If you find yourself struggling with contentment and gratitude, you can be sure that some desire, want, lust, or idol has taken over functional control of your heart. You will need to focus your attention on what is ruling your heart. Whatever the desire is in you that you determine you cannot live without, that desire is both robbing you of your contentment and hurting you spiritually.

If you are like me, often I like simple ways to determine how things are going. For instance, don’t you love vehicles that do not simply tell you a tire is low, but instead, identify the tire and how much air is in it? Wow! The first time I had a car that could tell me the pressure in each tire, I felt like I had hit the jackpot. Why? Because it was a diagnostic that was helpful. The indicator light clued me in to a problem and the digital screen explained it. In a similar way, in your walk with the Lord, there are a few key indicators of how you are doing, and today we consider one such indicator. Gratitude is a key indicator of your spiritual health.
The Bible Teaches Three Important Reasons to be Grateful
First, We Should be Grateful Because it is the Will of God for Each of Us.
Look how the Apostle Paul describes it: “Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you” (1 Thess 5:16-18). He emphasizes in everything to give thanks. Not only here, but Paul mentions it in other key texts as well. When explaining the results of walking in the Spirit, he writes: “giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 5:20). Here, instead of referencing in everything, the Apostle Paul describes it always for all things. As a follower of Jesus Christ, then, gratitude holds a high place in our lives. Being grateful is both the will of God and evidence of walking in the Spirit. To the extent we are not grateful, to that same extent we will not be in the will of God or not walking in the Spirit.
Second, Jesus Gives us the Power to be Content, Which is Directly Connected to Gratitude.
The Apostle Paul again helps us think through this issue. He writes:
Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. (Phil 4:11-13)

Read More
Related Posts:

Pressure from the surrounding culture may push some evangelicals to seek to accommodate professing Christians in same-sex relationships as members of the body of Christ. Yet the explicit teaching of this text, penned by the inspired Apostle Paul, closes the door to pastoral accommodation. 

