The Romanticizing Jesus movement is turning women into camp followers

I've been hearing snippets of lyrics that drive me crazy. Hearing friends talk about books with words that grieve my spirit. I could not figure out why at first, but then it came to me. These words are part of a new paradigm aimed at women, in which Jesus is romanticized as our high school prom date. Is this new trend bad? Oh, yes, it's bad.

First, some examples of the Romanticism of Jesus. This one is from Beth Moore- I call it "Date night with Jesus at the Zoo".

"Christ seemed to say, “Let’s go play.” And that we did. I hadn’t been to the zoo in years. I heard about all the improvements, but I never expected the ultimate: Starbucks coffee! (OK, so I don’t have my health issues down pat.) Can you imagine watching a baby koala take a nap in a tree on a rare cold day in Houston with a Starbucks grande cappuccino in your hand? Now that’s a Sabbath moment! God and I had a blast." (The Beloved Disciple, p. 220)

Or this from Moore:

"After an April snowstorm, Moore writes, "I heard the voice of God speak to my heart: "Come and play." I love that He said "Come." Not "Go." "Come." That meant He was already there. I also love how I could tell by the sweet tone of His silent voice whispering to my spirit that He was smiling. You know, you can tell that kind of thing in the voices of those you really know. "I built a snowman. I used grapes for eyes, and a half-moon shaped sesame snack for the mouth. I didn't make a nose. I have enough for the both of us. He's wearing my hat and scarf, and I rather hope he doesn't get them wet. I let him borrow them because I was coming back inside. I laughed with God. He laughed with me.... I am so in love with Him. I am so in love with Him." (When Godly People do Ungodly Things," p 124).

Or this from Ann Voskamp via book reviewer Tim Challies-

“I fly to Paris and discover how to make love to God.” This closing chapter, “The Joy of Intimacy,” is her discovery of God through something akin to sexual intimacy. In a chapter laden with intimate imagery she falls in love with God again, but this time hears him urging to respond. She wants more of him. And then at last she experiences some kind of spiritual climax, some understanding of what it means to fully live, of what it means to be one with Christ, to experience the deepest kind of union. “God makes love with grace upon grace, every moment a making of His love for us. [C]ouldn’t I make love to God, making every moment love for Him? To know Him the way Adam knew Eve. Spirit skin to spirit skin?”

EWWWW! It's bad enough to have date night with Jesus because you are "in love with" Him, but to fantasize about sex with Him skin to skin? Just awful. But that is the natural slide downward where this trend is leading us. Below, I'll show you why.

So I was going to write a blog entry about how Jesus is not my boyfriend. And then I googled "Jesus is not my boyfriend" and there were lots of hits. LOL, many other better bloggers than I have already written about this trend. I am late to the party. Here are some good examples I offer to you to check out--

Internet Monk: Romanticizing Jesus

Do Not Be Surprised: Jesus is not my boyfriend

World View Weekend: Jesus wants to give you a hug?

Slaughter of the Sheep: Jesus is my boyfriend/girlfriend songs

Todd Friel, Wretched Radio, "Warning Against Jesus is My Boyfriend Songs" (video)

Spectrum Magazine: Jesus is not my boyfriend

The trend began in Christian music, and in Friel's piece he not only warns about the lyric but also the amorous phrasing and the manner in which they are sung, breathlessly and sexily. All this is a no-no. Unfortunately, the trend has now launched off music and invaded books and other materials mostly aimed at women.

So I got to thinking...why. Why this sudden trend toward Jesus as the hugging boyfriend? In my belief system, Jesus is the KING OF LINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, advocating and adjudicating for us with Yahweh at the throne in the courts of praise where the pillars shake. He is not a Romantic date sliding down a rainbow on a unicorn to give us a cupcake! (I read that somewhere. Isn't it good? I wish I could give credit). So what's up with all this? Take a deep breath, here we go.

It is all about the battlefield. We know from many scriptures that we are in a battle. We are fighting the good fight. (1 Timothy 1:18-19; 1 Timothy 6:12; Ephesians 6:12; Jude 1:3; ) We are given armor to help us, the main weapon of which is His word. (Eph 6:13-14).
Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that this battle is for the men only. Lift up the helmet visor. There's a woman in there! Nowhere does it say the armor is for the men only. Women are in this fight too.

