Developing the Courage and Certainty to Evangelize
Why the Sects Out-Evangelize the Church
Christos Fellowship — Renaissance Ministries
Fellowship Essay · 28 July 2026
Preface: Context
Charlie and I had a conversation this week about the future of Renaissance Ministries and how to create an effective ministry template that leaves time for living life. Charlie was born a Catholic, was part of the LDS church for many years, went on a mission as a teen, and was married in the temple. He eventually left the LDS version of Christianity for the Historic Christian faith. One of the things he has repeatedly said was how much time he spent doing LDS activities. He was a willing servant, and the church gave him so much LDS work that his life had little room for anything else. I relate this story as a caution. We must decide how much organization and outreach we should do to spread the message of Renaissance Ministries as we become larger and more widely known. That said, I think sharing the gospel is vital; all the methods of outreach that are so effectively done by the JW and LDS are options. What kind of outreach should we do? As a proposal, I think duplicating and multiplying the small group meeting concept is a good foundation. It could include the following: Zoom or home meetings; inviting new people but limiting to an agreed-upon limit so that everyone has the opportunity to share, grow and learn together. The discussion today is about what types of evangelization should be done. How do we get the word out so that the whole world can participate and reach the depth of personal challenge we have experienced in these interactions?
I. The Facts of Evangelization by Christians
Let’s begin with a few facts: the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Latter-day Saints go door to door witnessing, and the LDS send their young people out for two years at their own expense. I have received a number of handwritten letters — two pages, in cursive — from people in this town I have never met, who believe that Jehovah of the Bible is God the Father, that Jesus was the Archangel Michael and not God, and enclose a tract. I spent 26 weeks, an hour a week, on Zoom going through the JW program of introduction to Biblical concepts with a wonderful couple who dressed up nicely for the meeting and were polite and friendly. It was an enjoyable time of fellowship and studying the Word. During that study, there was little I could identify as distinct from their teachings and those of Historic Christianity. To identify the distinction between the doctrine of the JW and Historic Christianity requires careful parsing of the scriptures and history of these two Christian traditions. Here is an analysis of the JW history and doctrine.
The one obvious difference is the level of average commitment to (boldness in) evangelization by the LDS/JW and Historic Christianity adherents. Most of us in the body of Historic Christianity will not raise the subject of salvation and a relationship with God with a neighbor we have known for decades. Very few of us spend an hour a week explaining the Bible to a potential convert. The question is then, “Should we?” The answer is, yes, I think we should.
An explanation for this difference may be that we, as Historic Christians, don’t want to risk alienation in a culture that values diversity/tolerance as a primary virtue, has touted separation of Church and State as though it was a Constitutional principle (it is not), we have been told that American is not just a Christian nation (by Barack Obama), and that America’s strength is in its diversity (by woke culture).
Those reasons are probably part of why we are so non-evangelical in comparison, but I think there is a deeper reason. I think there are two reasons the JW and LDS sects are bold. 1) They believe what they are preaching, and 2) evangelism is integral to their institutional structure (doctrine, leadership, and history). My experience with both JW and LDS adherents is that they are deeply convinced that what they believe is true, and they believe they are doing me an invaluable service by telling me about their version of Christianity.
I believe many Christians are hesitant to witness because they are not certain that they can justify their belief in the Bible against the evidence and theories of science.
It seems that the JW and LDS adherents are not concerned about arguing with or comparing their beliefs with science. They probably don’t convert many secular humanists and materialists, but I don’t know that for certain. They believe their scriptures (the JW version of the Bible and the LDS Book of Mormon) are the correct words of God, and they need no justification beyond that to share the gospel as they understand it. They are true believers and do not let arguments against Scripture or the evidence and theories of Science discourage or dissuade them from sharing and defending their beliefs.
