Romans 9:18 Bible Teaching

WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
Romans 9.18
September 12th 2021

Okay – HEAVY LIFTING DAY. And I will go about 10 minutes long to try and get to it all. We left off two weeks ago with Paul saying,

“For they are not all Israel who are Israel.” And we explained that God sees the heart not the heritage, not the external circumcision of men but the internal circumcision of all.

And then we read

7 Neither, (or just) because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

And we talked about how only those who came from Isaac were called, not those who came from Ishmael. And then Paul says

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Quickly, we remember that Ishmael was the product of a fleshly decision made between Sarai, Abram, and Hagar while Abram and Saria had to rely on God to make good on his promise to make Abram a great nation through a son of miraculous promise.

Simply put, Ishmael was an actual product of the flesh making solutions and Isaac was a product of the Spirit.

As a result, the child born to Hagar (Ishmael) was seen a child of the flesh, as were all who sprang from his loins. But the children of the Spirit – which God would call His children – would come from Sara alone. This is why Paul writes at verse 9:

9 For this is the word of promise, “At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.”

So let’s pick it up at verse 10 and read through to verse 18.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saiys about Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath God mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

And in these verses we have the combination of gut punches from the flying fists of Predestination as Calvin himself said:

“individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glory Him by their destruction.”

He also wrote:

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, He condemns. And this he does for NO OTHER reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.”

When some Calvinists today deny the ugly result of this teaching of predetermined hell (called reprobation) they are not playing straight with the teaching as Calvin himself said:

“many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an individual charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that anyone is reprobated (meaning created for hell). This they do ignorantly and childishly since there can be NO election without its opposite, reprobation.”

So, Paul has explained that between the two sons of Abram, one of the flesh and one of the spirit, only Isaac was truly a child of promise.

Now in verse 10 Paul supplies us with yet another example of how God has chosen a specific nation. But the important question, God called them to do what?

LISTEN –
He called them to a set of specific vocational duties, and that it was not due to ANYTHING that those involved had said or done.

Again, God had chosen, according to His will and purposes, a specific nation of people to undertake specific VOCATIONAL duties.

Does this fact that God chose Isaac mean Ishmael and all of his progeny were made by God for eternal suffering OR that Isaac and his offspring were called to perform certain things?

Does the fact that God, who chose Jacob over Esau mean Esau and his progeny are predetermined for eternal misery? I mean is any of this talking about salvation?

Calvinists say yes – using the contents of this chapter to teach and apply the doctrine of predestination for salvation!

Before this chapter is complete, I hope to provide another reasonable interpretation.

So . . . (verse 10) Paul continues . . .

10 And not only this (meaning not only this example of Abraham and his boys Ishmael and Isaac); but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

So here Paul takes us back to the story we covered a few weeks back – Abraham had Ishmael and Isaac.

And as an adult “Isaac” pursued Rebecca – and she bore twins, “Esau and Jacob,” yet another picture (or type) for people of the flesh (Esau) and people of the spirit or promise (Jacob).

But another way we could depict Esau and Jacob is to call them a people of the Law (Esau) and a people of Faith (Jacob).

Referring back to this example of Esau and Jacob, Paul lets us in on some insights that speak volumes at verse 11. Ready?

11 (For the children (Esau and Jacob) being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Now before we delve into its contextual meaning, if you haven’t recognized it yet, this passage is a tremendous proof-text to refute the LDS idea of a pre-existence.

Why?

Because where the LDS teach and believe that all people are “equipped and even placed” on earth according to their actions prior to coming to this earth!

That those who did well in their premortal state were rewarded with good and those who did poorly inherited a poor earthly existence.

For years this was the model LDS leaders used to explain the different races and the conditions of third world countries. We could read dozens of absolutely amazing quotes from their leaders.

But Paul, speaking of the twin sons of Rebecca and Isaac, plainly points out that God called them not by anything they could have done because they were not yet born, proving the LDS view of a pre-mortal existence a myth as he says . . .

“being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works . . .”

In other words, Paul says that it was God’s sovereign will that made Jacob the child of promise and the Spirit and Esau a child of flesh and the Law. According to His GOOD purposes.

Paul says that God promised this before they were born, and in this state, since neither had done “any good or evil” His purposes would stand according to His elective will, and not due to any works they could have done . . . since it is impossible for unborn children to do any works!

But now to some meat.

We must first point out that God was doing His calling and electing here in chapter nine “of a nation.”

And as we mentioned last week, it was by and through this very nation that God was able to bring saving truth to the whole world in His plan to reconcile it to Himself.

Back to verse 11, Paul uses the passage to support the idea that God is sovereign, and that His election or choices stand, NOT because people (Esau or Jacob) are good or bad (or “have earned it or not,”) because God called them before they were conceived or born!

This is a very important passage with regard to the question about the purposes of God. But again and in review

Paul first notes that they (those chosen) had done nothing good or bad

(2nd) He also notes, unlike LDS teachings, that the period of “moral agency” had not yet commenced. In other words, a Platonian pre-mortal existence was impossible.

(3rd) He points out that the purposes of God are antecedent to (they preface) the formation of character, meaning before ANY types of actions, good or bad, could be done.

We also know that God’s purposes are not only not based on anything the individuals have done BUT for some reason God never takes the time to explain what His purposes are.

(in fact, Scripture simply refers to these choices as simply “His purposes,” and/or “His good pleasure,” (Ephesians 1:5)

Now, we run into trouble around this point because of what some determinists (they are people who say God determines who is saved and who is not) and they say that if God exercised His will in this way (relative to the formation of the Nation of Israel – as in the case of Ishmael and Isaac, and Esau and Jacob) then, He does the very same thing in those who are chosen to be Children of the Spirit by Christ and those who end up as children of the flesh.

Reinforcing Paul’s point about the “Sovereignty of God” to determine a nation, Paul reminds us of the fact that God said to Rebecca prior to giving birth to Esau and Jacob that

“The elder shall serve the younger.”

We remember this from Genesis 25:23 where God says to her while pregnant:

“Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Again, neither child was yet born and according to Paul they could not have therefore done any good nor evil, and so therefore God could NOT impute to them traits of evil or good based on any action or attitude.

Therefore, God deemed them and their role according to His will and I believe foreknowledge and not based on anything they did or did not do BEFORE choosing them.

If you find yourselves wondering how this phrase bears on all that Paul has said, we have to remember that

God might make distinctions and choices among nations, families, even between brothers, without any reference to their merits.
That God certainly bestows blessing and talents on some and not on others according to His good will and pleasure is obvious
But this does not mean God does not love all, that God calls only some, and that God rejects people He has not favored preferentially.
If he was or did than God could not be considered Love.

As a means to support the sovereign election of God in these Nations and their role in what God would have them do, Paul quotes a line from the Old Testament saying:

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

For some reason Calvinists LOVE this line. They love to believe that it applies to all individuals, and that is supports predestination, and that it supports God hating.

Paul borrows from Malachi chapter 1 verses 2-3 where we read:

Mal 1:2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,

(Verse 2) The COI asked God, where or when have you loved us and God’s response is: “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? (Meaning, have you ever compared my treatment of you to my treatment of them) OR “Have I not shown a greater partiality to the Israelites than I have to the Edomites?”

And he adds

I loved Jacob] – I gave him greater privileges and a better inheritance than what I have given to Esau.

And then he says:

3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Which means, “I have shown him less love.”
Meaning, comparatively I hated Edom by giving him an inferior lot in life. And now, I have laid waste the dwelling-place of the Edomites, by the incursions of their enemies.

Some things to remember. First, if God hated Esau, he would not have given him air to breathe, water to drink, or children. It is all in comparison to the love he showed the son of promise.

Additionally, there is not a word spoken here concerning the eternal state of either Jacob or Esau. Not one. What is spoken of here is God’s blessings upon the Nations that came from Jacob and Esau relative to their earthly possessions.

Also, we know that what God says here in Malachi to the Nation of Israel then has NOTHING to do with Esau and Jacob at all but their posterity or the Nations that came from them!

Now, you may have noticed that I have repeatedly said that God expresses “His Sovereignty among these Nations” and I have done so because in these illustrations nothing relative to salvation of individuals is mentioned.

Remember, the place in the Old Testament where God says, “Jacob have I loved and Esau I have hated” has application to the Nations that came From them and NOT to them as individuals.

Nevertheless, God certainly, of His own free will and choice, chose Jacob (the son of Promise) and approved of his line to bear forth the chosen nation . . . and not Esau.

Additionally, it was common among the Hebrews to use the terms “love and hatred” in a comparative sense, where the former implied strong positive attachment, and the latter NOT positive hatred, but merely the withholding of all of the expressions of affection given to the former.

We discover similar statements when we read Proverbs 13:24 which says:

“He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”

To a Hebrew it’s all a matter of degrees of preference.

In the New Testament passages like Luke 14:26 also exemplify this when Jesus said, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother.”

We know the Lord Jesus is not ever suggesting we hate our father or mother (that would be in defiance of the fifth commandment) but instead that people need to prefer Him over anyone or anything else.

(beat)

Now verses 14 and 15 introduce us to some concepts that determinists use to say, “God can do what He wants and it is always righteous” – even if we assign to Him some rather diabolical motives and actions. So, let’s read 14 where Paul writes:

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

What is causing Paul to write this here and now, “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.”

The Jews had been God’s covenant people. We read all that was bestowed upon them as His preferable choice among the other nations.

But here in Romans, Paul has been revealing to the Nation of Israel that they are never going to please God by virtue of them being Jews, or by the works of the Law.

This is the point Paul is bringing up here – that the Jews cannot look at God and ask, “Is there unrighteousness with God?”

Paul answers the question with, “God forbid.”

To the rhetorical question “Is there unrighteousness with God?” What is being asked is can God ever commit injustice or do wrong or evil? The reply is NEVER.

With this being the case, we MUST examine the stance of election with the presupposition in place that Gods acts are completely just, good, loving, and in complete harmony with the picture we have of Him through His incarnate Son.

When speaking of the doctrine of election or “the sovereignty of God” there is a frequent cry of unrighteousness on His part.

To such accusation I join my voice with Paul and say, “God forbid!” But my voice only harmonizes with God’s sovereignty being aimed at the good for all and not just some.

Is God is a despot who forces His will on everything in His path? I don’t think this could be if He is love.

Is the idea of determinism applicable when speaking of individual salvation? I do not see that reflected here in the text.

In determinism, God is often described as having created every person for heaven or hell, and that there is no choice in the matter. Hyper-Calvinists suggest there is no choice in anything at all . . . for human beings.

Making alternative views to this insipid thinking of Man even MORE difficult, Paul, referring to the Old Testament says in the next four verses:

15 For he saith to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

I want you to recall our board discussion from last week. I suggest in arranging the solution to the Fall, the living loving God was certainly free to do what was needed for the reconciliation of the world to Himself.

So again, to many, the idea of Romans nine is use the text to say that God determines whom he will individually save and those who He will individually reject.

We have to ask: Is Paul describing

Individuals or Nations
Salvation or calls to service

Verse 18 explicitly says that God “has mercy on whomever he chooses and he hardens whomever he chooses”

That’s pretty strong language. And the support for the deterministic interpretation seems to grow even
stronger as Paul goes on to depict God’s relationship to humans as a relationship between a potter and his clay (which we will cover next week).

Nevertheless, where determinists claim God is arbitrary, deterministic, and out to exercise His power over all things always, I would suggest that there are a number of scriptural tenets that prove He is quite loving, open and “wisely flexible” in his dealings with the human race and, from last week, today has returned, due to the finished work of His Son, to allowing all people to freely choose like Adam and Eve.

In our search to understand all theological issues we must begin and end all reflections in the person of Christ.

Jesus is the one and only Word
of God (John 1:1), the image of God (Colossians 1:15) and the perfect expression of God’s essence (Hebrews 1:3).

He supersedes all previous revelations and can be superseded by none other ever.

In other words, Jesus is the definitive revelation of God to human kind.

Jesus dying on the cross for his enemies and the world reveals the essence of what God is like — God is sacrificial love.

Forgiving all, seeking all, reaching all – without exception in love.

In contrast to this, a deterministic reading of Romans 9 forces us to conclude that His sacrifice and love are only partly true and can therefore only be partly applied by God to His “elect.”

If we resolve that “Jesus is our definitive picture of God,” and that the picture of Him cannot be placed alongside of or qualified by any other, then we must conclude that there is something off with the deterministic interpretation of Romans nine.

Additionally , we KNOW from scripture that God’s love is in fact universal, that his love is impartial, and that He desires all to be saved.

(REFERENCES)
Deuteronomy 10:17-19
2nd Chronicles 19:7
Ezekiel 18:25
Mark 12:14
John 3:16
Acts 10:34
Romans 2:10-11
Ephesians 6:9
1st Timothy 2:4
1st Peter 1:17
2nd Peter 3:9
And of course 1st John 4 & 5

As I have repeatedly stated, part of the problem of the deterministic interpretation of Romans 9 is that it assumes Paul is speaking of individual salvation.

But the issue Paul is truly addressing is whether or not “the word of God had failed.” (Romans 9:6).

In other words, Romans 9:6 asks if God’s promise to be the God of the Jews and to have them as his covenant people been rescinded?

To answer this question was important to
Paul because it seems many Jews were coming to believe God HAD rescinded His promises to the nation and that Paul was suggesting this to them (which he wasn’t)!

See, many Jews in Paul’s day apparently understood that God’s faithfulness toward them depended on two things:

their nationality and,
their obedience to the law.

But if what Paul was preaching here in Romans was true – that salvation was available to anyone (including Gentiles) simply on the basis of faith — then
neither a person’s Jewish nationality nor their obedience to the law counted for anything anymore!

It may have seemed that not only was their unique Jewish identity and calling abandoned but that (even worse and according to what Paul was writing), it was now working against them. How so?

Because as the Jews continued to strive for righteousness based on the external observation of the law (works) instead of “faith” they were now actually being “hardened.”

In other words, it appeared that if Paul’s Gospel was true, the very ones whom God made covenant promises to were now being hardened and therefore, “the word of God had failed.”

This is the question Paul is addressing in Romans 9 (as well as in chapters 10 and 11 which really must be read and understood in order to fully grasp chapter 9).

In other words, Chapter nine is actually a question of God’s fidelity to Israel as a nation and the basis by which God makes anyone a covenant partner and it has nothing whatsoever to do with how God elects individuals to salvation.

Bottom line? The way Paul answered this question shows that his concern was with
God’s relationship “to a nation” and not with individual salvation.

Remember, in light of all the other passages that point to God’s desire for all to be saved and to come to Him, we cannot possibly allow ourselves to believe that the discussion here in Romans 9 is about God creating some for heaven and some for hell.

And here’s an important key to it all – Paul rejects the idea that God’s covenant promises failed by showing that
God’s covenant promises were never based on a peoples’ nationality or
external obedience to the law!

It was always based on a person’s faith.

So, Paul is arguing that God had always exercised his sovereign right to choose whomever he wanted to choose.

And he illustrated his point by referring to God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau, choices He made without any consideration for their attributes or merits (9:8-13).

Both examples underscore God’s right to
choose whomever he wishes, for both choices were made ahead of their respective physical existences and
both were wholly unexpected.

Why were God’s choices of Isaac and Jacob unexpected? A couple of reasons.

First, both choices reversed the ancient role of primogenitor (meaning he chose the second son and not the expected first) and both choices were for individuals who were not necessarily exemplary in their character.

In offering these examples, Paul was defending God’s right to choose
whomever he wants and to do so by any means he chooses – meaning NOT by ancestral connection or obedience to the Law!

Hence, Paul is arguing, it shouldn’t be shocking to Jews if God now chooses to enter into a covenant with Gentiles on the basis of their faith alone.

Listen – Paul is using the Jews own respected history of God choosing whom He wants to illustrate TO THE JEWS how God could now choose the gentiles.

And while God has always been a God who could do whatever he wanted (relative to His person) it’s important to remember that in using Isaac and Jacob to illustrate God’s prerogative to choose whoever he pleases to see His will through, Paul was certainly not arguing in support of the idea that God determines the eternal destinies of individuals. That is reading into the text at best, myth-making at worst.

No, Paul concern was solely to show God’s sovereignty in electing people to a “historical vocation,” which was the role both Isaac and Jacobs progeny provided once chosen.

To underscore His prerogative, Paul emphasized the arbitrary manner in which God brought about a chosen people, through Isaac and Jacob, whose mission was to serve God and the world by being a nation of priests (Isa 61:6) and a “light to all the nations” (Isa 42:6; 49:6; 60:3).

By God exercising His will to choose, He lovingly established the means by which all the nations of the world would be blessed!

Supports
Gen 12:2-3
18:18
22:18
Psalm 67:1-2;
Isaiah 2:2-4
55:5
61:9-11
66:19-20
Jeremiah 3:17
Romans 4:12-18).

The Jews election as a nation was always primarily about service (vocationally – remember the seven privileges He placed upon them – all vocational, all non- salvific).

Throughout Romans 9, 10 and 11, Paul goes to great lengths to show that God’s goal had all along had been to reach out beyond the borders of Israel and win the
whole world.

Shawn, consider . . .
Romans 9:25-26, and 33
10:10-21
11:11-12 (if time)

And throughout his writings, Paul insists that God is going to have his will done.

Now hang with me . . .

. . .since Israel as a nation had
rejected the Messiah, Paul argued, God was now going to use their
blindness rather than their obedience to achieve His desires. (Romans 11:11-32).

We read far too much into Romans nine if we think that Paul was suggesting that Ishmael or Esau (or anyone else not chosen in the selection process by which God formed the Jewish nation) were individually damned.

So even though Paul uses the examples that he does (Esau and Jacob, Ishmael and Isaac) he does this because they represent more than individuals – they represent nations.

In choosing Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau, in other words, God was illustrating his choice of Israel (the
descendants of Isaac and Jacob) over the Moabites (the descendents of
Ishmael) and the Edomites (the descendents of Esau).

Again, this didn’t mean that all Moabites or Edomites were eternally lost and burning in hell. It just means that these nations were not chosen for the priestly role (the vocational role) in the history for which God chose the Israelites to act in.

And again, Paul is saying all of this to prove to the Jewish reader how God could now call Gentiles.

Again for emphasis, as a means to prove that Paul had a NATIONAL focus we note that when Paul quotes the line, “Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated,” he is quoting from Malachi 1:2-3 which contextually is about the country of Edom and not Esau himself and the COI and not Jacob himself.

The contextual meaning of Malachi’s phrase, then, is simply that God preferred Israel over Edom to be the people he wanted to work with to (do what?) “to reach out to the world and offer His salvation!”

There is simply no justification for interpreting Romans 9 as saying that it teaches that God saves some and damns others. None.

I have to jump out to the end of chapter 9 to make a final point for today. It’s another support against the deterministic interpretation of Romans 9.

Unquestionably, Romans 9 is a tough, tough chapter. But whenever we are struggling to understand a complex line of
reasoning like this it is crucial to pay close attention to the author’s own summary of his argument (if he happens to offer one and here Paul does).

Unfortunately for the deterministic interpreters his summary appeals to free will as the decisive factor in determining who “receives mercy” and who gets “hardened.”

So let me jump ahead to verse 30 where Paul begins his summary by asking,

“What then shall we say” (vs. 30)?

Think about the beginning of this summary. If Paul meant to present a deterministic position, I am certain he would not summarize his thoughts the way he has.

I think he would have summarized it by saying something like:

“What shall we say then? We can only conclude that the sovereign God has determined who will be elect and who will not, and no one has the right to question him.”

But Paul doesn’t say anything like this.

Instead, he summarizes his argument by saying:

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

This summary is significant.

Paul explains everything he’s been talking
about throughout Romans 9 by appealing to the morally responsible choices
of the Israelites and Gentiles.

The one thing God has always looked for in people is “faith.” The Jews did not “strive” by faith, though they should have (and our reading of chapter ten will support this). Instead, they collectively chose to trust in their own works and national heritage as their justification before God.

The Gentiles, however, simply believed that God would justify them by His grace through faith. And this is Paul’s emphasis.

This theme recurs time and time again throughout chapters 9 through 11.

As a nation, Paul says, the Jews “were broken off because of their
unbelief…”

This is why they have “been hardened”
(we’ll understand this better when we get to Romans 11:7 & 25).

But the Gentiles, who sought God by faith, have been “grafted in” (Romans 11:23).

And from all of this – listen (here is my summary statement for all we’ve presented here today)

“And from all of this we see that God’s process of hardening some and having mercy on others is not arbitrary!

He has mercy on people of believing hearts and hardens people in response to their unbelief. This is what happened with Pharoah.

And he is willing to change his mind about both “the hardening and the mercy extended” if people change their hearts.

There are ample positions in scripture to support this but the five point Calvies and/or “determinists” reject them.

Listen, if Gentiles before the wrapping up of that age became arrogant and ceased walking by faith alone, they too would have been “cut off.”

And if the Jews who were hardened did not “persist in their unbelief,” God would have “graft them in again” (as Romans
11:22-23 suggests).

Allow me to conclude this very taxing and heavy topic with a final thought which we will come back to next week as we proceed forward –

I would strongly suggest that God will have His will is done and it is always accomplished.

But the determinists paint this fact as despotic. Such painting ignores our perfect picture of God given by the living Christ.

I would suggest (and the notion is not novel to my small brain) but I would suggest that God endorses and provides and supplies people with everything they need to have His will accomplished.

If an individual is a person of faith, He, in His sovereignty, appoints all that is necessary for the person of faith to have salvation and for His will to be done.

And if a person is faithless, He gives them all they need to increase their doubt toward His purposes.

If either party changes their minds, He changes the flow of His responses toward them, and this too accomplishes His purposes.

And in this manner, the loveless God of despotism is replaced by a loving God who grants freedom of choice to all while maintaining ultimate control over His desired outcome.

More on this section next week in Part II.

Question/Comments

Sunday Sept 26th from 12-2 Open Water Baptisms Grilled Hot dogs, fellowship Open to all. Join us.