CENI: The Biblical Method of Establishing Divine Authority

English

🇵🇭 Tagalog

CENI: The Biblical Method of Establishing Divine Authority

Command, Approved Example, and Necessary Inference as the Grammar of God

I. INTRODUCTION: WHY AUTHORITY MUST BE ESTABLISHED

Every doctrinal conclusion must answer one foundational question:

“By what authority?” (cf. Matthew 21:23)

This is not a philosophical inquiry—it is a divine requirement. Scripture does not permit:

assumption
tradition
human reasoning detached from revelation

Instead, God communicates in ways that require:

understanding
recognition of patterns
submission to revealed authority

Thus, the method of interpretation must not be invented—it must be derived from how God Himself communicates in Scripture.

CENI (Command, Example, Necessary Inference) is not a human system imposed on Scripture—it is:

a recognition of how Scripture itself establishes authority.

II. COMMAND: DIRECT DIVINE AUTHORITY

Definition and Biblical Nature

A command is a direct expression of God’s will—clear, explicit, and binding.

Example:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you…” (Acts 2:38, KJV)

This is not inferred. It is not deduced. It is stated.

Greek Insight (Grammar of God)

“Repent” → μετανοήσατε (metanoēsate)

Aorist Active Imperative → decisive, commanded action

“Be baptized” → βαπτισθήτω (baptisthētō)

Aorist Passive Imperative → commanded submission

The grammar itself carries authority—this is not suggestion but obligation.

Doctrinal Implication

Where God gives command:

silence is excluded
alternatives are unauthorized

Bullet Reinforcement

Commands establish non-negotiable authority
Commands are clear, binding, and universal (when contextually intended)
To ignore command is to reject divine authority (Luke 6:46)

III. APPROVED EXAMPLE: APOSTOLIC PRACTICE AS AUTHORITY

Definition

An approved example is a recorded action of:

apostles
early church
under divine guidance

that reflects God’s will in practice.

Biblical Proof that Example Carries Authority

“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:1)

“Those things… ye have seen in me, do…” (Philippians 4:9)

The instruction is clear:

What the apostles practiced is to be followed.

Case Study: Weekly Assembly

“Upon the first day of the week… the disciples came together to break bread…” (Acts 20:7)

No direct command says:

“Thou shalt assemble every Sunday.”

Yet:

It is recorded
It is deliberate
It is apostolic practice

Thus, it carries binding authority as approved example.

Bullet Reinforcement

Not every example is binding—only approved, purposeful, apostolic examples
Repeated or contextually significant examples carry normative force
Ignoring approved example rejects revealed practice

IV. NECESSARY INFERENCE: THE LOGIC DEMANDED BY THE TEXT

Definition

A necessary inference is:

A conclusion that must be true, even if not explicitly stated.

It is not:

speculation
possibility
opinion

It is:

the only logical conclusion the text allows

Biblical Demonstration

Example: The Necessity of Water in Baptism

“They went down both into the water…” (Acts 8:38)

The text does not say:

“Water is required for baptism.”

But it shows:

immersion context
physical descent into water

Thus, we infer:

Water is necessary—not optional

Jesus Himself Used Necessary Inference

“God is not the God of the dead, but of the living…” (Matthew 22:32)

Jesus proves resurrection from:

the tense of “I am” (Exodus 3:6)

This is not command.
This is not example.

This is inference based on grammar.

Bullet Reinforcement

Necessary inference must be:

unavoidable
exclusive

If multiple interpretations exist → it is not necessary
Scripture itself uses inference → therefore it is authorized reasoning

V. CENI DEMONSTRATED BY SCRIPTURE ITSELF

CENI is not imposed—it is observed:

1. Command

Acts 2:38 → explicit instruction

2. Example

Acts 20:7 → apostolic practice

3. Inference

Matthew 22:32 → logical necessity

Thus:

The Bible itself uses all three forms to establish truth.

VI. CONTEXT IS KING: PROTECTING CENI FROM ABUSE

CENI must operate under:

context
grammar
historical setting

Otherwise, it becomes:

a tool of distortion instead of truth

Example of Misuse

Acts 1:20:

“His bishoprick let another take.”