In my experience, they speak as a man does when he is certain that what he speaks, has read, and has been told is true. I see in them no wavering, no hint of uncertainty, no room for doubt in their presentation. I do not know if they have secret questions in their hearts. I am certain that some do, given that some leave these groups. Given this evidence, we know there is a spectrum of belief and certainty in their book, prophecies, and leadership. And while the individual may have questions in private, those doubts are never shared in public or during the witnessing and evangelization encounters. Whether that is simplistic, a strategy, or the product of pressure from leadership is unknown.
I don’t see the specifics of their organizational formality in the LDS or JW scriptures. I suspect that each tradition has developed its own culture from a combination of the leadership, community response (what worked), and interpretation of its scriptures. All organizations act like people, to a greater or lesser extent, on various traits (because they are made of people). They have a drive to survive. The bottom line is that they have evolved and survived. This is proof that their methods are effective in producing survival, not that their doctrine is true. They speak in a way that reflects certainty; they use logic that is consistent to a point and to a depth that is adequate to convince a certain spectrum of the population. The result is that a certain percentage of people will respond to that presentation. As people, we are sheep, and we will follow the most persuasive shepherd.
The shepherd we follow may be the shepherd of rational philosophy or experimental science. It may be the shepherd telling of the wonderful changes in their lives, the fulfillment of Christian fellowship, or the sense of meaning. It may be the shepherd telling the story of the Bible and its promises of salvation and restoration with God. Regardless, as humans, we all follow others, at least to some extent. None of us is an island, independently inventing and validating all morality, symbolism, metaphysics, ontology, culture, and methodology.
II. Why We Are Quiet
Consider what a Christian actually faces when he opens his mouth in this culture. The Biblical literalist claims the world was created 6000 years ago, but the Scientific Establishment claims the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The Bible says there was a flood, and the geologist says there is no such geological record. The Bible says God made the world in six days, and scientists say the Big Bang began the process out of nothing, and the Earth was formed 4 billion years ago.
I am not concerned by any of these apparent contradictions. I think the language of the Bible is sufficiently inclusive/ambiguous to allow for any length of time for the Earth to form and life to arise, however God created it. To my mind, the actual point of tension is that the Bible states, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) In a culture whose central moral conviction is that there is no ultimate truth, no one may claim to be right, evil is relative, and right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder, any behavior is permissible by adult parties in a willing contract. This single verse requires the Bible-believing Christian to make a statement which marks him as an exclusionist when he says there is only one way to God. This is a claim that makes everyone wrong, lost, and going to hell except the Christian. That type of stand does not sound like someone who is trying to find common ground to build a relationship on. This is the problem of “What about the pygmies, the people who are good people who never heard?” I think we need to confront that one right up front and admit that we don’t know how God deals justly with the person who has never heard, but I think we can trust that He will be fair with every person. To dwell on such questions is a type of avoidance; the reality is that it takes discipline to choose a life of righteousness, and we may need a miraculous change of heart to actually live it. The bottom line is really, will the person we are witnessing to live a better life if he submits to His Way? And, will a life committed to living His Way produce the best possible life for you/me/us?
How bold should we be in our witness? Should we speak or just let our excellent, loving life speak for itself? What should our posture be toward those to whom we are sharing the gospel? Should we go door to door? Should we sit in front of the DMV with a brochure holder full of tracts? Should we write letters to complete strangers?
The foundation of every Christian’s faith depends on a belief in the divine revelation of the Bible. (My definition of the word “belief” is the state of mind that holds a concept so strongly that a man acts upon it.) We could defend our faith with a terse confession of the Bible’s inerrant authority with a statement such as, “the Bible said it, so I believe it.” But that isn’t a sufficiently complete elaboration of why people come to faith. People do not accept the Bible as the authoritative Word of God without corroborating evidence. There are many reasons that people believe the Bible. These include: its correspondence with history and contemporary documents, archaeological evidence, the evidence of the change in people’s lives, the familial tradition and teaching of the faith, the evidence of science, such as the fine-tuning argument, and the evidence of a God in nature and the resonance of the heart.
Such reasons are significant, in that they satisfy the mind and heart and spirit to a degree, but they cannot meet the standards of scientific reproducibility or explain why the atonement is necessary (the simple mechanistic reduction – the mechanio reducto). And that is the crux: the culture we speak to has been trained to ask for the mechanism. The Bible does not offer a detailed causal explanation of the construction of the universe that would make it necessary for the literal Son of God, who is God Himself, to incarnate, live a perfect life, be falsely condemned and killed, rise again, and by doing so pay for my sins if I acknowledge His payment for my sins with His death, and commit my life to living as He lived.
The Bible is a revelation, which should be consistent with facts. The problem is that we cannot determine for certain that it is true from its own testimony. In fact, the story actually does not have enough detail to verify it by understanding and logic. This appears to be intentional,
- (1 Corinthians 2:14) — Spiritual things seem confusing: “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him… neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
- (2 Corinthians 4:3–4) — The gospel is veiled: “If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost… the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.”
- (Matthew 13:11–13) — Jesus says the mysteries are hidden: “It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.”
- (Isaiah 29:10–14) — A spirit of deep sleep: “The LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep… the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed.”
- (Romans 1:21–22) — Minds become darkened: “Their foolish heart was darkened… professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
The apologist for Science believes he has an explanation for the existence of the universe to a great extent (knowing that he does not know the deepest mysteries). He points to relativity, natural selection, and the chain of physical causation running from the Big Bang to the present as evidence of the depth of scientific knowledge. The apologist for science believes he is standing on firm ground, as he bases his opinions on experiments, logic, and mechanism, which reflect objective reality. The Scientist believes his Christian friend is standing on ancient mythology that has been long disproven.
We are not silent because we lack courage. We are silent because we have been made to feel that we lack grounds.
III. The Priesthood Nobody Voted For
I believe we should challenge the conventional scientific doctrine and see to what degree it is valid, and where the edge of its uncertainty is. First, we ask what the materialist actually proposes. While doctrine varies within any religion, some common beliefs are: Matter existed eternally, uncaused. Matter organized itself. Matter produced life without intending to, and then produced mind — the very faculty now being used to explain matter — with no one directing any of it. I believe such an explanation for life and existence asks for more faith than Genesis does. It is appropriate to articulate the counterarguments against the certainty of Scientism.
The structure of science is not explanatory; it is a collection of experiments and facts with explanations that are not consistent with one another. There is one theory for particles and mass and another for fields and energy. Space and time are a mystery. Relativity explains the large, and quantum mechanics explains the small, and the equations describing the two are incompatible, and a century of effort has not joined them. Science is not a cathedral; it is a construction site. Science has constructed a theory of the universe and its implied morality. The fact is that the edifice of science is a hodgepodge of theory and experiment with no unified logic to justify its claim to truth.
I believe this realization relocates the burden. As Historic Christians, we have been made to feel like defendants by the apologists for science. But when we examine the foundations of science, we see that it is also a system of faith. We hold that the Bible implies God by the evidence of the revelation. Science holds that there is no God, based on the evidence of experiment, which does not provide a logical proof.
But there is something more going on here than a disagreement about evidence and theory. Physicists have become the de facto priesthood of this age. They have been given the authority to tell us what is real and the implications of that revelation. They are consulted on origins, on ends, on the nature of the human person. Their pronouncements arrive with the authority that once attached to a bishop’s. The problem is that the nature of humanity is similar to that of the sheep. We follow leaders because we do not know the end from the evidence of the moment. We follow those who present themselves with certainty. We cannot know everything, so we follow those who understand things that we do not know. The problem is that our leaders are blind guides. (Matthew 15:14) “They be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”
A generation is being led by shepherds who do not believe in the good Shepherd. They are not wicked men. Most are careful and honest within their domain. But they are answering questions their instruments cannot reach, and the flock cannot tell the difference between questions the scientists have rightfully answered and those which are extrapolated, but unjustified by the logic of the causal chain they have derived.
This is why the physics matters to me, and why I have spent forty years on it. Not because the world needs another theory. Because the scientist-philosophers who have attempted to declare the nature of reality from the interpretation of their experiments have given their evidence credit for more explanatory power than it deserves. The Conscious Point Physics and the associated Theory of the Atonement do not prove God or the Gospel, but they do provide a plausible, logical, and unified explanatory connection between the Bible and the experimental evidence of science. I am hoping that the cause-effect arguments are small enough and well enough substantiated to at least not be dismissed as pious noise.
IV. What the Argument Can and Cannot Do
I don’t want to overpromise, since my argument is not without gaps in evidence and theory. What it does provide is a plausible sequence of causal forces that give what has been completely missing for the person who wishes to share the gospel with those who are blinded by science. It gives an argument, even if incomplete, that is like a series of stepping stones across a wide river, allowing a crossing of a vast distance in small jumps.
We now have a chain of premises for the atonement — twelve of them, ending in a conclusion that follows if the premises hold. It answers a question I have been asked all my life and never been able to answer: not that Christ died for us, but how that death reaches across two thousand years and touches me.
While the 12 Postulates and the argument leading to the conclusion are not a proof, at least they provide a pathway for the searcher to justify why God does not make Himself obvious by preventing every illness, accident, crime, and reversal. God veils Himself precisely so that agreement with and adoption of His Way is not compelled. A demonstrated God would coerce like gravity coerces a falling stone, and coerced love is not love. The whole architecture of creation, as I understand it, exists to keep a genuine choice genuinely open for us to choose God’s love. I cannot prove the necessity of the Savior with absolute certainty, and that is for the same reason that I have claimed that God has created the universe. To make such a claim is to violate the reason for which the creation exists. It can only point in the direction of truth. I cannot locate it, identify it, and prove that it is the truth. Nevertheless, I can make that final act of faith, giving one’s life to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, as the culmination of a series of small steps, rather than one large step that seems impassable at first consideration.
I believe the argument is logical and valid, but it rests upon premises that remain open to challenge. Grant them, and the conclusion follows necessarily. But the premises are argued, not revealed, and a reasonable person may decline one or more. This is where faith is required. More derivation and justification of the premises can be pursued endlessly. At some point, all arguments rest on axiomatic assumptions, on evidence that cannot be proven. This is true of conventional science, and it is true of Conscious Point Physics, and it is true of accepting the directive of the Bible and the metaphysical axioms assumed by the argument justifying the atonement.
Christ said the cross would be a stumbling block, and He meant it as a permanent feature, not a temporary defect awaiting better apologetics. Our aim is not to remove the stone. Our aim is to make it a pebble — something a man may still trip over, but one which he can now step across if he is willing to have the faith of a mustard seed. That is all, and it is enough.
V. The Danger That Sits Inside the Ambition
A friend told me of a dream. He was attempting to communicate about an invention. He had the invention documented on graph paper — several sheets, each ruled to a different scale. Anyone who has used graph paper knows the problem: without a legend telling you the size one square represents, it cannot be converted into reality. Large things can be perceived as small, and the small made to appear large. In the dream, there was no legend, and he could not properly communicate the invention. Upon awaking, he understood it: We cannot communicate and come to a mutual understanding unless we are using the same standard. If we are using different scales, then we must have a way of converting them from one to the other.
This is a description of what we face in the realm of witnessing to our fellow man. We must in some way convert the standards of the Bible to the standards of Science. Until we have that legend, that conversion table available, it will be impossible for these two groups of designers to communicate in a way that bridges the gap between the logic of the gospel and the logical evidence of science. What appears to be two factions disagreeing about a conclusion is two worldviews that need a way to connect them so they can show that they are both describing the same creation.
My friend told me about a situation in his life that served as a useful analogy to our relationship with God. He was at a church gymnasium many years ago. He asked his young daughter to take her little sister for a drink of water. The girl turned to her stepfather to ask permission. The stepfather refused. My friend was hurt and said to God: I am her father, and she is listening to strangers. The answer came back: My children do that to me all the time. I am their Father, and they listen to strangers.
There are many voices in this world, and one of them is our Father God speaking to us. Whatever stands between the Father and His children must be identified, and we must choose to listen to Him. When a man’s words are elevated above the words of God, the children start checking with him before they will act on what their Father has said. The intermediary need not be malicious. He need only be consulted first.
This is my standing caution that I express to my Latter-day Saint friends. Not that they are unsaved. My caution is narrower, and I am concerned that they are not living in the freedom of Christ. The Book of Mormon may or may not be of divine origin; I cannot say which is true with certainty. I am concerned by the caution of the Revelation to John that says, “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.” “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life…” (Revelation 22:18-19)
I do know the Book of Mormon was delivered by a man, just as the Bible was. But the Bible was inspired by God over 4 millennia, and many authors, all speaking with one voice. Such filtering removes the dogmatism of a single perspective. I know the claims of divinity and uncorrupted lineage of these later-day revelations (Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and Russel). To the extent that there is no disagreement with the BIble, I take all claimed prophecy and literature as additional perspectives on life. It may even be a divine perspective. But to the extent that any word disagrees, the Bible should take precedence. The more tangible concern is that the organization that has arisen around the Book of Mormon has a President who is called the prophet and whose word is taken as the word of God. Such doctrine allows the word of men to be inserted into the word of God, and given superiority over it.
The danger is that the gospel of grace in the Bible can have additional conditions of salvation attached to it. The result can be man laboring endlessly at things that were never asked of him. Works become attached to salvation rather than sanctification. In effect, it is the story of the child coming to another father before our Heavenly Father. This can lead to bondage. It is not damnation, but it is not the liberty in Christ that we were promised. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)
VI. The Same Knife, Turned Toward Me
Everything I have just said applies to me.
I am building a framework. I am hoping it will be evangelistic. Bill Bright, in the 60s and 70s, created Campus Crusade for Christ and had four spiritual laws. I have developed an apologetic with twelve premises and nine axioms. I believe they tell a deeper story that makes it easier to accept that the Bible may be true, but it is the story about the real story, the Bible. I don’t want to become a Mary Baker Eddy, Russell, or Joseph Smith. I just want to make it easier to believe the Bible is God’s word.
I do not want this or future generations to take my words and treat them as Scripture. If this theory becomes widely known, people may quote the premise chain or CPP axioms. This is fine. It’s just one man’s opinion. Everyone’s opinion deserves consideration to the extent that it helps make the Word of God, the Bible, more accessible and understandable. Many men have done the same: Armstrong, Campbell, Schofield, Finney, Calvin, Luther, etc. All have illuminated some aspect of Scripture, but none are worthy of being its replacement. The same is true of my work. I do not have a final proof of God’s existence, or that Jesus is the Way to the Father, but I believe my argument, if followed, will make it easier for the modern scientific man to accept that the Words of the Bible are reasonable, and justify making Jesus the lord of one’s life.
I am pointing at Christ. That is all. My words are not the words of God; they are the words of a man who needed help understanding the words of God, and who wrote down what helped him. If the framework assists you, use it. If it becomes a substitute, then put it down and study the Bible, and put my words in their proper place, as support, not replacement.
The test is the same for any book or teacher. Does it send people to Scripture, or does it substitute for Scripture? Does a man leave the argument more able to read his Bible, or more dependent on my explanation of it?
VII. What We Are Actually Commissioned To Do
One further thought, a realization I had during our last fellowship meeting. We read the Great Commission as a command to baptize with water. But look at what it says: “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:18-20) Perhaps the command was not about baptizing in water, but baptizing in the Name. Baptism means immersion. Perhaps we are being told to immerse people in the Name itself: the nature, the essence, the character of God.