Introduction
With increasing pressure from the culture to revise the traditional moral disapproval of same-sex relations, evangelicals are wrestling with how the church ought to treat same-sex attracted Christians. A shift toward greater openness is taking place among some evangelical churches committed to the authority of Scripture as the only infallible rule of doctrine and life. A small but growing number of evangelical pastors and congregations have shifted from holding that same-sex activity is irreconcilable with commitment to Christ to allowing committed same-sex relationships within their membership.[1]
It remains to be seen how these evangelicals will answer further questions, such as whether same-sex relationships can be blessed as a “marriage” by the church and whether such individuals are eligible for ordained office in the church. Progressive evangelical churches could accept them as members, but hold the line there and reject gay ordination and same-sex wedding ceremonies. Presumably, if they wish to remain Bible-believing evangelicals, they would still want to maintain that same-sex relationships fall short of God’s creation ideal for sexuality and cannot be called “marriage” as the Bible defines it—a male-female one-flesh union. They would thus be pastorally accommodating same-sex relationships rather than treating them as true marriages fully blessed by God and endorsed by the church.
The best example of an evangelical holding this position is Lewis B. Smedes (1921–2002), who was a minister in the Christian Reformed Church and a professor of ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary. In Sex for Christians (1976), Smedes outlined a three-step discernment process for the same-sex attracted Christian. Step one is self-knowledge, meaning that the homosexual person must face the abnormality of having a same-sex orientation and refuse to blame themselves for this unchosen condition. Step two is hope—they should believe that change (from being homosexual to being heterosexual) is possible and seek it. But for those who have sought change and could not find it, there is a third step, which Smedes labels “accommodation.” The third step has two sub-steps. Step 3a is to consider whether the homosexual person is called to celibacy. For those who cannot manage celibacy, we come finally to Step 3b, and that is what Smedes calls “optimum homosexual morality,” which he describes as follows:
What morality is left for the homosexual who finally…can manage neither change nor celibacy? He ought, in this tragic situation, to develop the best ethical conditions in which to live out his sexual life…. To develop a morality for the homosexual life is not to accept homosexual practices as morally commendable. It is, however, to recognize that the optimum moral life within a deplorable situation is preferable to a life of sexual chaos…Here, as in few other situations, the church is called on to set creative compassion in the vanguard of moral law…It cannot fulfill its ministry simply by demanding chastity…. The agonizing question that faces pastors of homosexual people comes when the homosexual has found it impossible to be celibate. What does the church do? Does it drop its compassionate embrace and send him on his reprobate way?…. Or does it, in the face of a life unacceptable to the church, quietly urge the optimum moral life within his sexually abnormal practice?[2]
Smedes recognizes that each church community will have to answer these questions for itself, but he himself leans toward urging the optimum moral life within sexually abnormal practice. He is more explicit in “Second Thoughts” in the 1994 revised edition of Sex for Christians. While continuing to affirm that “the Creator intended the human family to flourish through heterosexual love,” Smedes nonetheless believes that “God prefers homosexual people to live in committed and faithful monogamous relationships when they cannot change their condition and do not have the gift to be celibate.”[3]
This is the pastoral accommodation approach to homosexuality. Accomodation is not affirmation. Those adopting this position do not endorse homosexuality as positively good and intended by the Creator. They acknowledge that homosexuality is a result of the fall. They also generally refrain from speaking of “same-sex marriage.” They want the church to uphold the creation ordinance of opposite-sex marriage and the church’s traditional sexual ethic. But they also want the church to be pastorally sensitive, adopting a compassionate embrace rather than driving such people away from the church.
As attractive as such an approach may be to some, it runs up against a major hurdle: the apparent teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (ESV, emphasis added)[4]
Verses 9–10 are in the literary form of a vice list,[5] and one of the vices is the practice of homosexuality. Paul’s teaching seems fairly clear: those who persistently practice these vices, including the practice of homosexuality, are the unrighteous, and the unrighteous are excluded from the kingdom of God. Paul states that among the membership of the church of Corinth there were those who had formerly been such sexually immoral people, but he says they are not such any more. They had repented and received cleansing and forgiveness in Christ. The implication is that such people would be excluded as long as they do not repent. This would seem to rule out pastoral accommodation of same-sex relationships. The purpose of this article is to engage in a careful exegesis of this paragraph and its immediate context (1 Cor 5–6) to see if that is in fact Paul’s teaching.
The Context: 1 Corinthians 1–6
Paul begins his first letter to the Corinthians by addressing factionalism (chs. 1–4). The church was divided based on different understandings of “wisdom” (σοφία). David Garland convincingly argues that some of the Corinthians had imbibed values from the surrounding culture that were antithetical to the message of the cross—striving for power, honor, prestige, status, and fleshly wisdom. In response, Paul shows how the wisdom of the cross annihilates all pride and leaves no room for factions based on following one supposed wise man over another.[6]
Then in chapters 5–6, Paul turns to the topic of church discipline and rebukes the Corinthian Christians for their failure to act as wise men who judge those inside the church. They claim to be wise and yet their toleration of grave immorality in their midst shows the hollowness of their claim. Already in 1 Corinthians 4, Paul sees the Corinthians as being “puffed up” with spiritual pride (4:6, 18–19). When he turns to the discussion of the church’s toleration of an egregious case of incest (a Christian man in a sexual relationship with his father’s wife), Paul uses this obvious moral failure on the part of the church to puncture their pride, “And you are arrogant (πεφυσιωμένοι)! Ought you not rather to mourn?” (5:2), and then again a few verses later, “Your boasting (καύχημα) is not good” (5:6).
First Corinthians 5:1–6:20 forms a unit that can be subdivided as follows:

5:1–13: Call to exercise church discipline in a case of incest
6:1–8: Rebuke of brothers taking each other to court
6:9–11: Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit?
6:12–20: Flee from sexual immorality

The theme of sexual immorality is clearly found in sections a, c, and d. Commentators have puzzled over how section b (Paul’s rebuke of brothers suing each other in the secular courts) fits in the surrounding context. Some have suggested that the lawsuits had to do with sexual offenses, perhaps related directly to the incest case of the previous chapter. But this is unlikely, given that Paul thinks those bringing the lawsuits should simply accept being wronged (6:7), counsel he would be unlikely to give if the lawsuits concerned sexual offenses. How, then, does this section on lawsuits fit in? Garland argues that in these two chapters Paul cites three appalling moral failures—the church’s toleration of an egregious case of incest; brothers taking each other to court; and Christians visiting prostitutes—to puncture the Corinthians’ pride in their supposed wisdom and spiritual superiority.[7]
Lexical Semantics of Select Items in the Vice List (1 Cor 6:9–10)
We have looked briefly at the context. We now turn to examine select items in the vice list. The vice list contains ten sins, but most of them (idolaters, adulterers, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers) are not very controversial and not directly relevant for this article. However, the lexical semantics of three of the sin words—πόρνοι, μαλακοί, and ἀρσενοκοῖται—demands particular attention if we are to answer the theological question motivating this article.

