NEW: "What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument?" - Dr. William Lane Craig

What is perhaps the most powerful argument for 

God's existence today?

Here is a colorful, captivating, and concise description of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's existence, from the team at "drcraigvideos."

This is perhaps one of the most useful and potent arguments in today's culture of "scientism", so you would do well to memorize the simple 19 words of this wonderful argument for the existence of God:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Calculating the Probability of God’s Existence

Dr. Craig,

I am a long timer viewer, my wife and I personally enjoy your On Guard book and my kids enjoy the What is God Like series. My question is one born from frustration dealing with a particular atheist colleague of mine. I definitely affects others around me, including myself, and I can't find anything in your books or website to help address this regarding the probably of God existing equals zero.
He says that When you want to find out the probability of an event happening, you simple divide the event by the total of all events. A simple example of this is the probability of rolling a 1 on a six-sided die, which would be 1 (the event you want) divided by 6 (all possible events). So when you want to know the probability that god exists, you simple divide the one you choose by all possible other events. Since you have no proof that indicate any one god is more likely than any other god, this gives you an infinite number of possible events. So doing the probability you get 1 divided by infinity which is zero." When questioned that infinity is the incorrect constant to use he replied with, Ok, why isn't infinity the right number to use? Do you have some proof for a specific god that nobody seems to know about? If you don't, then how is any other god not just as likely? This isn't rocket science, it's basic logic. Since I don't have to prove they exist, I can make up new gods all day long. When something is unprovable it has a infinite set of like instances by default. Again, that's basic logic.

Jason

United States

Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

The 7 Different Concepts of GOD: #4 - POLYTHEISM

Polytheism:  "There are many limited gods!"

A fourth worldview that we'll quickly examine is that of polytheism, which comes from the two Greek words "poly" for many, and from "theism" for god.  Obviously, this is the view that says there are many finite limited gods controlling and influencing reality together. Modern day examples of polytheism include Mormonism, Hinduism, the New Age movement, and the surviving remnants of the ancient cults of worshipping the many Roman, Greek, and Norse gods.

In the popular media today, polytheism is probably most often seen in superhero comic books and movies.  This would include productions like "Avengers", "Thor", "the Immortals", and even Disney's cartoon version of "Hercules."  In all of these movies, there appears at least one character who happens to be a "god" from a certain world or a certain realm in the universe.  These "gods" are not all-powerful, all-knowing, and infinite, but rather like superpowers humans who come from another dimension.

A person who is a polytheist may tell it to you in many different ways, depending upon which religion, or philosophy the persons subscribes to.  For example a Mormon man, who believes in what they call the "Law of Eternal Progression", could say:

" As men now is, God once was,

and as God now is, men may become."

For the Mormon male, this means that they hope to achieve personal godhood through a lifetime of faithful service and obedience to the Mormon church, in keeping with the three different books they hold to in addition to the Christian Bible. These Mormon males believe that they will each personally rule over their own universe, which would be populated by the offspring of them many hundreds of "spirit wives."

In the far east, a practicing Hindu (though also a pantheist) might share his polytheistic beliefs with you in this way:

"The goddess Kali desires for me to go after what I want in life."

Or perhaps would say:

"Lord Vishnu has blessed my family with prosperity this year."

For the follower of the New Age movement, a typical declaration of their concept of God, would be that of Shirley McClain as she famously stands upon the beach sure, with arms spread open, and face lift up to the sky, wearing a metal triangle hat, passionately crying out:

"I am God! I am God! I am God!"

Though it can take many forms, even in our modern day and age, polytheism centers around the basic belief that there are many finite and limited gods directing and influencing the events of the universe. A quick comparison of the many "gods" of polytheism with the biblical concept of God, would look something like this:

Limited Gods of Polytheism:          The One God of Biblical Christianity:
Gods partially control the universe. God is sovereignly ruling over the universe.
Gods are very imperfect. God is absolutely and infinitely perfect.
Gods are authors of good and evil. God is All-Good (omnibenevolent).
Gods are very finite.         God is absolutely infinite and unlimited.
Gods have limited power.         God is All-Powerful (omnipotent).
Gods have limited knowledge. God is All-Knowing (omniscient).
Gods are limited to one location. God is Ever-Present everywhere (omnipresent).

As we apply "the boomerang test" to polytheism, it quickly fails just like the other non-Christian worldviews about reality.  First, polytheism simply pushes the God question back one step further. If the "gods" are the ultimate answer for the beginning and source of the universe, then who is? This view of reality just pushes the question of origins back another step by appealing to many finite limited gods, without giving us an ultimate answer to the question.

Secondly, the very fact that these "gods" are finite and limited would seem to disqualify them from being God, in the classical sense. In the most basic sense, to be God means to be the ultimate being, the greatest being, in the most perfect being who is himself unlimited in any way, but also infinite in every way. The polytheistic idea of God runs head on against this classical concept of God.

Thirdly, it has to be realized, that even the polytheistic "gods", would ultimately need an infinite and eternal Creator. After all every finite effect, ultimately, needs and infinite cause. Every being that is dependent and contingent, requires a being that is independent and necessary to be it's Source for existence.  In this way, polytheism quickly "slits its own throat" intellectually.

Fourthly, as was stated above, it seems that in Polytheism the followers are merely worshipping a glorified, finite, limited creature as a "god."  How is it logically possible to call something "God" that is finite, limited, and striving towards perfection, just as his creatures are? Wouldn't this be a very good Biblical definition of "idolatry"? Worshiping a finite, limited, and imperfect creature in the place of the infinite, perfect, and unlimited Creator God seems obviously a lot like logical absurdity and spiritual idolatry.

It might be good enough for comic books, in modern day movie hits, but polytheism isn't strong enough intellectually or logically, to stand up and function in the world of reality!

- Pastor J.

The 7 Different Concepts of GOD: #3 - PANENTHEISM

Panentheism:  "God is in the world!"

If we picture Atheism as an empty physical universe without any god, and Pantheism as a universe that is itself God, then Panentheism is a universe in which God would be inside of it all.  The actual word "panentheism" is made up of three Greek words that mean "all", "in", and "god" respectively.

Panentheism is the view that God is in all, and that God is developing and changing along with the world.  It is also called "process theology", or "bipolar theism", "organicism" since it views the universe as a gigantic organism, or even "neoclassical theism" since its idea of God is very different than the classical Christian concept. Typically, the average person that believes in the "God" of panentheism would probably call him "mother nature", possibly "the cosmos", or maybe even the "world spirit."

The god of panentheism is extremely different from the concept of God that we see from the Scriptures. If we were to make a comparison of the two, it would look something like this:

God of Panentheism:         The One God of Biblical Christianity:

God is working with the universe. God is sovereignly ruling over the universe.

God is dependent on the universe.         God is completely independent of the universe.

God is constantly changing.         God is unchanging in his essence.

God is growing more perfect.         God is absolutely and infinitely perfect.

God is finite.                 God is infinite.

It's obvious to see that panentheists believe that God is very limited and finite.  To them God is constantly changing, dependent on the universe, instead of being the Creator, think of him as only the director of world affairs who is trying to achieve a greater degree of perfection in his own essence. Most panentheists think of God's connection to the universe in the same way that a mind is related to human body. Just as the mind or soul is contained within the physical body, and also changes with it interacts to it, so God is actually "in the world/universe" and constantly changes with it, towards greater perfection.  This view of God was to a large degree endorsed by the ancient Greek philosophers Heraclitus and Plato, and in more recent times, by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead.

Immediately, as you put Panentheism, to the "boomerang test", it fails miserably.  First of all, the concept of God that is taught in panentheism, is a self-contradictory being. To the panentheists God is actually "self-caused", which is impossible in logically incoherent. For something to be "self-caused" it would have to first exist, before it actually existed, in order to bring itself into existence. Obviously this type of thinking is very illogical, self-defeating, and impossible to reality.

Secondly, in panentheism and "process theology", God and the world are mutually dependent on each other, which is also self-defeating and impossible. Without God there would be no universe, but without the universe there would be no God.  It seems to be a "chicken and egg" problem of cosmic proportions!  Both of them would have to be infinite and eternal in the past, but the well-informed panentheist knows that neither one actually is.  One has to ask themselves if a God is worth worshiping, that is dependent upon the universe. Personally, it seems that a God who is dependent upon anything, couldn't truly be God in the first place!

Thirdly, to the panentheist or follower of "process theology", God is constantly changing with the universe.  This is totally opposed to the classical idea of God, which believes him to be absolutely unchanging and immutable in his nature. But also it goes against simple logic, since for change to be possible there needs to be an unchanging basis or standard to measure that change. But in the case of the God of panentheism, this rule or standard would be more ultimate than God himself!  If God needs to be the greatest and "most ultimate" being in the universe, this simply is not possible in panentheism.

Fourthly and finally, the God of panentheism is not perfect and seems to be finite, just like the rest of the physical universe.  Again, you have to ask yourself, how is it logically possible to call something "God" that is finite, limited, and striving towards perfection, just as his creatures are? Wouldn't this be a very good Biblical definition of "idolatry"? Worshiping a finite, limited, and imperfect creature in the place of the infinite, perfect, and unlimited Creator God seems obviously a lot like logical absurdity and spiritual idolatry.

As with atheism and pantheism, panentheism doesn't seem to have a spiritual or logical "leg to stand on" either!  Panentheism is full of intellectual contradictions, logical defeaters, and a bizarre concept of "God" that reduces him to little more that a super-creature.

In our next article, after already having examined Atheism, Pantheism, and Panentheism, we will continue to examine the remaining 4 concepts of God...hope you will join us!  You can watch our 3 part video lesson on worlviews here.

- Pastor J. 

The 7 Different Concepts of GOD: #2 - PANTHEISM

Worldview #2 - Pantheism:  

"God is All, and all is God!"

The word "pantheism" comes from two greek words, "pan" and "theos", meaning "all" and "God".  So, in a nutshell, we see that pantheism is the worldview that believes that "all is God, and God is All."  Pantheism includes the world religions of Hinduism, some forms of Buddhism, and the New Age Movement as well.  

Pantheism is also the popular religion of "Star Wars" and "Master Yoda", it forms the central beliefs of "Neo and Morpheus" in the box-office hit trilogy "Matrix", and has also been made populer in the animated TV series "Avatar" for teens, where "Aang" is seeking spiritual enlightenment in his quest to save the world.

A summary description of pantheism, would include the following beliefs:

- God is All, and all is God.

- All that exists in reality is one Mind, the All.

- The universe was created, not by, but rather "out of" the All itself.

- Reality is ultimately mental and spiritual, not physical.

- God is ultimately impersonal and unknowable.

- Human individuality and personal minds is only an illusion.

- Physical reality is an illusion that must must be abandoned.

- Logic and Morality are only illusions of human consciousness.

- Evil and suffering are human illusions that must be overcome.

- Our lives are an endless cycle of reincarnation and rebirth, until we attain enlightenment.

- There are many spiritual paths that lead to God, the All.

- The destiny of the mankind, is to become conscious that they are one with, and apart of the All. 

If you've ever come across a pantheist, you've more than likely heard them say things like:

"Everything is God, man!  We're all connected!  We're all One."

"You can't really know God.  He's waaaay beyond us."

"God is way beyond logic and morality.  They don't apply to Him."

"There's not just one way to God.  Everyone finds their own path."

"Free your mind, man.  Realize that it's all just an illusion."

Some famous representatives of the worldview of pantheism include, as I've already mentioned, the "Jedi Masters" from "Star Wars"; "Morpheus and Neo" from the "Matrix" trilogy; and "Aang" from the popular "Avatar" animated series.  But it also include real life cultural figures such as the Beatles, Deepak Chopra, Shirley Maclaine, the Dalai Lama from India, and the "gurus" of the Far Eastern religions and movies. 

Once again, if we examine the worldview of Pantheism, how does it stand up?  As we saw with the worldview of Atheism, there are also a large numbe of logical inconsistencies, self-contradiction, and just plain old absurdities within the worldview of Pantheism.

First of all, Pantheism is guilty of a major self-contradiction:  It tells me that what I experience through my physical senses just isn't real.  However, pantheists seem to constantly use their physical senses to find and share the truth of pantheism!  So, we see that right away, Pantheism is engaged in a major self-contradiction.

Secondly, Pantheism is guilty of another self-defeating idea: It claims that human being can "change" from a state of illusion to a state of "enlightenment", in which we realize that we are "one with the All."  However, this just won't work logically.  God, by definition, must be unchanging and eternal.  But Pantheism claims that if we change our perceptions, we can realize that realize that we are indeed the unchanging and eternal All!

Thirdly, Pantheism believes in something that is a blatant violation of a fundamental Law of Logic:  the Law of Non-Contradiction.  The Law of Non-Contradiction states that "A cannot be -A at the same time, and in the same way."  However, Pantheism seems to think this principle doesn't apply to reality.  It claims that all religions are equally true and valid, that "all roads lead to God", while these religions believe in fundamentally opposite ideas.  Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism all believe very different things about God, humans, sin, salvation, Heaven, and Hell, to name just a few.  Is it possible that all these religions could be true, even though they believe total opposites? No!  This is impossible, because it would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction. 

Fourthly, Pantheism engages in the self-defeating practice of claiming that the "Laws of Logic" don't exist in reality, but actually uses the Laws, in order to deny them.  As you can plainly see, this is an intellectual blunder at the most basic level.  Since the Laws of Logic do exist and apply to all of reality, the pantheist cannot help but use them.  Pantheism uses logic to deny logic, by saying that the Law of Non-contradiction isn't real.  Problem is, he just used the Law of Non-Contradiction to say that! 

Fifthly and finally, Pantheism believes in different concepts of god at the same time.  For example, Hinduism alone believes in 300 million seperate "gods", while also claiming that "God is All, and all is God."  This really shouldn't surprise us, as we have already seen that self-contradictory beliefs aren't a problem for the pantheist.  However, it's just one more reason to remove this concept of God and reality from consideration.  Pantheism truly seems to be a system of belief that is shot through with a huge number of logical contradictions and self-defeating beliefs.  Not only is Pantheism false, it's impossible that it could ever logically be true!

It seems that the only place Pantheism is good for is "in a galaxy, far, far away" that is home to intellectual absurdities and logical impossibilities!

- Pastor J. 

Why Biomimicry Beats Engineering: The Case of Spider Silk

Michelle Oyen, a lecturer in the mechanics of biological materials at the University of Cambridge, was probably not intending to put in a plug for intelligent design when she wrote an article for The Conversation about spider silk. But she did.

At first, it appeared she just wanted to dispel an urban myth: "Spider silk is a wonder of nature, but it's not stronger than steel," was her headline. The imitation of spider silk by materials scientists is a classic example of biomimicry.

You must have heard that spider silk is stronger than steel. We all want to believe that there are wonder materials in nature that are far superior to human-made ones. But the problem with statements that sound too good to be true is that they usually are.

Spider silk is not stronger than steel. But that shouldn't stop us from studying it, or from thinking of it as a wonder material. (Emphasis added.)

From there, however, Oyen made a good case for silk as a competitor to steel. Its tensile strength is in the middle of steel's range, she pointed out, whereas its stiffness is much less. But it does outperform steel in one way that makes it attractive to scientists:

Where spider silk seems to beat steel by a large margin is its density, which is almost six times less. On a per-weight basis then, silk starts to look more interesting, with the ratio of strength to density exceeding that of steel.

So in terms of that ratio it's not really wrong to say spider silk is stronger than steel; in fact, further down she directly contradicts the headline: "Spider silk, then, is stronger than steel on a per weight basis," she clarifies.

Strong, flexible, low-density materials are highly attractive to materials engineers. Here's the lead-up to our favorite quote from her article:

Another reason why spider silk is enthuastically studied is because of our interest in mimicking nature through "biomimicry". The key difference between natural materials and man-made ones is not about so much about physical properties. It's about how they are made.

She proceeds to describe how silk is synthesized at room temperature and is environmentally friendly. The ingredients are abundant and readily available. The really choice remark comes as she compares human engineering with natural synthesis:

Continue Reading --->

New Intelligent Faith website coming soon!

We are proud to announce that Intelligent Faith is getting a new website! It will be much more user friendly, podcasts, video's and audio links will be available and all will be accessible directly on the site. Please stay tuned for the upgrade!!

The 7 Different Concepts of GOD: #1 - ATHEISM

Worldview #1 - Atheism:  

"There is no God!'

The word "atheism" comes from two Greek words, "a" and "theos", which mean respectively "no" and "God". So quite literal sense atheism is the definite and positive denial of the existence of God. Don't let anybody fool you into thinking that atheism is simply "the lack of a belief in any God." This is a recent attempts by some newer atheists to avoid having to justify their worldview, and explain it logically. Once properly understood "atheism" means a person claims to have positive knowledge and a definite belief that "God doesn't exist."

Some of the frequent statements of atheism in our culture, would include the following:

"No God, infinite or finite, exists!"

"Evil and suffering are strong evidence against God!"

"Miracles are not possible!"

"God is either an illusion or a psychological projection."

If we survey Atheism then, we can come up with the following summary of beliefs:  

- There is no God at all. 

- The universe came from nothing, without an ultimate cause or purpose.

- Everything that exists in reality is simply re-combined matter. 

- There is no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose to human life.

- Since the natural is all that exists, supernatural events, like miracles, are not possible.

- Science is the only reliable form of truth to teach us about reality.

- All biological life arose spontaneously, randomly, and without intelligent guidance.

- Evil and suffering are real and count as very strong evidence against God's existence.

- There really is no ultimate standard of "right and wrong" in reality.

- All human feelings, such as love and beauty, are reducible to chemicals and matter. 

- The concept of "God" is simply a psychological "crutch", invented to cope with reality.

- There is no ultimate solution to the problem of evil, except to bravely keep living.

- At the point of death, a person simply ceases to exist - period.

- Eventually, our sun will burn out, earth will be void of life, and the universe as a whole will become a cold, barren wasteland, empty of any heat or forms of life.

One of the most famous modern-day atheists is a man by the name of Richard Dawkins, who used to be the professor of biology at Oxford University. Throughout history the famously atheist would include Lucretius, Friedrich Nietzsche, and the well-known Sigmund Freud.

So if we examine the worldview of Atheism, how does it stand up?  After all, you would think that it would have to be pretty impressive intellectually with all the press and headlines that it seems to receive in the popular culture and news media, right?  Actually, as we investigate it, the worldview of Atheism is one of the weakest and intellectually absurd that there are.

First of all, there is no positive evidence at all for Atheism.  The atheistic would quickly say that a huge amount of evil and suffering in the world counts as evidence against God's existence. But in reality, "evil" presupposes that God exists. The concept of "evil" assumes that there is some ultimate end objective standard for "good and evil" and "right and wrong." But if there really is an objective moral standard within all of humanity, a universal moral law, the only thing that is a sufficient explanation for that would be the existence of an Ultimate Moral Lawgiver - God.

Once evil is moved off the table as possible evidence against God's existence, there is nothing else that the atheists could muster to prove His nonexistence. This could never happen scientifically, because no matter how you try to define or explain physical reality, you will always end up needing an explanation that is outside of reality and transcendent to it - God.

The only way this could be possible is if a person possessed absolute infinite knowledge, of all reality. Only then would a person be in a position to say with absolute certainty "God does not exist." But obviously, this wouldn't work either, because if a person possessed absolute infinite knowledge, by definition that person would be God.

In addition to this, there is strong evidence against the worldview of Atheism. Though these will be addressed in other chapters, they would include certain arguments for God's existence which are very strong and compelling intellectual evidence. These include the cosmological argument, design argument, moral argument, ontological argument, and various other arguments that appeal to the real existence of beauty, logic, mathematics and humanities "God hunger", as strong pieces of evidence that points to God's existence. For atheism to be successful as a worldview, it would have to take on each of these arguments individually, defeat them step by step, and in their place construct its own arguments proving why God cannot exist. Atheism has never been successful in doing this, and will never be.

As if this wasn't enough already, Atheism is a spectacular failure, intellectually and logically. The reason I say this is because the worldview of atheism demands that you believe certain things are absolutely against all good common sense, and solid intellectual reasoning. Here are some of the outrageous beliefs of the atheistic worldview, called by some "the 6 Miracles of Atheism":

1. Everything came from nothing.

2. All life arose from non-life.

3. Human Intelligence appeared on non-intelligent matter.

4. Human consciousness arose on non-conscious matter.

5. Immaterial realities (information, logic, math) arose from simple matter.

6. Complex Order and Beauty arose from Chaos.

Not only do these "Miracles of Atheism" go against our common human experience, but they also violate many well-known and accepted laws and principles of logic, science, and will be generally perceived to be true about reality. If believing such things is the "intellectual price tag" of Atheism, then I'm afraid it's too expensive for my tastes. I prefer my worldview to be intellectually strong, logically sound, and not an outrage against my common sense perceptions of reality!