Used by some to defend apostolic succession

But context shows:

replacement of Judas
requirement: eyewitness of Christ (Acts 1:21–22)

Thus:

This is not succession—it is unique replacement

Bullet Reinforcement

CENI without context = false doctrine
Context defines:

scope
application
limitation

VII. APOLOGETIC: REFUTING FALSE VIEWS OF AUTHORITY

False View #1: “We only follow explicit commands”

Problem:

eliminates example and inference
contradicts how Scripture teaches

Refutation:

Acts 20:7 → no command, yet binding practice
Matthew 22 → Jesus uses inference

False View #2: “Inference is unreliable”

Refutation:

Jesus used inference
Apostles reasoned (Acts 17:2)

The issue is not inference—but:

wrong inference

False View #3: “Silence permits anything”

Refutation:

Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1–2)

They offered:

“strange fire, which He commanded them not”

God did not say:

“Do not use that fire”

But silence did not permit—it condemned.

Bullet Reinforcement

Silence can be prohibitive when:

God specifies
context limits action

Authority must be established—not assumed

VIII. THE DANGER ZONE: WHEN CENI IS MISUSED

CENI becomes dangerous when:

1. Inference becomes speculation

“Possible” treated as “necessary”

2. Silence is overextended

Binding where God did not bind

3. Framework replaces Scripture

System controls interpretation

Bullet Safeguards

Always ask:

Is this conclusion unavoidable?
Is it grounded in textual evidence?

Maintain:

humility
textual fidelity

IX. SPIRITUAL APPLICATION: WHY THIS MATTERS

CENI is not academic—it is salvational in implication.

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” (2 John 9)

Without a method of authority:

doctrine becomes subjective
truth becomes negotiable

But with proper application:

Scripture speaks clearly, consistently, and authoritatively.

X. FINAL CONCLUSION: THE GRAMMAR OF GOD

CENI is not:

a human invention
a denominational tool

It is:

the observable pattern of divine communication in Scripture

Final Bullet Summary

Command → what God explicitly requires
Example → what God-approved practice demonstrates
Inference → what truth the text necessarily demands

Together:

They form the Grammar of God—how divine authority is revealed, understood, and obeyed.

CLOSING EXHORTATION

The issue is not:

“Do I like this method?”

The issue is:

“Is this how God communicates His will?”

If Scripture teaches by:

command
example
necessary inference

Then faithful obedience requires:

recognizing all three—and submitting to all three.

CASE STUDY: CENI IN ACTION — ACTS 15 AND THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL

The Doctrinal Crisis: What Must Be Required for Salvation?

In Acts of the Apostles 15:1, a serious doctrinal issue arose:

“Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”

This was not minor.
This was about:

salvation
authority
the binding of Old Covenant law

The question:

Must Gentile believers obey the Law of Moses to be saved?

The Process: How Did the Apostles Resolve It?

Notice carefully—this is critical:

They did not:

vote by majority
appeal to tradition
rely on human wisdom

Instead, they established truth through:

Command, Approved Example, and Necessary Inference

1. APPROVED EXAMPLE: GOD’S ACTION AMONG THE GENTILES

Peter’s Testimony

“God… gave them the Holy Ghost… putting no difference between us and them…” (Acts 15:8–9)

Peter refers to what happened in Acts of the Apostles 10 (Cornelius):

Gentiles received the Holy Spirit
without circumcision
before any Mosaic requirement

This is not theory—it is:

an approved divine example

Doctrinal Force

If God accepted them:

Man cannot impose additional requirements

Key Insight

God’s action = divine approval
Divine approval = binding example

2. NECESSARY INFERENCE: WHAT MUST BE TRUE?

Peter draws the unavoidable conclusion:

“Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples…?” (Acts 15:10)

This is not a command.
This is not a new example.

This is:

necessary inference

The Logic

God accepted Gentiles without the Law
Therefore:

The Law is not required for salvation

Critical Principle

This is not “possible” reasoning.
This is:

inescapable conclusion demanded by the evidence

3. COMMAND (AUTHORITATIVE DECISION): THE FINAL DECLARATION

After:

testimony
reasoning
Scripture

The apostles issue an authoritative conclusion:

“It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us…” (Acts 15:28)

This is not mere opinion.

This is:

Spirit-guided authoritative instruction

The Instruction Given

They did not command circumcision

Instead, they instructed:

abstain from idols
from blood
from fornication

Doctrinal Significance

The Law of Moses was not bound
Only necessary instructions were given

4. SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE: JAMES CONFIRMS WITH PROPHECY

James supports the conclusion using Scripture:

“To this agree the words of the prophets…” (Acts 15:15)

He cites prophecy (Amos 9:11–12):

Gentiles would be included
without becoming Jews

This is CENI Again

Example → God accepted Gentiles
Inference → Law not required
Scripture → confirms conclusion

SUMMARY: CENI IN PERFECT HARMONY

What we see in Acts 15:

Approved Example
→ God accepted Gentiles (Acts 10)
Necessary Inference
→ Therefore, the Law is not required
Command / Authoritative Conclusion
→ Apostles issue binding instruction

Bullet Reinforcement

Doctrine was established without confusion
No reliance on:

tradition
emotion
majority opinion

Only:

Divine evidence + necessary reasoning + authoritative conclusion

APOLOGETIC POWER: WHY THIS CASE STUDY MATTERS

Acts 15 destroys several false approaches:

❌ “Doctrine can be decided by consensus”

→ False. It was decided by divine evidence

❌ “Old Testament laws still bind unless removed”

→ False. They were not imposed at all

❌ “Only explicit commands matter”

→ False. Inference and example were essential

FINAL LESSON: HOW THE CHURCH MUST DECIDE TODAY

What the apostles did in Acts 15 is not optional—it is the pattern.

When facing doctrinal questions, we must ask:

What has God commanded?
What has God approved by example?
What does the text necessarily imply?

CLOSING EXHORTATION

Acts 15 shows us something powerful:

Truth is not discovered by debate—
it is revealed by God and understood through His Word.

If we follow the same method:

we will arrive at the same truth.

Readers may share, print, teach, or repost these articles if unaltered, intent preserved, not sold or used commercially, and with a clear link back to this blog.

#BibleStudy #BiblicalAuthority #CENI #ScriptureAlone #Hermeneutics #SoundDoctrine #TruthMatters #Apologetics #WordOfGod #ChristianTeaching #PagaaralNgBiblia #Katotohanan #AwtoridadNgDiyos #AralNgBiblia

🔙 Back to Table of Contents

CENI: Ang Biblikal na Paraan ng Pagpapatibay ng Awtoridad ng Diyos

Command, Approved Example, at Necessary Inference bilang “Grammar of God”

I. PANIMULA: BAKIT KAILANGANG MAY AWTORIDAD

Mga kapatid, ang bawat aral, bawat doktrina, bawat gawain sa pananampalataya ay dapat masasagot ang isang napakahalagang tanong:

“Sa anong kapamahalaan iyan?” (Mateo 21:23)

Hindi sapat ang:

“ganito ang nakasanayan”
“ganito ang sabi ng marami”
“ganito ang pakiramdam ko”

Sa Biblia, hindi pinapayagan ang:

haka-haka
tradisyon ng tao
sariling paliwanag

Ang hinihingi ng Diyos ay malinaw:

May awtoridad. May batayan. May “Ganito and sabi ng Panginoon.”

At dito natin makikita ang CENI—hindi bilang imbensyon ng tao, kundi bilang:

paraan kung paano mismo nagpapahayag ang Diyos sa Kaniyang Salita.

II. COMMAND: DIREKTANG UTOS NG DIYOS

Ano ang Command?

Ito ay tuwirang utos—walang paligoy-ligoy, walang hula-hula.

Halimbawa:

“Mangagsisi kayo, at mangagbautismo ang bawa’t isa sa inyo…” (Gawa 2:38)

Hindi ito:

pahiwatig
halimbawa
inference

Ito ay utos.

Grammar of God (Maikling Pagsusuri)

Ang “Mangagsisi” (metanoeō sa Griyego) ay nasa anyong:

utos
aksyon na kailangang gawin

Ibig sabihin:

Hindi ito optional. Hindi ito mungkahi.

Kundi utos na kailangang gawin.

Kahulugan sa Doktrina

Kapag ang Diyos ay nag-utos:

wala nang alternatibo
wala nang kapalit
wala nang dagdag o bawas

Mahahalagang Punto

Ang utos ay direktang awtoridad
Ang hindi pagsunod ay pagtanggi sa Diyos (Lucas 6:46)
Ang utos ay hindi pinapalitan ng opinion o haka ng tao

III. APPROVED EXAMPLE: HALIMBAWANG PINAHINTULUTAN NG DIYOS

Ano ang Approved Example?