But women are always satan's first target. He approached Eve in the garden, not Adam. (Gen 3:1). Paul warned Timothy that in the last days false teachers will creep into households to capture weak-willed women (who are laden with sins- yet another reason for frequent confession, ladies!). (2 Tim 3:6). Women are a target. Just look at the havoc wreaked with the Feminist movement.

Just as with so many things of Jesus, the opposite of what we expect in this world is what is actually true: the weak will prevail, the meek shall inherit, the first shall be last. In this case, it is that staying ON the battle field is safer. Therefore Satan's goal is to get women off the battlefield.

As long as you are a soldier fighting to resist satan all ways and all days, wearing the armor and wielding it in Holy Spirit strength, you are safer than if you're off the battlefield, relaxing. And yet that is where satan has gotten so many women.

They have taken off their armor and have suspended the fight. Now they are not a warrior, they are a camp follower. Originally a camp follower was a woman married to a soldier who traveled with the soldier. Sometimes his family went along too.

Below, Camp Followers: wives and families.

Satan has got the women off the muddy, stinky, dirty battlefield to go into the tent and rearrange the curtains. He's gotten women off the battlefield and into romanticizing war. We went from this:

To this:

Now that we have dispensed with armor and gotten in touch with our softer side, we did the same to Jesus. No longer the LORD OF LORDS, He is the high school date with which we cuddle in the rocking chair kissing skin to skin with warm embraces. What will be the next progression? You read Beth Moore's snippets of her date with Jesus. She is "so in love with Him." What is the next thing that satan will do? He always perverts everything, pollutes it. We have left the Godly relationship behind. We've entered into a romantic relationship. The next step is to change from a romantic relationship and to sexualize it. Isn't that the progression? Always.

Like the lyrics of Hold Me featuring tobyMac (HT Sola Sisters)--

(I love, I love, I love, I love the way You hold me)
(I love, I love, I love, I love the way You hold me)
(I love, I love, I love, I love the way You hold me)
(I love, I love, I love, I love the way You, the way Ya, the way Ya)
I've had a long day I just wanna relax
Don't have time for my friends, no time to chit-chat
Problems at my job, wonderin' what to do
I know I should be working, but I'm thinking of You and
Just when I feel this crazy world is gonna bring me down
That's when Your smile comes around
Oo, I love the way You hold me, by my side You'll always be
You take each and everyday, make it special in some way
I love the way You hold me, in Your arms I'll always be
You take each and everyday, make it special in some way
I love You more than the words in my brain can express
I can't imagine even loving You less
Lord, I love the way You hold me

What happened to the wifely camp followers? Many women, if their husbands were killed, had to make a living. They entered into sexual relationship with the men. As prostitutes.

Women are going AWOL from the battle, seduced by the violins and lollipops from the army band at the back of the battlefield, to go into the tents and wait out the battle. And while the women are waiting, they yearn for the perfect man to come in and sweep them off their feet, give them the love they always wanted and never had, listen to them, hold them in the rocking chair. Ugh. And then they descend into a perverse sexual relationship and their degradation is complete.

Jesus is not my boyfriend. He is not my lover.

Dear ones, the battle is wearisome. It is dirty. It is bloody.

Battle Hymn of the Republic
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.

The battle seems to go on, and on, and on, and on...but His day is coming, and we need to be ON the battlefield when He does. We cannot be listening to gross lyrics like "hold me in your arms, never let me go, Lord I want to see your face, feel the warmth of your embrace." (Hillsong United, Draw me Closer to You). We cannot be off in some snowfield making a snowman and having a blast with God. We cannot be making love to God spirit skin to spirit skin!' (Ann Voskamp, One Thousand Gifts). Women are seduced off the battlefield and turning into whores for Jesus.

I agree, that is rough language and a rough charge. But what else is a person to make of a trend where perfect agape love of our HOLY GOD has been switched for eros with our prom date Jesus?

