, then the rewards of proof are released by and through that faith.’t Check Your Brains at the Door: A Book of Christian Evidences (Know What You Believe and Why) 

TRUTH must be absolute or its pointless to even make any statement at all, if Truth is not an absolute then NOTHING anyone says means anything at all, going the way of the NON-Absolute make conversation silly at best there must be a rock solid stating place or its “sinking sand beliefs” of men, as soon as a point is made a counter point is made and NO evidence can stand on ether side of any issue. 
Its not that they don’t have good points to make, its that they will not admit being wrong when they are wrong, this is just plain childish behavior. I admit if I’m wrong without fail, because then I can learn a new approach that works better, most FAILURES in reasoning produce a more rounded argument when we are stretched and challenged with our beliefs.
Religion is NOT where the evidence stands the test, yet that becomes the whole ARENA to them, Jesus Christ himself is quoted in scripture HATING MAN’S RELIGION so its not the here, its the Scientific evidence, the Historical facts and Changed Lives that CANNOT be hidden to an HONEST seeker that PROVE God is really there.
WHAT IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH? DNA.(The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes )(Book review): An article from: Skeptic (Altadena, CA)

At no time have I had a good conversation with a true Atheist, THEY HAVE MADE UP THEIR MINDS before ever listening to your evidence. This is called “Closed Minded Debating”not logical open debate!
I have had better conversations with Agnostics because they at least ARE Honest when presented with REAL evidence they can’t explain UNLIKE an Atheist who resorts to insults, and swearing when confronted with something that blows their theory out of the water! 
Why NAME-CALL if your presentation is so right? This goes especially for believers, at NO TIME should we return evil for evil, this is Satan’s trick to make us no better than they are.
Remember if there are no absolute truths, then your “No-god” theory is no more valid than my “There is a God” theory, and we are at a crossroad of no point to the whole argument, that is where Satan likes it to stay! there is no such thing as absolute truth, then no-one can really say, “He should do that” or “She shouldn’t do that”. 
All you can say is, “A lot of people feel that this action would not make people feel good”. So you can’t say, “Multinational companies should not exploit the poor and destroy the environment”.
If relativists are right, a company executive might respond, “That may be true for you, but it is certainly not true for us”. 
Do you see the ethical consequences of throwing out the belief in absolute truth? 
 Christians are not calling people to become gullible, or to throw their minds out by taking an unreasonable “leap of faith”. 
Our faith is not rooted in mystical sayings that sound profound but actually have no real meaning
It is rooted in historical events, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
ABSOLUTE TRUTHS! have good reason to believe all men will die or face the judgment of God when Christ returns. There will be no escape from reality then. 
This is an unpopular idea, and may drive actually drive some away who are not willing to really investigate and consider honestly and deeply, with courage.

To say that”There is no absolute truth” is that absolutely true? 
If it is, then there is something that is absolutely true – that statement itself. 
If it isn’t absolutely true, then why insist that we should all believe it?
 It is logically inconsistent to deny the reality of absolute truth. Even if everyone in the world denied its existence, they would all be wrong, as  shown by the arguments above. 

But if logic itself has no ultimate validity, there is no objective basis for communication, rationality and so much that could give meaning to our world. It is certain that we would never have made any scientific or technological progress at all if we had started out with this kind of thinking. if there is ultimate objective truth, what is it? Even if we know it exists, does not imply that any person on earth actually has it. Everything ought to be examined and tested, as even the Bible says (1 Thessalonians 5:21). 

Hence there are “Big Issues” which ought to be considered by all men. 

Questions like, “Is there life after death?”, “Am I an accident or a creation of God?”, “What should I be doing?” all make sense only if objective truth and reality exist.

This is the real problem, not that there IS NO PROOF but that no evidence can be accepted as proof because I can simply counter with “There are no absolutes, truth is what I make of it and no more!” 

This is the childish reasoning of the school yard “I know you are but what am I” don’t be fooled by unreasonable statements about God.

What the world sees as Christian is NOT christian at all it is man made false religion, it is a true case of MISTAKEN IDENTITY. see the church as Catholic and Protestant, but these are simply man invented FAKE COPY’S of the realities that God instituted through Jesus.

They DO NOT represent his word in any way except in using scripture to justify their crimes against God’s commands and Man’s understanding, in this we agree I’m sure.

The Babylon Connection? 

True and False Reform in the Church 

Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t 

Behind the Cross: Exposing the Tricks and Schemes of the False Church 

Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, The: Recognizing and Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church the Veil of Deception: How to Recognize Lying Signs, False Wonders, and Seducing Spirits 

God’s Outlaw: The Story Of William Tyndale 

A brief discovery of the false churches: wherein the rights of the Christian church are further asserted by the Holy Scriptures. … by Henry Barrow … 

An Abridgment of the Book of Martyrs: To Which are Prefixed, the Living Testimonies of the Church of God, and Faithful Martyr, in Different Ages of the World; and the Corrupt Fruits of the False Church, in the Time of the Apostancy. To This Work … 

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: