Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism, Part 5

Republished with permission from Dr. Reluctant. In this series, Dr. Henebury responds to a collection of criticisms of dispensationalism entitled “95 Theses against Dispensationalism” written by a group called “The Nicene Council.” Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Thesis 24

Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly this same method” (J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews to misunderstand Christ and to reject him as their Messiah because he did not come as the king which their method of interpretation predicted.

Response: It is not advisable to refer to dispensational interpretation as “literalism”—so-called or otherwise, since this leads to misunderstandings and misrepresentations (see below). It is far better to treat the Bible the same way one would treat any other book. It seems preposterous to us to scout around for an alternative hermeneutics just because the Bible is the Word of God. In fact, it is precisely because the Bible is the Word of God to man that one would expect it not to require some esoteric interpretation unless very good reasons could be given for doing so.

Although some evangelicals would disagree, we think there is great wisdom contained in these words of Peters:

If God has really intended to make known His will to man, it follows that to secure knowledge on our part, He must convey His truth to us in accordance with the well-known rules of language. He must adapt Himself to our mode of communicating thought and ideas. If His words were given to be understood, it follows that He must have employed language to convey the sense intended, agreeably to the laws grammatically expressed, controlling all language; and that, instead of seeking a sense which the words in themselves do not contain, we are primarily to obtain the sense that the words obviously embrace, making due allowance for the existence of figures of speech when indicated by the context, scope or construction of the passage. (George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 1.47)

That many Jews in the time of Jesus expected Him to fulfill the Word by setting up His literal (not spiritual) messianic kingdom at His first advent was due in part to their not realizing that He must first suffer and become “sin for us” (Isa. 53) before He would come as king (e.g. Matt. 26:64, 27:11 with Dan. 7:13-14) They did not see that there would be a time-gap between the first and second advents (see Mic. 5:2, Isa. 61:1-2, Lk. 1:31-33).

Unless they are heretics, all Christians believe in a time gap between the advents. And they do this, not by employing some allegorizing hermeneutic (which would be suspicious as an apologetic), but rather, by believing what the Bible says. Christ will come again (Lk. 18:8, Jn. 14:1-3, Acts 1:11, Rev. 22:20).

Finally, how strange it was that those who were closest to Him, who heard more of His teaching than anyone else, should ask Him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Apparently not only did they expect a literal earthly kingdom in line with OT predictions, but they also appeared not to think the Church was the “New Israel”! And Jesus said nothing to alter their expectation!

Thesis 25

Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism by appealing to the method of interpretation of the first century Jews, such “literalism” led those Jews to misunderstand Christ’s basic teaching by believing that he would rebuild the destroyed temple in three days (John 2:20-21); that converts must enter a second time into his mother’s womb (John 3:4); and that one must receive liquid water from Jesus rather than spiritual water (John 4:10-11), and must actually eat his flesh (John 6:51-52, 66).

Response: Since no dispensationalist has ever made these same mistakes in interpretation, this objection is pointless. This is what happens when one goes fishing for red herrings rather than paying attention to how the (older) hermeneutics manuals (Terry, Ramm) define grammatical-historical hermeneutics. In this case, “literal” interpretation is morphed into “literalistic” interpretation. All objectors to dispensational interpretation get a couple of pages worth of material from this mischaracterization.

Thesis 26

Despite the dispensationalists’ interpretive methodology arguing that we must interpret the Old Testament on its own merit without reference to the New Testament, so that we must “interpret ‘the New Testament in the light of the Old’” (Alan Johnson), the unified, organic nature of Scripture and its typological, unfolding character require that we consult the New Testament as the divinely-ordained interpreter of the Old Testament, noting that all the prophecies are “yea and amen in Christ” (2 Cor 1:20); that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev 19:10); and, in fact, that many Old Testament passages were written “for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor 10:11) and were a “mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past” (Col. 1:26; Rev 10:7).

Response: First, Alan Johnson is not a dispensationalist. But since Scripture is a unified and organic whole, certainly we must, in some sense, “interpret the New Testament in light of the Old.” Every Bible interpreter must do that. What responsible Bible student would deny it? Where would our biblical worldview be if we did not allow Genesis 1-4 to guide us as New Testament believers?

The question is, “To what extent can the New Testament be used to interpret the Old?” The passages cited do not answer this question for us. Second Corinthians 1:20 speaks to the Divine provenance of the Gospel preached by Paul and his companions. The verse does not say “prophecies” but “promises.” In context the promises are those of the Gospel. However, because Christ is the Fulcrum of the outworking of God’s decrees it would not be amiss to relate every promise to Him. But this hardly gives Christians license to give the OT promises a complete makeover so that they look nothing like the original statements. Likewise 1 Corinthians 10:11 tells us that the OT stories “were written for our instruction.” The context is Divine recompense upon evil works (v.6). To enlist the passage to teach the legitimacy of an ill-advised mixture of allegorical/typological/literal interpretation of the OT is to be guilty of “textual kidnapping.”

The Colossians passage will be dealt with in due time. It proves nothing as it stands in the sentence. It has simply been spliced and connected to a strand from the 1 Corinthians passage without regard for its original usage. We are unclear as to what function Rev. 10:7 is supposed to play in establishing this thesis.

But the cat is being let out of the bag by this thesis. The Nicene Council require the OT to be exposed to the acid of their “typological” hermeneutic whenever it suits. This makes the OT a wax nose that can be made to look any way the objectors wish it to look. Responsible dispensationalists refuse to operate this way. We affirm the integrity of both Testaments as equally worthy of the same grammatical-historical hermeneutical consideration. We affirm that to use the NT – especially an artificial set of theological covenants not found in the NT – as a lens through which to re-interpret the OT is not at all to use it “as a divinely-ordained interpreter of the Old Testament” but to demean the OT so as to make room for the deductions of systems such as Covenant theology.

Of course, the NT provides much more light on many precious truths. But both Testaments can be interpreted together satisfactorily without the adoption of such a fabricated prioritization of one Testament above the other.

Discussion

Sorry, I appear to be having difficulties getting everything to post :(

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

[Jack Hampton]

Alex, if a Christian has no control over whether or not he can be filled with the pirit then why does Paul tell him to “be filled with the Spirit”? That certainly implies that the control of receiving the Spirit or not is in the hands of the Christian.
It would be to misunderstand me to say I am asserting Paul, here, is saying the believer has “no control whether or not he can be filled” rather that the filling, itself, is done by the Spirit and the participation by the believer is deciding to yield to the Spirit’s filled or yielding, unlike the active voice which would be the believer doing the filling himself instead of yielding to be filled.
[Jack Hampton] I plan to study more about the Greek in regard to the active and passive voices. If the meaning which you place on the “active” voice is correct then I would think that the “will” must be involved in a man’s salvation. But I believe that the Scriptures veto that idea:

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn.1:12-13).

“So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Ro.9:16).
I look forward to your response in your further study on the distinction and implication of the active and passive voices. As to this quote of the passage, where it states, “not by the will of man”, my understanding with respect to that phrase is not that there is no exercise of his will in believing, rather this phrase refers to man dictating and fulfilling what he must do to be saved as opposed to God dictating and performing for man what he must believe in order to be saved.

[Jack Hampton] I do not know your beliefs on this subject but I will ask you. With the following verse in view do you think that if a sinner does not resist the Holy Spirit and he does not close his heart to the truth then he will be saved?
I think that if a sinner does not resist the HS, he is not sinning, but doing righteousness. And if he does not close his heart to the truth, he is not sinning, but doing righteousness. He is manifesting the fruit of regeneration.

You would credit the unregenerate sinner with righteousness, thus making his salvation synergistic.
[Jack Hampton] “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor.4:6).
Its such a great verse, Jack. But it proves monergistic regeneration.

In that verse your heart is likened to the the uncreated kosmos. Dead. Lifeless. Empty. Nothing. Dark.

Then, wihtout any permission from the universe, God sovereignly acts upon it:

LET THERE BE LIGHT!”

And in a flash, in the uncreated vastness, due to no power of its own, but all from the power coming from God, comes LIGHT!

And by grace, you wrote the truth of Scripture: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”(2 Cor.4:6).

Good choice on verses.

God compares the darkness in your heart before regeneration to something that doesn’t even exist, and has no power either to resist, or comply, with His will. His point, ENTIRELY, is to place all the power of regeneration in God alone. He doesn’t have a problem doing that, you know.
I do not believe that the teaching of Calvinism in regard to “monergistic regeneration” is correct
You may not like the doctrine of monergistic regeneration, but your God does. And I think one day soon you will be eternally thankful that He does.
I do not believe in their teaching on “irresistible grace.”
Jack, how much resistance did the universe put up against God when He said, “Let there be light?”

If you want to say 2 Cor. 4:6 doesn’t teach salvation, but only the enlightenment of the sinner, who still has to believe, read the rest of the verse again - it pertains to salvation: “to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

Why, God’s sovereign work of shining in the sinner’s heart of Jesus Christ is always irresistible, becasue Jesus Christ is so desirable. He is made beautiful to the sinner, whose resistance melts away in the overwhelming enlightening work of God. He is regenerated in that act, for He see Jesus Christ as God sees Jesus Christ, all beautiful, all glorious, and infinitely worthy of worship.

Great verse, Jack. Thanks for sharing it.

I have thought, myself, about this monergistic and synergistic argument and it reflects, I believe, the all too unfortunate binary approach in theology of many Reformed and/or Calvinist students and teachers (I understand and accept there are binary issues at times but this is one that is resultant of deliberate but unnecessary construct). They have a singular model and all others are, by default, one single opposing class they conveniently label synergistic without regard to valid exegetical or theological nuances and subtleties whose properties simply cannot fairly, and with intellectual and theological honesty, be forced into either of these two models. And this is accomplished by narrowing their definition and rather broadly defining those not agreeing with them, establishing unnecessary and invalid theological antagonisms as well as an invalid and elitist scale that does not work toward discovery or enlightenment.

4. When one adds to this the critical observations of P. T. O’Brien your position is weakened yet further. O’Brien’s full discussion can be found on pages 328-332 of his recent The Letter To The Hebrews in the Pillar series. I shall condense his argument below:

He says,
As we have seen, the context of v.15 seems to demand the sense of ‘covenant’ because only covenants have mediators [italics mine] , while in v.18 mention is made of the ‘first diatheke kaine diatheke in 2 Cor. 3:6 to be the NC appealed to by Paul in the immediate context (v.3). Neither is the “new diatheke” as you call it a covenant despite being contrasted with the “old diatheke” of Moses in v.13 and the whole surrounding context. Exegetically speaking, you are on difficult ground to say the least.

Moreover, although you insist the gospel “is not a covenant” you allow it to be “the new testament.”! But how can you make “a proclamation that is true whether or not anyone believes it” into a last will and testament in distinction to a “covenant”? As I’ve shown (and as all scholars I know agree), the translation “covenant”, which lines up with the intended meaning of diatheke in the LXX, fits the context of 2 Cor. 3.

I just don’t think you are on solid exegetical or theological ground here my brother.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

I skipped about nine posts that came after this, so maybe I’m completely irrelevant at this point but…
He cannot “will” himself to believe that five plus five equals nine or eleven or anything other than ten.
Actually, people will not to believe things all the time. For example, Rom.1 indicates that the knowledge of God’s existence is built in. It’s plain to see both in the creation and intuitively. But people chose not to believe this. There is a huge will factor in belief.

FWIW, I don’t believe regeneration precedes faith. For a number of reasons (that I can’t remember now !) they really have to happen at the same time.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

I’m going to try to end my Post #54 in the fashion I had intended (please ignore #59). Sorry for the confusion. I meant to say this:

4. When one adds to this the critical observations of P. T. O’Brien your position is weakened yet further. O’Brien’s full discussion can be found on pages 328-332 of his recent The Letter To The Hebrews in the Pillar series. I shall condense his argument below:

He says,

a).
As we have seen, the context of v.15 seems to demand the sense of ‘covenant’ because only covenants have mediators [italics mine] , while in v.18 mention is made of the ‘first diatheke’, namely, the Sinai event and hence can only be a covenant.
b).
What our author says in vv.16-17 does not correspond to any ‘any known form of Hellenistic (or indeed any other) legal practice.’ A Hellenistic will was secure and valid when it was written down, witnessed and deposited, not when the testator died. Further, the distribution of the estate could occur when the testator was still living.
Indeed, don’t we see this very thing in the Parable of the Prodigal Son?

c).
The wider context of Hebrews with our author’s view of inheritance and his emphasis on the cult appears incongruous with the model of the secular Hellenistic testament.
Quotations from Peter. T. O’Brien, The Letter To The Hebrews, Pillar (2010), 329-330

5. Although the testamentary interpretation in Hebrews 9:15-17 is accepted by Bruce, Vos and others, none of them proceed to do what you do with it, which is to apply the meaning “last will and testament” to other NT uses of diatheke. You are quite alone in this novelty.

Further, if Guthrie, O’Brien and others are to be followed on giving diatheke an uninterrupted meaning as “covenant” in the passage in line with the rest of Hebrews, then the objection about “a sudden transition, from one sense to another of the same word” (Bruce) is satisfactorily answered.

6. Finally, in Post #47 you state blankly
The gospel is not a covenant. It is a proclamation that is true whether or not anyone believes it. It stands on its own.
But in another post to me you said
Therefore when Paul refers to the “ministry of the new testament” the words “new testament” must refer to the gospel.
From this it becomes easy to see that you do not hold kaine diatheke in 2 Cor. 3:6 to be the NC appealed to by Paul in the immediate context (v.3). Neither is the “new diatheke” as you call it a covenant despite being contrasted with the “old diatheke” of Moses in v.13 and the whole surrounding context. Exegetically speaking, you are on difficult ground to say the least.

Moreover, although you insist the gospel “is not a covenant” you allow it to be “the new testament.”! But how can you make “a proclamation that is true whether or not anyone believes it” into a last will and testament in distinction to a “covenant”? As I’ve shown (and as all scholars I know agree), the translation “covenant”, which lines up with the intended meaning of diatheke in the LXX, fits the context of 2 Cor. 3.

I just don’t think you are on solid exegetical or theological ground here my brother.

Paul

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

[Jack Hampton] The passing from death unto life comes as a result of believing. Therefore it is obvious that the “receiving of life” or “regeneration” does not precede faith.
Yes, but the act of believing is done by a believer, not an unbeliever.

We are commanded, even while dead spiritually, to believe.

Lazarus was commanded, even while dead physically, to come forth.

A command doesn’t mean we have the inherent power to fulfill the command. Our power to believe in the gospel is as much as Lazarus’ power to come out of the tomb.

That’s why the Lord says, “I am the resurrection and the life.” He must do the work of giving us life that we cannot do. True salvation is of the Lord. It is not Jesus doing His part and you doing your part. That’s why you have to humble yourself like a little child to receive it.

Logically speaking, regeneration precedes faith. But in the Scripture, they occur at the same moment. We cannot initiate saving faith, it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). But once regenerated, we believe.

If you want to believe that you contributed faith to your salvation, you may continue to do so. But I know I did not, but that my salvation is entirely a gift of grace.

The only thing I contributed to my salvation was my sin.

I will just throw this in John 1:12 (King James Version)

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Jack,

Many thanks for the useful interaction we have had. I have been benefited from crossing swords with you over the meaning of “diatheke” in the NT, even if I remain unmoved by your reasoning. I have to move on to other things now, but before I do I wish to give it one last go as it were. I shall utilize your last to me as a foil for my argument. As your post was long my quotations will be selective.
[Jack Hampton]
[Paul Henebury] I just don’t think you are on solid exegetical or theological ground here my brother.
Paul, that is exactly what I was thinking about you when you say that the following verses are not in regard to a “last will and testament”:

“For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Heb.9:16-17; KJV).
1. What I am trying to demonstrate is not that diatheke in Heb. 9:16-17 cannot at all be translated “testament”; just that there are strong reasons produced by recent scholarship why that translation may not be; a. the best option, and, b. necessary. The arguments of O’Brien which I reproduced were passed over as if they were of no consequence. Yet, if he is right that “only covenants have mediators”; and that the author’s language in this section “does not correspond to ‘any form of Hellenistic (or indeed any other) legal practice”, it would appear that your avowed certainty is seriously challenged (the third observation may be skipped for present purposes).

These are points with which you must contend. It will not do to cite authors who wrote a hundred years ago. There have been many advances made in recent years of our understanding of Jewish and Greco-Roman backgrounds, not to mention studies on the biblical meaning of “covenant” that Anderson and Vos did not have access to. The NASB & ESV of course, translate diatheke as “covenant” in these verses, not as “testament.” My purpose is, as I say, simply to show that the meaning “last will and testament” does not bear the kind of certitude you load it with even in this passage.

I then refer to George Guthrie (a noted expert on Hebrews), who like O’Brien argues for a death, not of a man but of a sacrificial animal in this context. You object to this interpretation on the basis that it,
speaks of “men” and not animals
. But the Greek does not require us to translate that way. Therefore your point carries less force than you expect. That might be the correct rendering of thanaton tou diathemenou but one cannot simply assert it dogmatically like you have done.
Of course you will probably say at Sinai the sprinkling of blood was “symbolic.” However, the author of Hebrews stated in no uncertain terms that before the diatheke he was speaking of can come into force there must of necessity be a death of the one who makes the diatheke.
Well, if O’Brien and Guthrie are correct (and both reject Westcott’s rigid view btw) the one who makes the covenant is the covenant-making animal which is sacrificed. and they arrive at this position based on the context (9:10-18), the lack of supporting evidence for mediated testaments, or wills which required the death of the testator in the ancient world. Their conclusions may be wrong, but their exegesis cannot be dismissed as easily as you think.
That was never the case with covenants between God and man nor between man and man.
Never??
However, a study of ancient Middle East Covenants reveals that in many instances was a symbolic death played no part in those covenants.
and in many cases a symbolic death played an important part (e.g. Gen. 15; Jer.34). Moreover, there is one in the immediate context of the text under discussion (Heb. 9:18-21)! Beacham’s observation becomes completely beside the point in view of this last reference.
With all this in mind it is inconceivable to even imagine that the author of Hebrews is referring to a “covenant” and not to a “will.” There is nothing said in these verses that even hints that a “will” is not in view and at the same time there is much that indicates that the reference is not to a “covenant.”
But Jack, until you interact with e.g., the arguments above and its specific challenges to your position this is an assertion without much actual substance.

Anyway, let’s move along.

2.
1. I have previously cited Geerhardus Vos’s opinion on whether 2 Cor. 3 could be construed as a testament.

Other corroborations of this could be produced, but it should be unnecessary.
Vos also said that “in Eph. ii. 12 the phrase ‘covenants of the promise,’ in which the genitive is epexegetical, yields positive proof that Paul regards the diatheke as so many successive promissory dispositions of God, not as a series of mutual agreements between God and the people(Geerhardus Vos, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke,” The Princeton Thelogical Review [Vol. 13, No.4, 1915] , 609).
Yes but this is a fast shuffle! You deflect attention away from what Vos said about 2 Cor. 3 by quoting him on Eph. 2. We weren’t dealing with Eph. 2! I quoted Vos because you are trying to make diatheke mean the same thing (“last will and testament”) everywhere it shows up in the NT. Vos directly contradicts you (as does nearly every scholar I have read). F. F. Bruce, for example, writes:
“Testament” is certainly the predominant sense of the word in Hellenistic Greek; but in the Greek Bible it usually takes its meaning from the Old Testament Hebrew word berith , which does not have the sense of “testament.”
- The Epistle To The Hebrews (NICNT, 1981), 211.