"While it is true that the Bible utilizes images of marriage to parallel Christ’s relationship to the church, two things must be taken into account. Firstly, Christ relates to the church as a collective unit. He is married to the community as a whole and not to billions of individuals who claim to serve him–he is not a polygamist. Secondly, the love Christ shares with his church is not defined by the Greek term “eros” from which the English word “erotic” is derived, but is expressed with the noun “agape” (pronounced ah-gah-pay) which denotes love demonstrated in deeds. Those who view themselves as children of God are not called to exercise eros but agape; they are not invited to brief episodes of self gratifying sexual intimacy but to a lifetime of social and spiritual interaction." (source)

What are the men to make of this sexual imagery with Christ? Does Ann Voskamp's husband (if she has one) feel comfortable with her sexual allegory and eroto-porn language? How would he feel if it was Justin Bieber she said she wants to enjoy a greater intimacy with spiritual skin to skin? Or worse, the man next door? If he came across her drafts of her book but included in it was language exactly the same as what ended up in her book but instead she used the name of Joe next door? Adultery is not good. That is what I mean by whoring for Jesus!

If you listen to praise music, or read Christian books or studies by women, here are a couple of clues to tune into,

1. Who is the subject of the song? Even the nicest sounding songs or books take ourselves as the subject. Hillsong United's Draw Me Closer to You is about... ME.

2. How long does it take you to figure out the song is about God? In the Hold Me song where I listed the lyric, the Lord was not mentioned till nearly the end.

3. Does the song have good theology? Can you recognize scriptural verses in there?

"Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty! Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee; Holy, Holy, Holy! Merciful and Mighty! God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity!" Obviously refers to Isaiah 6:3.

Amazing Grace's 'blind but now I see' is from John 9:25.

4. Is the song sung in a straightforward way or are there additional sexy trills and moans added? If it is a book passage or a bible study (God forbid!) then are there words that allude to a fleshly relationship of a more carnal nature, talk of kissing or embracing?

I trust in my Divine and Majestic God as Lord and Savior. He is also my Comforter and my Friend. He is not my boyfriend and He is not my lover. His grace is sufficient for me.


  1. I am with you on this one Elizabeth, there are a lot of "christian" songs and artist's that have a questionable theology about them.
    Appealing to the flesh.

    1. Thanks so much Jeff. I really appreciate you checking in and also your support.

    2. I have to say, Hollywood seems to have sexy men portray our Savior even though it is written in the Bible that he was "not much to look at". Yeshua/Jesus is Jewish and he wore the clothes of a Rabbi and most likely had a long beard. They are focusing on looks rather than our High Priest and His teachings. And near Halloween, stores are filled with items of the occult and - yes - churches are now allowing people to bring their Starbucks coffee to worship service with the excuse "Jesus said, 'come as you are' ". I think that is disrespectful to God.

    3. thanks Anonymous. I agree that is disrespectful. Good point about the handsome man hollywood-actor syndrome.

  2. Hi Elizabeth,

    This has opened many questions for me. I will share a few with you. What do you do with Song of Songs? It is very romantic and it is Jesus talking to the church. If marriage is sexual and the joining of a husband and a wife is glorifying to God, the ultimate union, then isn't it the same with Jesus and the church but not on a physical, worldly level, but on a deep more meaningful spiritual level? Since God is love, all the different kinds of love, then how does sexual love fit in?

    I don't believe, or think it is right to think on God as in a sexual relationship but there are many unanswered questions here. We need to be rounded soldiers, not focusing on just a few aspects of God but all of Him.

    I couldn't imagine God not loving on me deeper and more fully than my husband ever could. He is my God, my Father, my Saviour, my friend and my husband to be as I am part of the bride of Christ and I anxiously wait for Him to come and bring me to Him along with the other brides that complete His church.


    1. Hi Child of God,

      Thank you for posing the question...however you and I disagree that Solomon's Song is a spiritualized Jesus speaking to His bride. According to GotQuestions, "Purpose of Writing: The Song of Solomon is a lyric poem written to extol the virtues of love between a husband and his wife. The poem clearly presents marriage as God’s design. A man and woman are to live together within the context of marriage, loving each other spiritually, emotionally, and physically."

