Norman Geisler Archives - CrossExamined

Tag Archive for: Norman Geisler

The Nature and Purpose of Miracles

When I was born the doctors said I was blind. In fact, I have a letter from the doctor saying that I was blind and that my grandmother (my grandparents reared me) simply would not accept that. She prayed and had her church pray. She had them anoint me with oil. One day I reached for a toy and my grandmother realized I could see. Today I have bad vision but I can see. Was this a miracle?

What Miracles Are

Miracles are by definition a supernatural act of God where he intervenes in nature to alter an otherwise natural course of events. By ‘supernatural’ is meant an act that transcends or is not a part of nature. It is other than nature. The only being other than nature is God; hence, miracles are only done by God. While there are paranormal activities described in the Bible, such as demonic activity or magic (Pharaoh’s magicians or the false miracles of the end times for instance), they are not true miracles according to this definition. They would be considered at best paranormal.

Notice too that since miracles are supernatural actions by God then many events that are normally said to be miraculous are actually not. While many say that the event of a newborn is miraculous, it is completely natural. Coming close to hitting a car head-on but barely missing it is also not a miracle. Rare events are not miraculous simply by virtue of being rare. Unexplained events are not miraculous just because they are unexplained. To be able to say an event is a true miracle, there must be a causal connection back to God. The action also has to be a direct intervention in nature. Providence (God sovereignly guiding human affairs/events) is thus also not miraculous. Miracles occur when nature is interrupted in some way.

Characteristics of Miracles

There are clear characteristics of true miracles. (For this discussion I am largely drawing on Norman Geisler’s “False Miracles,” in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.)[1]

Miracles are a direct intervention in nature. Rather than simply being a weird or unusual event, a miracle would never occur without God stepping in and making it happen. In other words, nature would never give rise to a miracle since by definition miracles are supernatural.
True miracles are immediate. Whereas natural events take a certain amount of time, miracles happen instantly. Medicine heals over time; miracles happen all at once. (Geisler explains that even when Jesus once healed a blind man in two steps, each step was instantaneous.)
Miracles bring glory to God. They are not done merely for wowing people or being showy. They show the power of God and draw people to him. They are never people-centered. They are done to show God’s power and grace, which in turn brings honor and glory to him.
Miracles don’t fail. They are always successful in what God sets out to accomplish. This does not mean people will not suffer physical ailments or death after experiencing a miracle; but it does mean that as opposed to medicine, miracles are always successful.
Miracles are obviously miracles. Many times today people claim that a healing or event was a miracle. It is sometimes debated, even by people who may have witnessed the event or know about it. There is no debating a clear miracle. While the Pharisees thought Jesus was doing his works from an ungodly source, they recognized he was doing something real. There is no doubting a real miracle. I am not suggesting people will not doubt a miracle if they simply hear about it, but real miracles are obviously not wrought by medicine, nor are they merely unexplained events. They are clearly miraculous.

The Purpose of Miracles in the Bible

In the Bible miracles authenticate a message/messenger of God. They are not performed in the Bible for entertainment. They are performed to prove something. For example, Peter exclaims, “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know . . .” (Acts 2:22). Contrary to popular belief miracles did not happen frequently in biblical times. While the Bible spans about 1500 years from the writings of Moses to the close of the NT, most of the miracles center around Moses/Aaron, Elijah/Elisha, and Jesus/the Apostles. There are huge gaps of time between these people’s lives. (One person who did the math said that if we add all the miracles up and divide by the number of years the Bible spans, it is about one miracle every eight years.) The reason miracles occurred with these groups is because they all had a message for God’s people and to those around them: That Yahweh is the true God and Jesus is identical with him. Other miracles happened outside of these groups, but also for specific reasons, such as the conquest of the land or accomplishing certain goals for God’s people.

It should be clear that based on these characteristics, miracles are special events caused by God that have a specific purpose and are extremely rare. In biblical times they did not happen often. If they did, people would not be amazed at them. Further, if they happened all of the time today, people would not be amazed at them.

The Theistic Context of Miracles

As Norman Geisler often says, there cannot be acts of God unless there is a God who can act. In order to truly say a miracle happened, we must know that a theistic God exists, that is, a God who is the creator and sustainer of this universe, who transcends it, and is not part of it. In the logical order then, it makes sense to prove that God exists before moving onto miracles. Even if a rare, unexplainable event happens, atheists can logically deny it was a miracle. If God has been demonstrated, however, that option (as C. S. Lewis maintained) is not available. Thus, while miracles may practically show God exists by making people see there is no other option for an event, it is logically better to argue for God’s existence first before moving onto miracles. This is why the 12 step method of Norman Geisler and Frank Turek’s I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist is so strong. In following the method of classical apologetics, they first prove that God exists before going on to show that miracles happen.

References:

[1] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 471-474.

Recommended Resources:

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. has a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3TnHLFI

June 16, 2025/by Ty Unknown

Norman L. Geisler: A Student’s Tribute

Atheism, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Huffling

I first heard about Dr. Norman L. Geisler when I was in high school. I bought his When Skeptics Ask. I glossed over it but thought it was beyond me. During my senior year of college, my wife and I decided to move back to my native Charlotte after graduation and study apologetics under Dr. Geisler at Southern Evangelical Seminary. Before making the move, we visited the seminary. While sitting in the registrar’s office, Dr. Geisler walked by, and I was star struck. After the tour, Dr. Doug Potter introduced us to Dr. Geisler. I was so nervous. He asked if we had lunch plans. I got even more nervous. We said no, and he asked if we would have lunch with him. Of course, we said yes. On the way out of the building he asked if I would drive as his car was in the shop. Even more nervous.

We went to a place called Wolfgang Puck (which is no longer there). I asked what he recommended and he said the butternut squash soup. So, I got that. Let me tell you, it was awful! Between the nervousness and the bad taste, I just couldn’t eat. However, after a while my nerves calmed, and he noticed I wasn’t eating. He asked if I didn’t like the soup, and I replied no (feeling badly). “Here, have some of my sandwich,” he said. Norman Geisler gave me half of his sandwich! I felt so bad. However, that is the kind of man he was. To be such a rock star in the world of evangelical apologetics, philosophy, theology, and biblical studies, he was such a humble man. That was something that I would notice for years to come.

As a student I took several classes from him, including Intro to Apologetics, several theology courses, a philosophy course, and the Problem of Evil. Of course, everyone knows he was a scholarly man. With over 100 books to his name, and I don’t know how many articles and presentations, he had a profound impact on the evangelical community. In fact, his impact was felt in many more circles than that. I have heard several people outside of evangelicalism, such as Ed Feser, and even outside of Christianity, such as Michael Ruse, praise him for his scholarship and care.

I have learned many things from Dr. Geisler. Having read several of his books, taken several classes, and co-taught with him, several characteristics stick out to me.

First, he was as logical as Spock. He could take a complicated argument (or an incoherent mess), and explain it to anyone in the most logical fashion, removing all unnecessary emotion. This is extremely important in issues of philosophy and apologetics when an issue can be convoluted or overly emotional. Second, he was a wizard at debating. Having seen several of his debates and discussions with unbelievers, he was a force to be reckoned with. Third, he was very caring of his students. He went out of his way to help however he could. He didn’t just talk the talk, he walked the walk. I remember him taking time to help me with my application to be an Air Force chaplain. I had to answer questions that I didn’t even understand what was being asked, let alone how to answer. He was patient and helpful. My wife was always amazed at how he remembered her name with over 50 students in a class and often asked for updates since the last time he had chatted with her even if it had been months prior. Fourth, and this is possibly what he is known best for, he was a bulldog at safeguarding evangelical issues such as inerrancy, the classical view of God, and the bodily resurrection of Christ.

His grace as a teacher didn’t stop with him being my professor. I was fortunate and honored to be able to teach a few classes with him. He treated me with grace and respect, even though I was very much his weaker assistant professor. He was never too busy to stop and say hello and see how things were going.

We can take the following lessons from our fellow servant of Christ: Be knowledgeable Christians. We have to know what we believe and why, and be prepared to defend it. We have to understand our interlocutor’s argument if we want to evaluate it. We have to make the Bible and devotion to Christ our first and foremost goal in life. It is not simply about winning arguments; it is about winning people for Jesus. Last, we have to be willing to serve others. We must live the servant life, as Christ and Dr. Geisler did.

Whose Morality Should We Legislate? 44 Quotes from Frank Turek and Norman Geisler

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Luke Nix

“We’re living in a society in which people feel no obligation to control their own actions. Instead, we rationalize and justify every aberrant behavior under the umbrella of freedom granted by the First Amendment, never admitting that freedom without reasonable and responsible limits destroys individual lives and ultimately destroys the fabric of a civilized society.”

“It is critical to recognize that the founders [of America] were pledging their lives to restore not someone’s revealed religion, but everyone’s self-evident morality.”

“It is important to note that even though the Founders believed the Rights of the people came from God, they did not insist that every citizen believe in God; they simply saw no way to justify those natural moral Rights unless there was a God.”

“The Moral Law actually is clear to everyone. It is evident by a person’s reactions rather than by his or her actions.“

“The Moral Law is not always the standard by which we treat others, but it is nearly always the standard by which we expect others to treat us.”

“The moral rightness or wrongness of a law is not determined by whether its enforcement is successful or unsuccessful…We’ve always found it difficult to enforce a number of our laws, including laws against murder, spouse and child abuse, rape, and theft, yet no sane person would ever suggest that these laws should be repealed because they’re difficult to enforce.”

“[Rights] should not be based on what people do, but on what is right as defined by the Moral Law. In other words, by definition, laws are prescriptive—they prescribe what ought to be done, while behaviors are descriptive—they describe what is being done. If everyone were to commit murder that wouldn’t make murder right. And it certainly wouldn’t be wise to discard all laws against murder because enforcement is difficult.”

“Most people are law-abiding citizens who don’t require someone constantly looking over their shoulder to keep them in line. In other words, the law, aside from law enforcement, has a certain restraining effect in itself. So when immoral behavior is legalized (the restraining effect of the law is removed), that behavior eventually loses its stigma of immorality. This is because many believe that whatever is legal is moral. That’s why legalization only result in more immoral behavior.”

“The history of abortion, like that of slavery and Prohibition, shows that laws can change hearts and attitudes when given enough time.”

“Even though many laws are difficult to enforce, most people obey them without the continuous presence of law enforcement. But since many believe that whatever is legal is moral, legalization of immorality will only result in more immoral behavior.”

“When libertarians or liberals seek to give people more freedom (i.e., by passing a law that legalizes a formerly illegal activity), they do exactly what they condemn conservatives for doing. They impose their morals (and thereby the associated effects) on people who do not agree with those morals.”

“A common mistake of relativists is to confuse behavior and value, what is and what ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not. This is the difference between sociology and morality. The former is descriptive, the latter is prescriptive.

“The Moral Law tells [atheists] intuitively that genocide is wrong. But they can’t appeal to the Moral Law to justify their belief because acknowledging the Moral Law would logically mean acknowledging the existence of the Moral Law-giver.”

“If man is the ultimate authority, then human beings are perfectly justified in defining morals and ethics that fit their own desires, even if those ethics are the ones espoused by Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and the Chinese government–murder, torture, and abuse.”

“Large-scale evolution is not only a theory that affects how one looks at things in the biology lab; it has a dramatic impact on government, philosophy, law, and ethics, as well.”

“The [First] Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion or denomination, but…it logically cannot prohibit Congress from establishing a national morality.”

“Allowing the [Supreme] Court to read their own meaning into the Constitution defeats the whole purpose of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

“If an unelected tribunal of judges can pour any interpretation they desire into a law, then the intentions of the people expressed in that law can be frustrated and usurped. The law ultimately means nothing if its original intent is not honored. Stop signs are useless if drivers are free to interpret them as ‘Go!'”

“While the Bible does not call for its political imposition on civil governments, it does call for those who believe in the Bible to be politically active.”

“The Bible does not command Christians to set up a Christian America; it simply commands them to help create a moral America.”

“What the Left really means when it asserts relativism is that all traditional absolutes are relative—their new absolutes are the only true absolutes. Reasonable people know better.”

“If we continue to let the Supreme Court and the Left suppress the Moral Law morality from our public life, our country is not likely to survive the evil that will continue to grow within it.”

“Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter.”

“The truth of the objective Moral Law is most clearly seen by analyzing the tangled rhetoric of those who ignore it.”

“A Moral Law government avoids the intolerance of a purely religious government and the moral relativism of a purely secular government.”

“As history has proven, again and again, human beings have an unfailing propensity to suppress the Moral Law when that law gets in the way of their desire for pleasure, power, or property.”

“Today, our moral positions are more often fueled by feelings and emotions than by careful thought.”

“As a society, we rightfully discriminate against all kinds of harmful behaviors (e.g., drunk driving, theft, rape, etc.) regardless of the fact that some people may have been ‘born’ with a propensity to commit those crimes.”

“Even if we are ‘born’ heterosexual or homosexual, we are not required to engage in any particular form of sexual conduct. While we may have strong desires, our conduct is not mandatory. A choice must still be made.

“The fundamental problem in our world is that people willingly choose to do things that deep down they know they shouldn’t do. The fact that we’re all flawed to some extent—is precisely the reason we need a system of laws in our society.”

“We are not saying that all women who have abortions are murderers but victims themselves, deceived by the euphemisms of the abortion propaganda machine.”

“If the ‘pro-choicers’ were truly ‘pro-choice’, they would invite pro-life advocates to their meetings and into their clinics. After all, life is the only other choice a woman can make. Instead, pro-abortion advocates greet pro-lifers with court orders to keep as far away as possible. The pro-abortionists have only one choice in mind. The other choice isn’t good for business.”

“No one has the moral right to choose anything that directly ends the life of another innocent human being. The right to life is the right to all other rights. Without life, we’d all have no rights whatsoever.”

“Because of the legality of abortion, family and friends often feel free to pressure women into killing their babies when they wouldn’t otherwise do so.”

“When the [Supreme] Court ignores the intent of a particular law, it is ignoring the will of the people. Instead of the people governing themselves, they are governed by the imposed will of unelected judges. That’s not representative democracy, that’s closer to tyranny.”

“[Some men with whom women are sexually active] favor abortion because it frees them of what would normally be a long-range responsibility. In effect, abortion makes women more susceptible to predatory males who want to use women for sex but aren’t really interested in making long-term commitments to them.”

“All moral positions impose values. Even the moral position that you should not impose values on others does just that: it imposes values on others. For if we are not to restrain people legally from doing wrong, then we impose on others the effects of the wrongdoing.”

“It is precisely because humans are not animals that we do not kill them in difficult situations. That is, since we believe human life has a higher value than that of animals, we do not treat humans like laboratory rats. Moreover, human beings don’t lose their value when they lose their health. People are valuable because of their humanity, not because they lack an infirmity.”

“Laws favoring abortion impose values on the life of the unborn; pro-life laws impose values on the liberty of the mother. In other words, the pro-life side wants to impose continued pregnancy on the mother, while the pro-abortion side wants to impose death on the baby.”

“If money made people happy, the United States would be the happiest place on earth. Instead, we lead the world in indicators of unhappiness such as suicide, drug use, and divorce.”

“Money without morality leads to the kind of materialistic madness we’ve been experiencing. We have everything to live with and nothing to live by.”

“How can those responsible for legislating morality do so when they have trouble discerning right from wrong? Are such people really qualified to make decisions of the highest moral consequences?”

“Why won’t those who use immoral means to get what they want in their private lives use immoral means to get what they want in their public lives? Those who refuse to restrain their appetites in private are unlikely to resist the enormous temptation to abuse their political power to get what they want (and to use that power to cover up their ‘private’ indiscretions).”

“When the ideal is not realizable, then we should legislate the optimum achievable within the existing conditions. That is when the maximum is not possible, we should not settle for the minimum but should legislate the optimum.”

All these quotes came from Drs. Frank Turek’s and Norman Geisler’s book Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible. Check out the full chapter-by-chapter review of the book and other featured posts:

Dr. Norman Geisler’s Greatest Hits

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Join Frank as he describes more than 50 important truths that his mentor, Dr. Norman Geisler, taught him over the years. All of these insights— some of them were profound quips— will help you defend the faith and make you a better disciple. You better get ready to listen intently because there is more than one insight per minute! Dr. Geisler wrote or co-wrote 129 books over his 86 years, and founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. That’s still a great place to learn apologetics, philosophy and theology. www.SES.edu.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

July 15, 2019/by Guest

The 5 Views of Morality

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

I recently read Gregory E. Ganssle’s book Thinking about God: First Steps in Philosophy. In his book, Ganssle provides 5 particular views pertaining to morality. As one examine these views, it becomes clear that one view of morality stands above and beyond the value of the other moral opinions. Many of these lesser viewpoints have invaded the mindset of many modern individuals. However, it becomes clear that only one is valid. So, what are the five views of morality?

The Error Theory

Ganssle describes the error theory as one that “holds that there are no moral facts. This theory denies them altogether.”[1] This theory holds that it is factually wrong to claim any form of morality. Thus, one could not say whether it is wrong or not to torture an animal or person. The error theory, while held by some philosophers, could be attributed to some Eastern religions which claim that good and evil are just illusions and not real.

From the outset, one should be able to deduce the great problems found in the error theory. For instance, the one who claims that the error theory is correct will dismiss such a theory the moment the advocate claims some form of an act (i.e. racial discrimination, the Holocaust, terrorist acts, etc.) as wrong. Thus, the error theory collapses upon itself as most everyone will acknowledge the existence of good and bad behaviors.

Individual Relativism

Individual relativism is best explained by the classic phrase, “What’s good for you may not be good for me.” That is, individual relativism is the belief that the individual sets forth his or her own morality. Thus, one person cannot tell another person what is right or wrong according to this theory as each person must decide good from bad themselves.

Upon careful examination, anyone can see the great problem with this theory. For example, if person A (we’ll call him Adam) is driving along and person B (we’ll call him Bob) steals Adam’s car, Adam may say, “Hey, that’s not right.” But according to individual relativism, Bob would be justified in saying, “Hey man, it’s not right for you but it is for me!” However, we all know that it is morally wrong for anyone to steal another person’s car. A judge in a court of law will let Bob know quickly about the failures of his philosophy when sentencing him to jail time.

Why do so many jump on board with this philosophy? I think Ganssle is correct in saying that “I…think that people do not want other people to tell them what to do and that people do not want to tell others what to do. If morals are individually relative, then no one can tell you that something is wrong.”[2] Passivity, however, do not justify wrong thinking. Neither does a prideful heart. Individual relativism implodes the moment the individual relativist is a victim to an immoral act.

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativists try to correct the problems of individual relativism while maintaining to the idea of moral relativism. The cultural relativist does so by claiming that morality is set by the cultural mores of an area. That is, “What is right or wrong is determined by one’s culture or society.”[3] While cultural relativism holds more of a base than does individual relativism, the theory still holds a major flaw.

Most people are horrified by the ruthless brutality of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and extremist terror groups. However, if one accepts cultural relativism, then there is no basis for condemning such actions. For Hitler, he felt that he was doing the right thing according to his flawed moral viewpoint. Yet, cultural relativists hold no ground to condemn beheadings, gas chambers, and mass bombings if each culture establishes their own moral code. The cultural relativist begins to think more objectively than relative in such cases, as they should.

The Evolutionary Theory of Morality

The fourth theory is called the evolutionary theory of morality. According to this theory, it is held that treating other people in good ways rather than bad helped the human species to survive. Thus, the theory holds that morality falls in line with Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” philosophy. However, it is apparent that the theory holds some flaws.

Ganssle rightly notes that the evolutionary theory of morality “does not explain morality.”[4] Setting aside one’s acceptance or rejection of the evolutionary theory, this moral theory does nothing to define morality. For the evolutionary theorist, morality coincides with a survival of the human species. This brings us to another flaw. Many societies have sought to destroy other groups of human beings. Catastrophic wars do not seem to help the human race survive. Rather than helping the species survive, war often threatens human existence. Wars are fought with both sides thinking they are correct. Therefore this theory tends to find itself in a form of cultural relativism which we have already denounced.

So where does this leave us? It leaves us with the final theory of morality which appears to be the clear choice.

Objective Morality

Thankfully with the failures of the first four models, a fifth option exists. There is the objective morality theory. Norman Geisler defines objective morality as the following:

“Morality deals with what is right, as opposed to wrong. It is an obligation, that for which a person is accountable.

An absolute moral obligation is:

an objective (not subjective) moral duty—a duty for all persons.

an eternal (not temporal) obligation—a duty at all times.

a universal (not local) obligation—a duty for all places.

An absolute duty is one that is binding on all persons at all times in all places.”^[5]

Thus, objective moralists view morality as a transcendent reality which applies to all individuals and societies. An objective moral is held by all people. This seems to be the case. While different tribes and societies hold different outlooks on peripheral matters of morality, the core morals are the same especially among those of their own tribe. It is wrong to murder. It is wrong to steal. It is wrong to commit adultery. And so on. Even so, we can conclude that objective morality is the correct viewpoint. Furthermore, we can deduce as did Norman Geisler in that

“Moral absolutes are unavoidable. Even those who deny them use them. The reasons for rejecting them are often based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of the moral absolute, not on a real rejection of it. That is, moral values are absolute, even if our understanding of them or the circumstances in which they should be applied are not.”^[6]

Objective morals, thus, point towards the necessity of an objective law (or moral) giver. That objective lawgiver is none other than God.

Sources Cited

Ganssle, Gregory E. Thinking about God: First Steps in Philosophy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Notes

[1] Gregory E. Ganssle, Thinking about God: First Steps in Philosophy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 90.

[2] Ibid., 92.

[3] Ibid., 92.

[4] Ibid., 95.

^[5] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 501.

^[6] Ibid., 502.

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2zMlpEP

March 8, 2016/by Guest