Ito ay gawain ng:

mga apostol
unang iglesia

na ginawa sa ilalim ng patnubay ng Diyos.

Patunay sa Biblia

“Maging taga tulad kayo sa akin, na gaya ko naman kay Cristo.” (1 Corinto 11:1)

“Ang mga bagay na inyong natutuhan at tinanggap at narinig at nakita sa akin, ang mga bagay na ito ang gawin ninyo: at ang Dios ng kapayapaan ay sasa inyo.” (Filipos 4:9)

Ibig sabihin:

Ang ginawa nila sa pahintulot ng Dios ay dapat sundin.

Halimbawa: Araw ng Pagtitipon

“Nang unang araw ng sanglinggo… nangagkakapisan upang…” (Gawa 20:7)

Walang direktang utos na:

“Tuwing Linggo kayo magtipon”

Pero:

ginawa nila
may layunin
hindi aksidente kundi sinadya dahil sa salitang “upang.”

Kaya ito ay:

Approved Example na may awtoridad

Mahahalagang Punto

Hindi lahat ng halimbawa ay binding—kailangan aprubado at may layunin
Ang halimbawa ng apostol ay padron (pattern) na dapat sundin
Ang pagtanggi dito ay pagtanggi sa ipinakita ng Diyos

IV. NECESSARY INFERENCE: KONKLUSYON NA KAILANGANG TAMA

Ano ang Necessary Inference?

Ito ay konklusyon na:

hindi man direktang sinabi, pero kailangang totoo base sa teksto

Hindi ito:

hula
opinyon
posibilidad

Ito ay:

tanging konklusyon na pinapayagan ng teksto

Halimbawa: Tubig sa Bautismo

“at sila'y kapuwa lumusong sa tubig…” (Gawa 8:38)

Hindi sinabi:

“Kailangan ang tubig”

Pero malinaw:

may tubig
may paglusong at paglubog

Kaya ang konklusyon:

Kailangan ang tubig

Si Cristo Mismo Gumamit ng Inference

“Ang Dios ay hindi Dios ng mga patay, kundi ng mga buhay…” (Mateo 22:32)

Pinatunayan Niya ang pagkabuhay na muli gamit ang:

grammar
kahulugan ng salita

Ibig sabihin:

Ang inference ay bahagi ng paraan ng pagtuturo ng Diyos

Mahahalagang Punto

Ang necessary inference ay:

hindi pwedeng iwasan
iisa lang ang konklusyon

Kapag maraming pwedeng ibig sabihin → hindi ito kailangang konklusyon na tama (necessary infererence)

V. MAKIKITA SA BIBLIA MISMO ANG CENI

Hindi ito gawa ng tao.

Makikita natin sa Biblia:

Command → Gawa 2:38
Example → Gawa 20:7
Inference → Mateo 22:32

Kaya ang konklusyon:

Ganito magpahayag ang Diyos ng Kaniyang kalooban

VI. CONTEXT IS KING: PROTEKSYON LABAN SA MALI

Kung walang context:

mali ang conclusion
mali ang application

Halimbawa: Gawa 1:20

Ginagamit ng iba para sa “apostolic succession”

Pero sa context:

kapalit ni Judas ang pinatungkulan ng context
at ang kapalit ay kailangang saksi kay Cristo (Gawa 1:21–22)

Kaya:

Hindi ito succession—kundi ito ay espesipikong paglalagay ng kapalit ni Judas na direktang saksi kay Cristo. Pagkatapos ng mga apostol, wala ng direkta pang saksi kay Cristo.