πόρνοι | “the sexually immoral”

πόρνος, ὁ:  one who practices sexual immorality, fornicator[8]
It is believed that the words in the πορν- group were derived from the verb πέρνημι, which means “to sell, to traffic,” and which was particularly used in reference to slaves, both male and female, who were often sold to be used for sex.[9] In extra-biblical Greek, this word-group had a narrow application:  a πόρνη was a female prostitute, πορνεύω was the verb for prostituting oneself, the abstract noun πορνεία denoted the practice of prostitution, a πορνεῖον was a brothel, πορνογενής meant to be born of a prostitute, and so on.[10]
In the Septuagint, πορν- terms were used to render the Hebrew verb זָנָה (“have illicit intercourse”) and its cognates, זוֹנָה (“prostitute”),  תַזְנוּת (“prostitution, promiscuity”), זְנוּנִים (“prostitution”), and זְנוּת (“prostitution”). In addition to the use of such terms to refer to sexual immorality and prostitution, the terms were applied metaphorically to Israel’s spiritual unfaithfulness, which the prophets deemed a whoring after gods other than Israel’s true spiritual husband, YHWH. Kyle Harper makes an important observation about how this metaphorical application influenced the gender dynamics of the term:
The metaphorical sense of זנה as idolatry would decisively influence the development of Greek πορνεία. The metaphorical meaning allowed spiritual fornication to be used with acts of male commission. This semantic extension reversed the gender dynamics that are inherent in the primary sense of זנה. In Hosea we first see men committing fornication, albeit of the religious variety (Hos 4:18; cf. Num 25:1; Jer 13:27; Ezek 43:7-9). In Second Temple Judaism, this reversal would feed back into the sexual sense of the term, so that sexual fornication became an act that men could commit.[11]
As a rule, the LXX used πορν- words to render the Hebrew זנה words. Although in extra-biblical Greek, πορν- referred to prostitution and therefore as primarily a female sin, in the LXX and in subsequent Greek-speaking Hellenistic Jewish literature the πορν- word-group underwent semantic expansion to cover all forms of sexual immorality (although πόρνη retained its original meaning, “prostitute”).[12] There are different kinds of πορνεία. This is supported by two locutions in the nearby context of our passage: “sexual immorality of such a kind (τοιαύτη πορνεία)” (1 Cor 5:1), implying that there are other kinds; and “because of sexual immoralities (διὰ τὰς πορνείας)” (1 Cor 7:2), which implies either multiple instances or multiple kinds of sexual immorality. In Greek-speaking Hellenistic Judaism, πορνεία is any sex outside of marriage. The term πορνεία was not restricted to heterosexual activity between two unmarried people (what we would call “fornication” today), although it certainly included it.[13] Any sexual encounter or relationship that does not occur within the holy bond of marriage can be called πορνεία, including incest (T. Reuben 1:6),[14] adultery (Sirach 23:22–23; T. Reuben 4:8; T. Joseph 3:8; cf. Matt 5:32; 19:9),[15] and same-sex relations (T. Benj. 9:1).
Focusing on Paul’s usage in 1 Corinthians 6:9, πόρνοι means those who engage in sexual immorality. It is indisputable that πορνεία in Paul does not mean “prostitution” but sexual immorality, specifically incest (5:1). A few verses later (5:9–11), Paul uses the cognate word πόρνος three times: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with πόρνοι—not at all meaning the πόρνοι of this world.” Paul’s usage of πόρνος is consistent with its meaning in all of its occurrences in the NT, where it uniformly means “sexually immoral person.”[16]The main lexica of New Testament Greek gloss πόρνος as “one who practices or engages in sexual immorality.”[17] This is reflected in several modern English versions, which render πόρνοι in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as “the sexually immoral” (NIV, ESV) or “sexually immoral people” (CSB).
Words based on the πορν- stem (πόρνος, πορνεία, and πορνεύω) have undergone semantic expansion in Greek-speaking Hellenistic Judaism from their narrow extra-biblical usage in secular Greek, where the words had to do with prostitution, to a much broader meaning, sexual immorality in general.[18]  The term πορνεία means any illicit sex, that is, sex outside of marriage, and embraces a number of specific types of immorality.[19]

μαλακοί and ἀρσενοκοῖται | “men who have sex with men”

