http://www.kuriosministersacademy.co.za/

Kurios Ministers Academy, 106, 9th Road, Johannesburg (2026)

07/09/2026

𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗥 — “𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗢𝗧𝗛𝗬 𝗠𝗬 𝗦𝗢𝗡” — 𝗣𝗢𝗪𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗘 🔥

This is not a casual gathering.
This is a call to 𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

“But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,”
— 𝟮 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝘆 𝟯:𝟭𝟬 𝗞𝗝𝗩

Timothy was not raised by ambition. He was formed through 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗲, 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

Today, we gather—not merely to produce sound, but to 𝘆𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱. Not for power on display, but for a people 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁, from whom accurate and governed expression can proceed.

“For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.”
— 𝟭 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝟭𝟰:𝟭𝟰 𝗞𝗝𝗩

There are atmospheres you must enter.
There are instructions best received while present.

⏳ 𝗣𝗢𝗪𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗘 — 𝟯 𝗛𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝗼𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗲𝘀
🗓️ 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘆, 𝟳 𝗦𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
🕕 𝟲𝗣𝗠
📍 𝗦𝗵𝗲𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗵 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴
106, 9th Road, Kew, Sandton

If you are within Johannesburg and surrounding areas, 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁.

𝗕𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗗𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 🔥

24/08/2026

𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗔’𝗦 𝗕𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗦—𝗕𝗨𝗧 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗧𝗢𝗟𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗛𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗛 𝗧𝗢 𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗠?

The Question the Defence of Relics Has Not Yet Answered

I have read the Catholic explanations.

I understand the distinction between worship and veneration.

I accept that Catholics do not describe what they are doing as worshipping bones.

So let us remove that accusation completely.

Now the harder question remains:

𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧 𝗢𝗥 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗔𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗧𝗟𝗘𝗦 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗭𝗘 𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗔𝗡𝗦 𝗧𝗢 𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗢𝗗𝗜𝗟𝗬 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗦 𝗢𝗙 𝗗𝗘𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗦𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗦?

Please do not answer too quickly with 2 Kings 13:20–21.

I believe that passage.

“And Elisha died, and they buried him. And the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year. And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.” 2 Kings 13:20–21 (KJV)

A dead man touched Elisha's bones and revived.

That proves the miracle.

But where is the veneration?

Nobody came seeking Elisha's bones.

Nobody bowed before them.

Nobody kissed them.

Nobody carried them in procession.

Nobody invoked Elisha.

Nobody instructed Israel to preserve them for devotional use.

Nobody established a practice around them.

In fact, the man's contact with the bones occurred while his burial party was fleeing danger.

So I ask again:

𝗛𝗢𝗪 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗚𝗢𝗗'𝗦 𝗠𝗜𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗟𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗥𝗢𝗨𝗚𝗛 𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗛𝗔'𝗦 𝗕𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗦 𝗕𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗛𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗛'𝗦 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗧𝗢 𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗦?

The text does not make that move.

We do.

And if we make the move, we must show our authority for making it.

𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗣𝗔𝗨𝗟'𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗞𝗘𝗥𝗖𝗛𝗜𝗘𝗙𝗦?

Again, let Scripture speak:

"And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.” Acts 19:11–12 (KJV)

Absolutely true.

But read Luke carefully:

“𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗪𝗥𝗢𝗨𝗚𝗛𝗧 𝗦𝗣𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗜𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗟𝗘𝗦.”

God acted.

Paul served.

The objects were used.

Where does the Church venerate them?

Where does Paul command their preservation?

Where does anyone bow before them?

Where does anyone kiss them?

Where does Paul teach that objects associated with departed saints should thereafter become objects of religious veneration?

And Paul was still alive.

Therefore Acts 19 proves something magnificent:

𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗖𝗔𝗡 𝗨𝗦𝗘 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗦 𝗠𝗜𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗨𝗟𝗢𝗨𝗦𝗟𝗬.