      If we are to accept that the Song is Jesus singing the virtues of, say, licking our breasts, then that makes Him a polygamist, and a homosexual, if we are to extend the metaphor to the entire Church (Bride). We also have to deal with the verse that says there is no marriage in heaven, and then have to charge Jesus with sin,because if we are married and He is to lovingly caress us (each one of us, all however many billions) then we have to say he is failing to fulfill His husbandly duty if He fails to model the Song on each and every one of the redeemed actual bodies, as Paul charged husbands not to do as 1 Cor 7 states.

      You see the mess that actualizing the Song to an actual marriage between Jesus and each individual will get us into.

      MacArthur explains that the Song is "a lengthy poem about courtship and marital love. It is filled with euphemisms and word pictures. Its whole point is gently, subtly, and elegantly to express the emotional and physical intimacy of marital love..."...but... "To interpret this—or any other portion of Scripture—in a purely allegorical fashion is to treat the interpreter's own imagination as more authoritative than the plain meaning of the text." And we have said the plain meaning is a husband a wife in the marital bed- which does not exist in heaven.

      While there are elements in the Song that foreshadow Jesus's love for His church, I maintain that the veiled imagery of the Song is an ode to the pleasures of the marital bed between a husband and a wife, no more, no less.

      While we do seek all aspects of Jesus, we need no impute *more* aspects to Him than actually exist in scripture. Sexual imagery of Jesus to His bride, in this case, to each and every human He has redeemed, is going too far, in my opinion.

    2. Elizabeth, I wish I could "un-read" what you wrote above here so I can sleep tonight. The OP said she was NOT referring to physical contact with Jesus, yet in your reply you said disgusting things about licking breasts and homosexuality. I'm so beyond grossed out I almost feel sick to my stomach. If you read a good commentary/study on Song of Songs, you will find that the poetic imagery has very symbolic, noble meaning, whether you take it as an allegory about Christ and His Bride or an example of marriage.

    3. Anonymous I wish I could "un-read' the lyrics to this Casting Crowns song. It's gross.

      "Your Love Is Extravagant"

      Your love is extravagant
      Your friendship, it is intimate
      I feel like moving to the rhythm of Your grace
      Your fragrance is intoxicating in our secret place
      Your love is extravagant

      Spread wide in the arms of Christ is the love that covers sin
      No greater love have I ever known You considered me a friend
      Capture my heart again

      Spread wide in the arms of Christ is the love that covers sin
      No greater love have I ever known; You considered me a friend

      Capture my heart again
      Your love is extravagant
      Your friendship, it is intimate

      I wish I could "un-read' these lyrics from Kari Jobe,

      I wanna sit at your feet
      Drink from the cup in your hand.
      Lay back against you and breath, feel your heart beat
      This love is so deep, it's more than I can stand.
      I melt in your peace, it's overwhelming

      It IS gross! So much of our worship musics today and female 'Christian' writing like Ann Voskamp and Sarah Young feature sensuous imagery and sexual language formerly found in pulp romance books. It is disgusting.

      Song of Solomon is not a picture of sensual and sexual love between Christ and His bride. Read a good commentary on that. Meanwhile here is a synopsis of the S. o S

      The Song of Solomon is a lyric poem written to extol the virtues of love between a husband and his wife. The poem clearly presents marriage as God’s design. A man and woman are to live together within the context of marriage, loving each other spiritually, emotionally, and physically.

      This book combats two extremes: asceticism (the denial of all pleasure) and hedonism (the pursuit of only pleasure). The marriage profiled in Song of Solomon is a model of care, commitment, and delight.

      Read more:

      Here is Pastor Mike Abendroth in a 3-min explanation of the statement "Loving God is not erotic",

    4. I agree with Song of Sol portraying married love. If we tell a child that sex is better than chocolate, he has no reference point and will not believe us... yet the glory and majesty of heaven far surpasses sex, even if we can't imagine it!

    5. "I wanna sit at your feet
      Drink from the cup in your hand.
      Lay back against you and breath, feel your heart beat
      This love is so deep, it's more than I can stand.
      I melt in your peace, it's overwhelming"

      Makes me think of my children when they were young and their desire to be close to me, hold me and heart my heartbeat.

      I guess the way this is interpreted says a lot about the person.

    6. Hello E Taylor,

      I agree, the way this is interpreted says a lot about the person. There is a difference between childish faith and child-like faith. Grown women do not "melt into Jesus" as lover, boyfriend or anything of the sort. Songs like those are not aimed at children but to adults, usually women. Writing songs about, listening to, and enjoying relationship with Him in erotic terms does say a lot about a person.