Mahahalagang Punto

Context ang nagtatakda ng kahulugan
Hindi pwedeng hiwalay ang talata sa kabuuan
Ang mali sa context → mali ang doktrina

VII. PAGTATAMA SA MGA MALING ARAL (APOLOGETICS)

Maling Pananaw #1: “Command lang ang susundin”

Problema:

tinatanggal ang example at inference

Sagót:

Gawa 20:7 → walang command pero may authority
Mateo 22 → si Jesus gumamit ng inference

Maling Pananaw #2: “Hindi mapagkakatiwalaan ang inference”

Sagót:

Ginamit ni Cristo
Ginamit ng mga apostol (Gawa 17:2)

Ang problema ay hindi inference—kundi: ang maling inference

Maling Pananaw #3: “Pwede ang hindi ipinagbawal”

Sagót:

“Naghandog sila ng kakaibang apoy… na hindi iniutos ng Panginoon” (Levitico 10:1–2)

Hindi sinabi ng Diyos:

“Huwag gawin iyon”

Pero sila ay pinarusahan.

Ibig sabihin:

Hindi sinabi ay hindi pinapayagan

Mahahalagang Punto

Ang katahimikan ng Biblia ay hindi nagpapahintulot
Ang awtoridad ay dapat patunayan sa Banal na Kasulatan, hindi hinuhulaan

VIII. BABALA: SAAN NAGIGING MAPANGANIB ANG CENI

Nagiging delikado ang CENI kapag:

1. Ginawang “necessary” ang hindi naman

posibleng interpretation → ginawang doktrina

2. Sobrang paghigpit sa applikasyon

nagbabawal kahit hindi nagbawal ang Diyos

3. Mas sinusunod ang system kaysa Biblia

framework na ang nasusunod, hindi ang teksto

Mga Paalala

Tanungin lagi:

Ito ba ay talagang kailangan na konklusyon?
O baka ito ay sariling paliwanag lang?

IX. PRAKTIKAL NA APLIKASYON

Mga kapatid, hindi ito akademiko lamang.

“Ang hindi nananatili sa aral ni Cristo ay walang Dios.” (2 Juan 9)

Kung walang malinaw na batayan:

magiging opinyon ang pananampalataya
magiging kalituhan ang katotohanan

Pero kung tama ang paggamit ng CENI:

malinaw ang kalooban ng Diyos

X. KONKLUSYON: ANG “GRAMMAR OF GOD”

Ang CENI ay hindi:

imbensyon
denominasyong unawa

Ito ay:

paraan ng Diyos ng pakikipag-usap sa tao

Buod

Command → utos ng Diyos
Example → ipinakitang gawin
Inference → kailangang konklusyong tama

Sama-sama:

Ito ang paraan kung paano natin nauunawaan ang awtoridad ng Diyos

PANGWAKAS NA PAALAALA

Ang tanong ay hindi:

“Gusto ko ba ito?”

Ang tanong ay:

“Ganito ba nagsasalita ang Diyos?”

Kung oo—

Ganito rin tayo dapat makinig.
Ganito rin tayo dapat sumunod.

CASE STUDY: CENI SA AKTUWAL NA PAGGAMIT NITO — GAWA 15 AT ANG JERUSALEM COUNCIL

Ang Suliranin: Ano ang Kailangan Para sa Kaligtasan?

Mga kapatid, sa Acts of the Apostles 15:1, may lumitaw na seryosong isyu:

“Maliban na kayo'y mangagtuli ayon sa kaugalian ni Moises, ay hindi kayo mangaliligtas.”

Hindi ito maliit na usapin.
Ito ay tungkol sa:

kaligtasan
awtoridad
at kung ano ang dapat ipatupad ng Diyos

Ang tanong:

Kailangan bang sundin ng mga Gentil ang kautusan ni Moises upang maligtas?

Ang Paraan: Paano Nila Ito Nilutas?

Pansinin ninyo mabuti:

Hindi sila:

nagbotohan
umasa sa tradisyon
gumamit ng opinyon

Sa halip, ginamit nila ang:

Command, Approved Example, at Necessary Inference

1. APPROVED EXAMPLE: ANG GINAWA NG DIYOS SA MGA GENTIL

Patotoo ni Pedro

“At ang Dios… na sa kanila'y ibinigay ang Espiritu Santo, na gaya naman ng kaniyang ginawa sa atin; At tayo'y hindi niya itinangi sa kanila,…” (Gawa 15:8–9)

Ang tinutukoy ni Pedro ay ang nangyari sa Acts of the Apostles 10:

Tinanggap ng mga Gentil ang Espiritu Santo
Hindi sila tuli
Wala silang sinunod na kautusan ni Moises

Ito ay hindi haka-haka.