It does not, without another biblical premise, prove:

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗛𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗛 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗢𝗗𝗜𝗟𝗬 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦 𝗢𝗙 𝗗𝗘𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗦𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗦.

Those are two different propositions.

Where is the Scripture connecting them?

That is the missing bridge.

𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗣𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘 𝗚𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗦 𝗨𝗦 𝗔 𝗦𝗢𝗕𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗪𝗔𝗥𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚

There actually was an object in Scripture that:

God commanded.

Moses made.

God used.

Miracles occurred through it.

It was the bronze serpent.

Yet Scripture later says:

"He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.”
2 Kings 18:4 (KJV)

Notice carefully.

Its supernatural history did not authorize Israel to turn it into an object of continuing religious devotion.

I am not saying burning incense to the bronze serpent and Catholic relic veneration are identical acts.

I do not need to make that claim.

The biblical warning is already sufficient:

𝗚𝗢𝗗'𝗦 𝗨𝗦𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗔𝗡 𝗢𝗕𝗝𝗘𝗖𝗧 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗕𝗬 𝗜𝗧𝗦𝗘𝗟𝗙 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗭𝗘 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗢𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗢𝗪𝗔𝗥𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗢𝗕𝗝𝗘𝗖𝗧.

Therefore saying,

“God worked through Elisha's bones”

does not answer the question,

“Who authorized the Church to venerate Elisha's bones—or anybody else's?”

𝗡𝗢𝗪 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗪𝗔𝗥𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧.

This is where the question becomes even more serious.

After Christ came,

after the Cross,

after the Resurrection,

after the Ascension,

after Pentecost,

and throughout the apostolic witness—

𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡?

Show me Jesus teaching it.

Show me Peter teaching it.

Show me Paul teaching it.

Show me John teaching it.

Show me an apostolic church practising it.

Show me Christians gathering around Stephen's remains to venerate them after his martyrdom.

Show me the apostles preserving James's remains for devotional veneration after Herod killed him.

Show me Paul instructing churches to preserve the remains of departed ministers.

Show me the apostolic instruction.

Not because I have already decided that Catholics are idolaters.

But because Christian practice requires Christian authority.

And this is precisely where the question becomes unavoidable.

𝗜𝗙 𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗣𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗛 𝗜𝗧, 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦?

If the answer is:

Sacred Tradition.

Then say so.

That would at least locate the real disagreement.

But then Elisha's bones and Paul's handkerchiefs should not be presented as though they themselves establish the Catholic practice.

They do not.

They establish divine use of material things.

The additional proposition—

therefore the Church may religiously venerate the bodily relics of departed saints—

must obtain its authority from somewhere else.

So where?

That is the question.

𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗡𝗢𝗪, 𝗠𝗬 𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗕𝗥𝗢𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗦𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗦, 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗙𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗡 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡.

I am African.

Suppose an African Christian says:

“I don't worship my departed ancestors. I honour them.”

Suppose he continues:

“They are not gods.”

Suppose he says:

“I know God alone deserves worship.”

Suppose he insists:

“My outward gestures must be interpreted according to what I mean by them, not according to what you think they mean.”

At that point, merely saying,

“But Catholic veneration is different,”

is not enough.

I am not claiming the two practices are identical.

I am asking something much more difficult:

𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗕𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗣𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗣𝗟𝗘 𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗦 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗚𝗜𝗢𝗨𝗦 𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗢𝗙 𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗚𝗢𝗥𝗬 𝗢𝗙 𝗗𝗘𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗢𝗡𝗦 𝗪𝗛𝗜𝗟𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗕𝗜𝗗𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗥𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗚𝗜𝗢𝗨𝗦 𝗩𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗢𝗙 𝗔𝗡𝗢𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥?

Show me the criterion from Scripture.

If “they are alive unto God” is the answer, Scripture says:

“For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.” Luke 20:38 (KJV)

Wonderful.

I believe it.

But that establishes their life unto God.

Where does it establish our devotional approach toward them or their remains?

Again, the bridge is missing.

𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗜𝗦𝗠 𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗨𝗦 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗧𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗦𝗠.

I refuse that framework.

Catholicism must bow to Scripture.

Protestantism must bow to Scripture.

Pentecostalism must bow to Scripture.

African Christianity must bow to Scripture.

And if something I believe cannot survive Scripture, I must drop it too.

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”
Romans 11:36 (KJV)

Everything originates in God.

Everything comes through Him.

Everything terminates in His glory.

Therefore neither antiquity, ecclesiastical authority, cultural familiarity nor sincere intention can substitute for the question:

𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗭𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗖𝗛𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗛?

So I return to the photograph.

The skull is not actually my deepest concern.

The bishop holding it is not my deepest concern.

Catholic terminology is not my deepest concern.

Authority is.

And until the missing biblical bridge is supplied, the questions remain:

God used Elisha's bones—but who told the Church to venerate them?

God used Paul's handkerchiefs—but who told the Church to venerate objects associated with departed saints?

Where did Christ teach it?

Where did His apostles establish it?

Where did the apostolic churches practise it?

And finally:

𝗜𝗙 𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗔𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗧𝗟𝗘𝗦 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗛 𝗜𝗧, 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗧𝗢 𝗔𝗗𝗗 𝗜𝗧 𝗧𝗢 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗢𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗔𝗟 𝗟𝗜𝗙𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧'𝗦 𝗖𝗛𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗛?

That is the question I respectfully place before Catholic priests, bishops, theologians, and every Christian who believes the practice can be defended from Scripture.

Please show us the missing biblical bridge.

If Scripture establishes it, we should submit to Scripture.

If Scripture overturns something we inherited, we should submit to Scripture.

Christ's Church belongs to Christ.

And what belongs to Christ must ultimately be governed by Christ.

𝗚𝗶𝗳𝘁 𝗨𝘄𝘂𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗺𝘄𝗲𝗻
An Apostle of the Lamb
Architect of the Lamb’s Government
𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧 𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗔𝗟𝗟Campaign

15/08/2026

𝟭 𝗝𝗢𝗛𝗡 𝟭:𝟵 — 𝗟𝗘𝗧 𝗝𝗢𝗛𝗡 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗛 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗨𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧

I have been spending some time examining 1 John 1:9 within the argument of the entire epistle, particularly John’s treatment of sin, confession, forgiveness, advocacy, propitiation, the new birth, and God’s testimony concerning His Son.

And one conviction has become increasingly important to me:

𝗪𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗲𝗽𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀.

Neither should we build a doctrine upon one punctuation mark, one grammatical observation, or an isolated reading of one verse.

If we want to understand John, perhaps the safest thing we can do is simple:

𝗟𝗘𝗧 𝗝𝗢𝗛𝗡 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗛 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗨𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗧𝗛 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡

John writes:

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” — 1 John 1:8

Then:

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” — 1 John 1:9

And immediately:

“If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” — 1 John 1:10 KJV

Notice the progression:

“We have no sin.”

“We confess our sins.”

“We have not sinned.”

John places confession between two denials.

The issue before him is therefore profoundly concerned with truth.

Do we deny what God says concerning our condition, or do we acknowledge it?

To confess is to acknowledge what is true.

Man cannot stand before the God who is light and deny God’s testimony concerning himself.

𝗪𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗦𝗜𝗡.

𝗪𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗡𝗘𝗗.

But thankfully, John does not leave us contemplating ourselves or our sin.

He immediately directs our attention to God’s provision concerning our sins.

𝗝𝗘𝗦𝗨𝗦 𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧𝗘𝗢𝗨𝗦

John continues:

“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” — 1 John 2:1 KJV

There are two truths here that must be held together.

First:

𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗬𝗘 𝗦𝗜𝗡 𝗡𝗢𝗧.

Whatever John is teaching about forgiveness, it can never legitimately become permission, encouragement, or indifference toward sin.

But then John contemplates the reality that sin may occur:

𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗜𝗙 𝗔𝗡𝗬 𝗠𝗔𝗡 𝗦𝗜𝗡…

What does he say?

𝗪𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗔𝗡 𝗔𝗗𝗩𝗢𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗘.

He does not say that Christ now needs to become our Advocate.

We have an Advocate.

And that Advocate is:

𝗝𝗘𝗦𝗨𝗦 𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧𝗘𝗢𝗨𝗦.

Then John continues:

“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
— 1 John 2:2 KJV

There again are the words:

𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗦.

I do not believe we need to make “our sins” another designation for Jesus Christ.

The grammar does not require it.

But neither do we need to do so to arrive at Christ.

John himself brings Christ directly into relation with our sins:

𝗛𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗣𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗦.

That is stronger than trying to make “our sins” mean Christ.

Our sins remain our sins.
Jesus Christ remains God’s provision concerning our sins.

And then John makes an extraordinary declaration.

𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗔𝗠𝗘’𝗦 𝗦𝗔𝗞𝗘

He writes:

“I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.”
— 1 John 2:12 KJV

John does not merely tell them that their sins can someday be forgiven.

He addresses them as those whose sins are forgiven.

And he explicitly directs our attention to Christ:

𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗔𝗠𝗘’𝗦 𝗦𝗔𝗞𝗘.

This deserves careful consideration when we interpret 1 John 1:9.

The condition of confession in 1:9 is real.

We should not explain away John’s “if.”

The acknowledgment of sin is real.

Forgiveness is real.

Cleansing is real.

But confession must never be allowed to occupy the place belonging to God’s redemptive provision in His Son.

John himself directs us to His name.

𝗛𝗘 𝗪𝗔𝗦 𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗜𝗙𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗔𝗪𝗔𝗬 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗦

John continues:

“And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.” — 1 John 3:5 KJV

Again:

𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗦.

And again:

𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧.

The movement continues to be Christological.

Our sins are not denied.

Our sins are not renamed.

But God’s answer concerning our sins continually directs us to His Son.

He was manifested to take away our sins.

Then John says something remarkable about those who have been born of God:

“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” — 1 John 3:9 KJV

This cannot reasonably mean that a believer becomes incapable of ever committing a sinful act, because John has already written:

“if any man sin, we have an advocate…”

John is not contradicting himself.

His explanation reaches deeper:

𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗘𝗘𝗗 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗧𝗛 𝗜𝗡 𝗛𝗜𝗠.

Something has happened through the new birth.

The life that originates from God cannot have sin as its governing source, character, and production.

God’s seed remains.

The believer has not merely encountered a forgiveness formula.

𝗛𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗕𝗘𝗘𝗡 𝗕𝗢𝗥𝗡 𝗢𝗙 𝗚𝗢𝗗.

And that birth changes his relationship with sin.

𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗪𝗘 𝗟𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗 𝗚𝗢𝗗

John then takes us even deeper into the source of redemption:

“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” — 1 John 4:10 KJV

Notice the order.

𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗪𝗘…

but:

𝗛𝗘 𝗟𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗗 𝗨𝗦…

and:

𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗢𝗡…

and:

𝗧𝗢 𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗣𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗦.

The movement begins in God.

God loved.

God sent.

The Son is the propitiation.

Our salvation does not originate in our ability to answer our own sin.

𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗛𝗔𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗪𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗗 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡 𝗜𝗡 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗢𝗡.

𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗝𝗢𝗛𝗡 𝗥𝗘𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗡𝗦 𝗧𝗢 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗙𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡

John writes:

“Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.”
— 1 John 4:15 KJV

Here again is John’s language of confession.

Confession does not make Jesus the Son of God.

It acknowledges as true what God has revealed concerning His Son.

This helps us appreciate John’s larger use of confession.

There is God’s truth concerning us, which must not be denied.

And there is God’s truth concerning His Son, which must be received.

𝗪𝗘 𝗠𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗛𝗜𝗠 𝗔 𝗟𝗜𝗔𝗥

And here I find one of the most illuminating correspondences in the entire epistle.

John had written in chapter 1:

“If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” — 1 John 1:10 KJV

Then in chapter 5 he writes:
“he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.” — 1 John 5:10 KJV

Consider those statements together.

In chapter 1:

𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗬 𝗚𝗢𝗗’𝗦 𝗧𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗬 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡 — 𝗠𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗔 𝗟𝗜𝗔𝗥.

In chapter 5:

𝗥𝗘𝗝𝗘𝗖𝗧 𝗚𝗢𝗗’𝗦 𝗧𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗬 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗢𝗡 — 𝗠𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗚𝗢𝗗 𝗔 𝗟𝗜𝗔𝗥.

And then John tells us what God’s testimony concerning His Son is:

“And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.”
— 1 John 5:11 KJV

There are therefore two truths we dare not reject.

𝗚𝗢𝗗’𝗦 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗧𝗛 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗨𝗦

We have sin.
We have sinned.

And:

𝗚𝗢𝗗’𝗦 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗧𝗛 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗢𝗡

God has given eternal life.
And this life is in His Son.

Deny the first, and we contradict God’s testimony concerning ourselves.

Reject the second, and we contradict God’s testimony concerning His Son.

But receive God’s testimony, and everything leads us to Christ.

𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗜 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗗 𝟭 𝗝𝗢𝗛𝗡 𝟭:𝟵 𝗔𝗦 𝗙𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗔𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗦𝗔𝗟𝗩𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖

When the entire epistle is allowed to speak, I find it difficult to reduce 1 John 1:9 primarily to a recurring mechanism whereby every individual Christian transgression enters an unforgiven judicial state until the believer remembers it and verbally confesses it.

John appears to be dealing with something more fundamental.

God is light.

His light exposes the truth concerning us.

We must not deny that truth.

𝗪𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗦𝗜𝗡.

𝗪𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗡𝗘𝗗.

But the same God who reveals the truth concerning our sin has given His answer concerning that sin:

𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗢𝗡.

Jesus Christ is the righteous Advocate.

Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins.

Jesus Christ was manifested to take away our sins.

Our sins are forgiven for His name’s sake.

God sent His Son because He loved us.

And eternal life is in His Son.

Therefore the confession of our sins must never become another redemptive work standing alongside Christ.

Neither should Christ’s finished provision ever become an excuse for continuing in sin.

John allows neither error.

He says:

𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗬𝗘 𝗦𝗜𝗡 𝗡𝗢𝗧.

And he also says:

𝗪𝗘 𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗔𝗡 𝗔𝗗𝗩𝗢𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗘.

Both are true.

𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗛𝗔𝗣𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗦 𝗟𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗘𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗠𝗔

The earliest Greek manuscripts did not contain punctuation in precisely the form familiar to readers of modern English Bibles.

That historical observation is worth knowing.

But I do not believe our understanding of this passage finally depends upon removing or retaining an English comma.

Nor do I believe we need to make “our sins” mean Jesus in order to preserve the sufficiency of Christ.

John gives us something much stronger.

He tells us exactly who Jesus is concerning our sins:

𝗛𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗔𝗗𝗩𝗢𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗘.

𝗛𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗣𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗦.

𝗛𝗘 𝗪𝗔𝗦 𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗜𝗙𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗔𝗪𝗔𝗬 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗦.

𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗦 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗚𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗡 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗔𝗠𝗘’𝗦 𝗦𝗔𝗞𝗘.