    7. As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.
      Psalm 42:1
      King David said his soul panted after God. Nothing wrong with ano intense longing for the true Presence of the Lord, and yes, some people have a more intimate fellowship with the Lord. But some people are being tricked by seducing spirits into thinking that God is about Eros love, but He is about phileo love, not eros. It's a trick of the enemy.

  3. An excellent post. It is heartbreaking to see some in the Church throwing discernment under the bus in search of an emotional high. I heard one of the women you referenced speak at a function I was at and watched women around me weeping openly. I didn't get it and thought the woman was a nut. The great deceiver has convinced them to remove their armor and they have no idea they are vulnerable. Thanks for speaking truth!

    1. Hi Lynn,

      Thanks for your comment. I thought about the women weeping openly at some of these functions, too, because I attended a function where this was occurring as well. I even spent a while looking for some photos online, but decided not to post any. They exist though, and the overwhelming emotion that can be engendered, swooning and weeping, 'in love with Jesus' made me more than a little uncomfortable. It even reminds me of the women who swoon at Obama, tearfully fainting at his very presence.

  4. Excellent post, Elizabeth. And excellent response to the Song of Songs claim.

    The idea of the Song of Songs being about Jesus and the Church was just the Romanists copying late Jewish teaching that it as about God and Israel. They thought it was too sexual for young minds and therefore spiritualized it.

    But the context has nothing to do with anything other than the relationship of two lovers, identified as husband and wife.

    1. Hi Glenn,

      Thank you! I hope you and the Piper's Wife have a blessed Sunday. I'm so glad our hope lies in Him.

  5. I don't believe you can read SoS and hear the voice of Jesus speaking to the church. Ewwww! Made me laugh out loud that some would say that. Makes me wonder if they actually read it. Not everything is prophetic. Parts of the Bible are actual real life. :)
    Rebecca St James had a song out that is embarrassing to listen to. You wonder what was going on when she recorded "Desperate for You" with all that moaning going on.

  6. ...and I thought it was just me everytime I hear the one song that you shared all the words to! I have thought about this many times as I listened to the radio. I thank God that I actually caught it with only the spirit's help. I didn'tt need anyone else to tell me. God's moving me onward and upward and it makes me feel good.


    1. I'm so glad to hear of His increase in you for discernment and maturity! Praise Him, it is ever upward. No matter where we are, He brings us higher.

  7. The interpretation that Song of Solomon is between Jesus and the Church is NOT just "Romanist". Scofield taught it in his Scofield Study Bible. I have NEVER been a Catholic but was raised from birth on the Scofield Study Bible and that is what I was taught - it's a picture of Jesus (the groom) and His Bride (the Church). I rejected that view when I was about 20, some 37 years ago, along about the same time I quit using a study Bible for my general reading (the notes are not inspired, but many don't understand that!). I believe it is simply a love song between a man and his bride. For further info on Scofield's view (1917 edition), see

    "Scofield's remarks have been deleted in the New Scofield Bible.

    Scofield’s Introduction to the Song of Solomon is shown below.


    Nowhere in Scripture does the unspiritual mind tread upon ground so mysterious and incomprehensible as in this book, while the saintliest men and women of the ages have found it a source of pure and exquisite delight. That the love of the divine Bridegroom should follow all the analogies of the marriage relation seems evil only to minds so ascetic that martial desire itself seems to them unholy.

    The interpretation is twofold: Primarily, the book is the expression of pure marital love as ordained of God in creation, and the vindication of that love as against both asceticism and lust--the two profanations of the holiness of marriage. The secondary and larger interpretation is of Christ, the Son and His heavenly bride, the Church (2*Corinthians 11:1-4 refs)."

    1. makes a long and precise interpretation of this book, addresses the common misinterpretations, including the Jesus and Bride issue, and concludes (almost) with this:

      "The Song of Songs vividly and brightly tells us how the bridegroom and the bride rejoice over each other and delight in each other. On the day of our salvation, our Lord and Savior and now Bridegroom will rejoice and delight over us and we in Him. This is what resonates in our spirit as we read the Song of Songs. What makes this different from typology is that we are not actually making identification between the Song of Song’s bridegroom and Jesus. The Song of Songs just helps us to know His heart."