Finally, many of the world's most famous and renowned atheists have admitted their private "hunger" for God and the eternal. This would include Albert Camus, Jean Paul Sartre, and Auguste Comte.  Some of these thinkers, such CS Lewis, Lee Strobel, or Henry Morris, after having examined the evidence of God's existence, the proof of the Bible's reliability and inspiration, and historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, have since become committed followers of Christ. 

When examined as a worldview, although it presents a strong face in our current culture, Atheism possesses no positive evidence to show itself true, has very strong arguments against it, and  even commits incredible logical and philosophical blunders.  For these reasons, Atheism has frequently been abandoned by many of it's strongest thinkers in recent years, such as Dr. Anthony Flew and Dr. Francis Collins.  

For all of these reasons, and many more, I simply don't have enough faith to be an Atheist!

- Pastor J. 

Is Molinism as Depressing as Calvinism?

I had a question regarding God's Foreknowledge which is a topic that consistently eats away at my heart.

I was looking at an article Dr. Craig wrote on middle knowledge and I was wondering:

How does middle knowledge take us away from the idea of determinism? If God picks which world is created and in that world someone I know is not saved and cannot be saved...is this suggesting that in no such world would that person ever be saved? Do we then just assume that God has created a world in which everyone who can be saved in ANY world will be saved and ANY who can't be saved, won't be? And if that's the case, what good is human prayer in this situation? Doesn't it kind of just make it so that anyone who prays for what God has already done is going to have his/her prayer "answered" and the others wont? I would have thought the answer would be that God would have factored human prayer into His decision making and plan for the world (not that we change God's mind, per se) but it seems like if God's creation decree already established salvation/damnation...does it matter?

When I try and ponder God's foreknowledge and my life, I have horrible doubts. I feel incredibly depressed and guilty because my mind cannot reconcile it all. I feel like Calvinism suggests that God predetermines everything and we are all following a script which makes everything seem meaningless to me (and to Dr. Craig, as he says in his answer)...but middle knowledge seems to suggest that God predetermines us by choosing which world we exist in, so it seems like it's not too different from calvinism, it's just a step higher (I would love clarification here)...and then armenianism suggests that God draws all to Him, but not all are saved, yet God does things in the world that bring people to salvation and yet does not do them to some other people, which suggests either arbitrary behavior or some form of higher knowledge.

I genuinely hate it because I have always been a relatively strong Christian but I have opened this pandoras box that I cant figure out how to shut.

I know this question was a bit "rambly" and I know that someone other than Dr. Craig is probably going to answer, which is cool, but ....I guess my final question is...How do you live life with joy? How do you not fear that maybe someday something might happen that brings doubt into your heart and then you start to wonder like "what if I'm one of those people who could never be saved and just thought I was?" I know it sounds ridiculous, but I worry myself about this kind of thing and am genuinely seeking the advice of fellow Christians on this matter. I never thought about this kind of stuff until I got into the whole foreknowledge debate. Unfortunately this kind of discussion goes way beyond the current level of understanding of the members of my church and I can't really have this kind of discourse.

Thanks very much for any and all input.

Mike


United States


Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's answer

Question #2: "Can Atheism Explain the Beginning of the Universe?"

How Did The Universe Begin to Exist?

(pt.3) In this episode of our series "GOD: The Best Explanation?", we begin to investigate if the scientific fact of the beginning of our universe can be adequately explained by the existence of God.

Amazingly, in the 20th century alone, we have discovered at least 5 different ways in which we can demonstrate scientifically that the universe had a definite point of beginning a finite time ago, and is not eternal in the past. This of course cries out for an answer to one of the deepest questions of humanity "Where did the universe come from, and how did it begin?"

For more interesting videos and apologetic resources, you can send us your questions to intelligentfaith315@gmail.com . Also, check out our iTunes podcasts entitled "Reason To Believe" and "Intelligent Faith - Radio Podcast."

- Pastor J.