𝗘𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗔𝗟 𝗟𝗜𝗙𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗡 𝗛𝗜𝗠.

So perhaps the greater question is not:

Where should we put the comma?

The greater question is:

𝗪𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗪𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗘𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗪𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗘 𝗧𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗬 𝗢𝗙 𝗚𝗢𝗗?

His testimony concerning our sin.

And His testimony concerning His Son.

John eventually reduces the matter to breathtaking simplicity:

“He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” — 1 John 5:12

That is where I believe we should allow John to bring us.

Not to denial of sin.

Not to preoccupation with sin.

Not to confidence in confession as though confession were our redeemer.

But to:

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗧𝗛 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡 — 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗚𝗢𝗗’𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗪𝗘𝗥 𝗜𝗡 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗢𝗡.

We acknowledge what God says concerning us.

We believe what God says concerning His Son.

We do not make “our sins” mean Jesus.

Neither do we make our confession the Saviour.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗔𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗥 𝗚𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗢𝗡.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗗𝗩𝗢𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗘.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗣𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗦.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗢𝗡 𝗪𝗔𝗦 𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗜𝗙𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗢 𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗔𝗪𝗔𝗬 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗦.

𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗦 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗚𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗡 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗔𝗠𝗘’𝗦 𝗦𝗔𝗞𝗘.

𝗘𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗔𝗟 𝗟𝗜𝗙𝗘 𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗢𝗡.

I offer these thoughts simply as the fruit of returning to John’s epistle and allowing his argument to unfold from beginning to end.

This is not about personalities.

It is not about taking sides.

It is not a polemical response to anyone.

It is an invitation to all of us—including myself—to remain under the government of the text.

𝗟𝗘𝗧 𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗣𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘 𝗚𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗡.

𝗟𝗘𝗧 𝗝𝗢𝗛𝗡 𝗙𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗛 𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗨𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧.

𝗟𝗘𝗧 𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗔𝗜𝗡 𝗖𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗟.

Much love.

𝙂𝙞𝙛𝙩 𝙐𝙬𝙪𝙗𝙖𝙣𝙢𝙬𝙚𝙣
An Apostle of the Lamb
Architect of the Lamb’s Government
CHRIST STANDING TALL Campaign.

13/08/2026

Do you want to study the Bible with greater confidence and discernment?

Join the 6-Week Certificate in Bible Interpretation: The Art and Science of Accurate Bible Hermeneutics and learn to interpret Scripture faithfully, recognise doctrinal error, and handle God’s Word with clarity.

Applications are now open.

Apply here:
https://forms.office.com/r/E3L85hQ72s

CHRIST STANDING TALL — 2026
The Year His Glory Walks Through His People

© Kurios Ministers Academy

13/08/2026

Do you want to help people find biblical answers to life’s difficult questions?

Join the 6-Week Certificate in Biblical Counselling and receive practical, Scripture-based training in wisdom, compassion, biblical guidance, and Christ-centred care.

Applications are now open.

Apply here:
https://forms.office.com/r/hbvTPyUzDU

CHRIST STANDING TALL — 2026
The Year His Glory Walks Through His People

© Kurios Ministers Academy

13/08/2026

Do you sense a call to the prophetic?

Join the 6-Week Prophetic School of Ministry and receive structured biblical training in prophetic accuracy, discernment, character, accountability, and responsible ministry.

Applications are now open.

Apply here:
https://forms.office.com/r/FfvtzfpyZM

CHRIST STANDING TALL — 2026
The Year His Glory Walks Through His People

© Kurios Ministers Academy

13/08/2026

Do you desire to grow in ministry and lead more effectively?

Join the 3-Month Executive Diploma in Applied Ministry and Divinity and receive practical, Scripture-based training in doctrine, leadership, church administration, evangelism and ministry development.

Applications are now open.