Perhaps the water is a symbol of the all-encompassing presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Putting a man under water pictures the level of immersion in God that we should live inside of. The name, nature, and presence of God, Son, and Holy Spirit should fully envelop us so much that it becomes the medium we move in. We are told of John the Baptist, “John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” (Luke 3:16) If we are promoting baptism in water as the goal, we are advocating for the same weaker version of baptism that John the Baptist said was inferior to what Jesus Christ was bringing. I think we should be preaching, teaching, and evangelizing for the greater, the more powerful, the more effective, and life-transforming immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
If that reading holds, it reorganizes what we should be doing when we witness and evangelize. The task is not primarily to secure a decision to say the Sinner’s prayer or baptize in water. I think such a decision and symbolism are of great importance. Rather, I believe we should be focusing on the Great Commission’s clear command to go into all nations and encourage a person to immerse himself in the character of God until he is living in it. The argument clears an obstacle. The framework makes the stumbling block a pebble. But no one is saved by a premise chain, and the work is not finished when a man says he is persuaded. The work is ongoing sanctification, developing character, and serving our fellow man.
Which returns us to the two commandments upon which all is based. “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Mathew 22:37-40) Everything else — the physics, the premises, the essays, the ministries — is support work. Useful work, but support work.
VIII. Readiness
There is a last question, and it is one of timing.
I have been told that it is time to make this public, to film the testimony, to build the channel, to put it where it can find whoever it was meant for. We are doing that to a small extent now with the website and fellowship meeting notifications. I do not intend to keep this message low profile or private until it is perfect. There may well be a particular sort of person for whom this particular account is the method/argument that opens the door. I don’t think it will reach everyone, because even Jesus was not properly understood by Judas. The point is that it may reach some. We each have to do the same, witnessing with whatever tools, analogies, and testimonies are at our disposal. The work is not perfect nor complete, and the infrastructure of support is not fully installed.
One of the important steps to take in the development of this program is the progression, the lesson plan, the gradient between elementary and more complex applications of the scripture in daily life. The message is public now on the web, and a number of people receive the weekly invitation to the Fellowship meeting. My goal is for many people to meet in their own groups to study scripture, consider these essays, to share their insights, to work toward changing their hearts to be like Him. “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2) It is our job to share the gospel, and enroll people in full immersion in Him.
The other side of this effort is to not put your hand to the plow until you are ready. Christ waited thirty years. Thirty years of obscurity for three of ministry. “And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:62)
So the work continues: making it coherent, making it teachable, making it duplicable without my presence. For now, the summary of where we stand is this: We have a diagnosis of why the church is quiet (a fear of the culture and the authority of science). We have an argument that meets the culture on the ground it has chosen (the 12 Premises and the 9 Axioms). We have a discipline against the argument becoming proud and replacing a modern interpretation (the Bible is always the standard, not any modern prophets, revelations, or interpretations). And we have a commission to bring people into a life fully immersed in God.
That is the goal. We are making progress toward developing a coherent and more complete exposition of the questions that are stumbling blocks, moral dilemmas, and the unknown.
Thomas
Questions for Discussion
- Is the diagnosis right? Are we quiet from embarrassment about grounds, or is something else going on — fear of relationship damage, simple disobedience, or a culture that has made all persuasion feel like aggression?
- On the priesthood. If most belief is formed by trusting a shepherd rather than by personal verification, is that a defect to be corrected or simply how creatures learn? What follows for how we teach?
- On the pebble. Where exactly is the line between an argument that clears an obstacle and an argument that compels? Can we tell when we have crossed it?
- The mediator test. Apply it honestly to this fellowship: does what we produce send people to Scripture or substitute for it? What would the warning signs look like, and who is willing to say so?
- On our LDS friends. Is bondage-not-damnation the right reading? What do we actually owe people we love who are, on our account, saved but not free — and what does love require that condemnation does not?
- On baptism in the Name. If the commission is immersion in the character of God rather than in water, what does that change about how we would go about it this week?
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” — Matthew 28:19
“He must increase, but I must decrease.” — John 3:30
Renaissance Ministries | Hyperphysics Institute
Of one heart to make Christ King. 1 Chronicles 12:38