Although you recommend that P.T. O’Brien invest in a lexicon you should be aware that no lexicon supports your making diatheke into “testament” in every instance in the NT. This is both because the LXX uses diatheke to translate berith, therefore obviating the Hellenistic meaning “testament” in the OT, and also because the NT writers employed the LXX and so carried over its special berith/diatheke translation into their own Greek work. It is also because the NT writers quote and allude to the OT when they speak about the new diatheke, therefore showing that they construe diatheke to mean “covenant” and not “last will and testament” in all but possibly two cases. Indeed, to proceed along the lines you are commending leads into what James Barr (The Semantics of Biblical Literature,218) dubbed the fallacy of “illegitimate totality transfer.”
A “will” is in fact a promissory disposition. And you had no response when I pointed out that Vos said that “in the New Testament the diatheke as a ‘last will’ is once brought into connection with the sacrifice of Christ…” (Ibid., 601).
I would have thought this is a hostile witness against your view that new diatheke equals “last will and testament” in the rest of Hebrews and the NT! Indeed, let me cite the very same article:
To assume that it [diatheke] signifies “testament” elsewhere we need other evidence than this single passage [i.e. Heb.9:15-17]. And such evidence does not exist. In none of the other contexts where diatheke occurs is there anything that even remotely suggests the idea of a last will.
- Geerhardus Vos, “Hebrews, The Epistle of the Diatheke” as reprinted in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, 182

While I’m at it I will quote from elsewhere in the same article:
In Hebrew Scriptures the meaning “testament” has no standing at all.
, 165
…nothing is more certain than that such a conception of berith as a “testament” is totally foreign to the intent of the Hebrew Scriptures…
(Ibid, 166).

As such we need to take this information forward with us to all of our encounters with diatheke in the New Testament. It is not likely we will be required to abandon the conception of diatheke as covenant and give to it the meaning of “will” and “testament” in the vast majority of its NT appearances.
P.T. O’Brien should have invested in a Greek-English Lexicon before he made such a blunder. I have offered a revised answer in the regard to the Lord Jesus’ role as Mediator in post # 43 on this thread, a post where O’Brien’s assertion is found to be in error.
I assume O’Brien has one or two lexicons knocking around! Pitting Sir Robert Anderson (#43) against P.T. O’Brien puts the venerable Commissioner at a disadvantage. For one thing, Anderson did not have access to a half the research availed upon by O’Brien. Secondly, he was not, nor did he claim to be, a NT scholar, as his work on The Hebrews Epistle, relying as it does upon Grimm’s lexicon and Deissman’s studies, amply shows. Thus, you have not shown “O’Brien’s assertion…to be in error.”

After giving us the views of Berkhof in regard to the choice of diatheke over syntheke you state:
If the authors of the New Testament wanted to express the idea of a “covenant” then why did they use a word that does not mean “covenant”?
But all this is patently known Jack. And you are begging the question (see Vos above). The fact is the translators of the LXX chose diatheke to translate berith “covenant”. Why? I have already said that the main idea is that the covenant is always made from God’s side. In fact, in all but one case (Sinai) the biblical covenants are unilateral - hence syntheke would be the wrong word to use to translate berith - especially as regards the new covenant which is unilateral!

Let us not get lost in the woods here. My main point is that “last will and testament” is exactly the wrong meaning of diatheke in all but maybe two contexts. With that I am content to rest my case.
Thank you for your time and your generous spirit.
And thanks to you brother! I have enjoyed this exchange. Now the comments have switched direction and I feel it is time to get off.

God bless you and yours,

Paul

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.