Ito ay:

Approved Example mula sa Diyos mismo

Kahulugan

Kung tinanggap na sila ng Diyos:

Walang karapatan ang tao na magdagdag pa ng requirement gaya ng binanggit na pagtutuli.

Mahahalagang Punto

Ang ginawa ng Diyos = awtoridad
Ang pagtanggap ng Diyos = aprubadong halimbawa
Hindi maaaring dagdagan ng tao ang tinanggap na ng Diyos

2. NECESSARY INFERENCE: ANO ANG KAILANGANG KONKLUSYON?

Sinabi ni Pedro:

“Ngayon nga bakit ninyo tinutukso ang Dios, na inyong nilalagyan ng pamatok ang batok…” (Gawa 15:10)

Hindi ito utos.
Hindi rin ito halimbawa.

Ito ay:

Necessary Inference

Ang Lohika

Tinanggap ng Diyos ang Gentil nang walang kautusan
Samakatuwid:

Hindi kailangan ang kautusan ni Moises sa kaligtasan

Mahahalagang Punto

Hindi ito “pwede lang” na konklusyon
Ito ay:

hindi maiiwasang katotohanan

3. COMMAND (AWTORATIBONG PASYA): ANG HATOL NG MGA APOSTOL

Pagkatapos ng:

patotoo
pangangatwiran
paggamit ng Kasulatan

Naglabas sila ng pasya:

“Sapagka’t minagaling ng Espiritu Santo, at namin…” (Gawa 15:28)

Hindi ito opinyon.

Ito ay:

awtoridad na ginabayan ng Espiritu Santo

Ano ang Iniutos?

Hindi nila iniutos ang pagtutuli.

Sa halip:

umiwas sa mga hain sa dios-diosan
sa dugo
sa pakikiapid

Kahulugan

Hindi ipinataw ang kautusan ni Moises
Ang iniutos lamang ay ang kinakailangan

4. SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE: PINATUNAYAN NI SANTIAGO

Sinabi ni Santiago:

“Sumasang-ayon dito ang mga salita ng mga propeta…” (Gawa 15:15)

At kaniyang ginamit ang hula (Amos 9:11–12):

tatanggapin ang mga Gentil
hindi sila magiging Hudyo

CENI Muli

Example → tinanggap ang Gentil
Inference → hindi kailangan ang kautusan
Scripture → nagpapatunay

BUOD: CENI SA GANAP NA PAGKAKAUGNAY

Sa Gawa 15 makikita natin:

Approved Example
→ tinanggap ng Diyos ang Gentil
Necessary Inference
→ hindi kailangan ang kautusan
Command / Pasya
→ malinaw na utos ng mga apostol

Mahahalagang Punto

Walang kalituhan sa doktrina
Walang tradisyon ng tao
Walang opinyon

Ang ginamit ay:

Ebidensiya mula sa Diyos + tamang pangangatwiran + awtoridad

APOLOGETICS: PAGTATAMA SA MGA MALING ARAL

❌ “Pwede pagbotohan ang doktrina”

→ Mali. Ito ay base sa ginawa ng Diyos

❌ “Ang Lumang Tipan ay kailangan pa ring sundin”

→ Mali. Hindi ito ipinataw

❌ “Command lang ang mahalaga”

→ Mali. Ginamit din ang example at inference

PANGWAKAS NA ARAL

Ang ginawa sa Gawa 15 ay hindi opsyon—ito ang padron (pattern).

Kapag may tanong sa doktrina:

Ano ang iniutos ng Diyos?
Ano ang ipinakitang gawin?
Ano ang kailangang konklusyon?

PANGWAKAS NA PAALAALA

Mga kapatid at kaibigan,

Ang katotohanan ay hindi nadidiskubre sa debate—
ito ay inihahayag ng Diyos at nauunawaan sa Kaniyang Salita.

Kung susundin natin ang parehong paraan:

Darating tayo sa parehong katotohanan.

Maaaring ibahagi, i-print, ipangaral, o i-repost ang mga artikulo dito kung hindi ito babaguhin, panananatilihin ang tema ng layunin, hindi ipagbibili o gagamitin para kumita, at may malinaw na link pabalik sa blog na ito.

🔙 Back to Table of Contents

Declaring All the Counsel of God

Search This Blog