Apply here:
https://forms.cloud.microsoft/r/WV0B2ih8SH

CHRIST STANDING TALL — 2026
The Year His Glory Walks Through His People

© Kurios Ministers Academy

13/08/2026

Do you desire to grow in the knowledge of God and build a stronger theological foundation?

Join the 3-Month Executive Diploma in Theology and grow in biblical doctrine, Scripture understanding, and effective ministry.

Applications are now open.

Apply here:
https://forms.cloud.microsoft/r/ftA3GRfstb

CHRIST STANDING TALL — 2026
The Year His Glory Walks Through His People

© Kurios Ministers Academy

13/08/2026

𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗠𝗘𝗔𝗡 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗧𝗛

God did not gradually become different.

Truth did not evolve.

God was not one reality in the Old Testament and another reality in the New Testament.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗚𝗼𝗱. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆’𝘀 𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴.

This distinction is essential.

When we speak of progressive revelation, we are not saying that an earlier Scripture meant one thing until a later writer changed its meaning. Neither are we permitted to take theological systems developed centuries later and read them backward into Moses, the Prophets, or the Psalms as though those systems were explicitly present in the original texts.

Earlier Scripture must first be allowed to speak within its own historical, literary, covenantal, and prophetic context.

Then we must follow the revelation forward.

𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲. 𝗛𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

What was promised reaches its fulfillment in Him. What was anticipated comes into manifestation. What was previously seen in prophetic expectation is brought into greater clarity, and the apostles, by the Spirit, explain how the earlier Scriptures reach their appointed fulfillment in Christ.

This gives us a governed biblical movement:

𝗢𝗹𝗱 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 → 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 → 𝗔𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 → 𝗖𝗮𝗻𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 → 𝗗𝗼𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗢𝗥𝗗𝗘𝗥 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗦.

For example, when an Old Testament passage concerning YHWH is applied to Jesus in the New Testament, we must resist the temptation to immediately impose our preferred theological conclusion upon the passage.

We must first ask:

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗹𝗱 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝘆?

Then we ask:

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁?

Then:

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵?

And finally:

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽?

Only then should we formulate doctrine.

Progressive revelation therefore protects us from two opposite errors.

It prevents us from reading later theology backward into earlier Scripture.

But it also prevents us from restricting later inspired revelation to everything the original hearers could already understand.

The prophets themselves did not necessarily comprehend the fullness of everything God was revealing through them. Fulfillment may therefore unveil dimensions of an earlier prophetic witness that were genuinely contained within God's purpose without having been fully perceived by its original hearers.

This means that we must neither force later theological systems backward into Scripture nor prevent later Scripture from interpreting earlier Scripture.

𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗣𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘 𝗠𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗧 𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗣𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘.

This becomes particularly important when investigating the nature of God and the identity of Jesus Christ.

When considering the Logos, Wisdom, the Son of God, the Son of Man, pre-existence, divine agency, YHWH texts applied to Jesus, creation through Christ, exaltation, worship, divine titles, and prophetic fulfillment, we must resist beginning with a theological system and then searching Scripture for evidence to support it.

Whether that system is Trinitarian, Unitarian, Oneness, A***n, or anything else, the governing order must remain the same.

𝗕𝗘𝗚𝗜𝗡 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗣𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘.

𝗙𝗢𝗟𝗟𝗢𝗪 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡.

𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧.

𝗛𝗘𝗔𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗧𝗟𝗘𝗦.

𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗟𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗪𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗘 𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗢𝗡.

𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗠𝗨𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗘 𝗗𝗢𝗖𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗘.

That is what we mean by Progressive Revelation.

𝗦𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲.

Gift Uwubanmwen
An Apostle of the Lamb
Architect of the Lamb’s Government
CHRIST STANDING TALL Campaign

Kurios Ministers Academy

07/09/2026

24/08/2026

15/08/2026

13/08/2026

13/08/2026

13/08/2026

13/08/2026

13/08/2026

13/08/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The School

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request