      I recommend the study. It is one long page.

    2. I believe it was Augustine who first taught the "Christ and the church" metaphor, which then became the Roman Catholic teaching. It stayed with the many protestant denominations after the reformation, which is why it ended up with Scofield. But in the Christian church, it started with Rome.

  8. This was a very timely post for me because I was wondering if women have become targets in the battle and your writing here makes perfect sense. I started thinking about this because of a heavily popular book out now called 50 Shades of Grey, and how women all over the world love this book. I never knew what it was about until I read its description on Amazon; it is pornography at best. I also found out that it replaced bibles in a British hotel.

    Thank you for your insightful writing as always in these times


    1. Hi Marrell,

      I'm so glad this could help you. I believe that women are targets for satan, constant and perpetual, and this latest iteration is one aspect. I hadn't thought directly about the Mommy Porn trend tying in, but you are absolutely right, it does. Thank you for the link to the news issue about the erotic novel replacing bibles at UK hotel!! I am astounded, ASTOUNDED, but not shocked. The Lord's word told us in the days of the end we would trade good for evil and evil for good. That we would become rebellious and lawless. Oh, my goodness.

      In the Garden when the serpent tempted Eve, he beguiled her, and when she saw the fruit she saw that it was pleasant. But the Hebrew word for 'pleasant' is explained we see that it means "to desire exceedingly, greedily, intensely". Satan reduced Eve to a slavering, drooling puddle of desire for that fruit. If he can do that to Eve who had no sin-nature in one conversation, and over *fruit*, what will he do to us? We're sitting ducks. And too many women have abdicated their position as warrior, failing to guard their eyes (which is the lamp of the soul) and satan is leading so many women down the path of sinful desire...

    2. Yes absoultely! We are indeed sitting ducks. Your example about Satan and Eve is chilling because no one thinks about the depth of that. If Satan could do that to her than what of us?

      I am so glad you were able to use the link regarding the UK hotel. I thought it was a joke but then realized that in these times (like you) I shouldn't be surprised. Elizabeth, I don't understand why there are so many who cannot see prophecy. It is so apparent in everything that is occuring. Even Christians who are aware of prophecy still doubt. So many are stubbornly and sinfully blind.

      Thank you for being a discerning watchman.
      Marrell :)

    3. Hi Marrell,

      Thank YOU for passing the link along. I went to it right away, thinking all the while of the swap, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20. He swapped Holy Truth for erotica, and then likened them as one and the same. Woe to him!

      As for prophecy, well, one reason they don't see it is because they are scared. Many people who profess to be Christians are afraid of the rapture. Some because they are not really Christians, others because they are attached to this world and want what it has more than they want Jesus.

      Others are good and solid Christians but are victims of seminaries. A whole generation of pastors and teachers have emerged from seminaries in the last 30-40 years where prophecy simply isn't taught. If it is, it is taught as allegory, with an overt tinge of it being a second rate category of study. As a result, many pastors and teachers have come out of seminaries with little to no training in these verses or little to no understanding of them, or little to no interest in preaching them. So we have a generation of congregants who are learning the same- no interest, no wisdom, no ability to discern the prophetic.

      Example: No one in Joel Osteen's church is going to understand prophecy. He NEVER teaches the second coming because he, by his own admission, doesn't preach sin, wrath, or anything "negative." There are hundreds of thousands sitting under him over the years. He is a bad example of the above, though, because he never even went to seminary!

      Another example: No one in Rick Warren's church is going to understand prophecy. He is soft on Muslims, praying to Allah in the name of a false prophet (Isa).

      The distinct thing about Jesus above all other names is that He has the sole authority to judge, and will come again to do so. Hence the aversion to prophecy of many who profess the one true God.

      And so on. Prophecy is, to use a phrase, the red-headed step-child of the bible. And no wonder, its power to edify and comfort is great. Its word, when shown to be fulfilled, demonstrate our true God's authority and timelessness. Therefore satan does his best to cast shadows upon what in my opinion are some of the greatest promises of the bible


Post a Comment