μαλακός: pertaining to being passive in a same-sex relationship
ἀρσενοκοίτης, ὁ: a male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex[20]
These two words have understandably been the subject of much debate. Revisionists have put forward several alternative interpretations, arguing that the terms denote any number of things other than same-sex practice, such as “masturbation,” “male prostitution,” “economic exploitation using sex,” or “non-mutual, abusive pederasty.” All these revisionist theories have been refuted by scholars like David F. Wright and Robert Gagnon.[21] The most authoritative lexicon, BDAG, supports taking the terms as straightforward references to same-sex activity and gives no support to revisionist readings.
The adjective μαλακός has a semantic range that begins with non-sexual meanings such as “soft” in the literal sense (e.g., soft clothing, soft pillows, soft skin). Extending beyond the literal usage, the term can also mean “effeminate,” and then even beyond that “passive in same-sex relations.” In this last case, it refers to a man who by dress and makeup seeks to present as a female for the purpose of functioning as the passive partner in same-sex relations. In extra-biblical Greek, the term and its cognates refer specifically to the passive partner in a male-male sexual relationship.[22] That is clearly what Paul intends here.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Reformed view of the Christian life is one of Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude: Guilt (Pedagogical: first use of the law), Grace (Gospel), and Gratitude (the Christian life: third use of the law). When we fail (guilt), the same order always follows. It is the gospel—our union with Christ—that brings us to life and provides us with the fuel and desire to live a life of gratitude.

In today’s world, numerous things are going haywire. Headlines flicker hourly across our social media feeds with the latest abuse of power, breaches in trust, shootings, riots, and protests. The spirit of anarchy is alive and well in our world. How is it possible for depraved individuals to even recognize evil? Why do we care about injustice? It is because we all have the Law of God written in our hearts (Romans 2:14-15). When we observe countless atrocities occurring on a daily basis, it is human nature to want justice to prevail.
In Christianity, there have always been disputes on how Christians should use the law of God and its role in our lives. Antinomians teach that the law has no place in a Christian’s life. Neonomians desire to make a new law from the gospel demanding faith and obedience for salvation. Understanding the proper distinction between the law and the gospel and being on the same page regarding the three uses of the law can help to provide us with greater harmony amongst Reformed Christians. It can also present us with a solid blueprint of how we can live our lives for the glory of God.
Law and Gospel
What does it mean to properly distinguish between law and gospel? In brief, the law commands and the gospel promises. The law is what we do and the gospel is what Christ has done for us. The law in its first sense reveals God’s requirement for eternal life—perfection (Galatians 3:10; James 2:10). The gospel shares the wonderful promise that Christ is our righteousness received through faith alone (Galatians 3:13-14).
Both the law and the gospel are God given and necessary in a Christian’s life. The law is good because it is an expression of God’s being. The gospel is good because it informs us of the work of Christ on our behalf. However, mixing them—glawspel—is bad. This leads to neonomianism and the error of the Judaizers.
As Herman Bavinck wrote, Reformed Christians perceive “the sharp contrast between law and gospel” and realize this is what restores “the peculiar character of the Christian religion as a religion of grace.” Conversely, “The law demands that humans work out their own righteousness, and the gospel invites them to renounce all self-righteousness and to accept the righteousness of Christ.”[1]
The Three Uses of the Law
With the proper distinction between the law and the gospel in place, the question is: What is the relationship of a regenerate believer to the law of God? In Reformed theology, we distinguish between the three uses of the law. We make these distinctions because we observe the law being utilized this way in scripture.
The three uses of the law are:

Pedagogical (school master)
Civil/Moral (society)
Normative (the Christian life)

First Use of the Law
The first use of the Law is to destroy the spiritual narcissist lurking within all of us. Calvin writes:
“First, by exhibiting the righteousness of God—in other words, the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God—it admonishes every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and finally condemns him.”[2]
The law in this sense destroys our self-righteousness and arrogance. It puts the old Adam to death. In it, we realize that God does not accept us “just as we.” Outside of Christ, we do not stand a chance on Judgment Day. God’s Law requires perfect obedience and no fallen son or daughter of Adam can attain this. In and of ourselves, we are without hope. We cannot stand before the judgment seat of God and plead our good works since “all who rely on works of the law are under a curse” (Galatians 3:10). This first use of the law serves as a schoolmaster to drive us out of ourselves and to Christ.
Second Use of the Law
The second use of the Law is intended to protect our society from evil people who would cause us harm. Calvin says in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:
“The second office of the Law is, by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice.”[3]
The commandments such as “do not murder”, “do not steal”, and “do not commit adultery” are also examples of natural law. These aspects of the law are written in all human hearts (Rom 2:14-15). It is intended to restrain evil and promote a harmonious existence in our world. “The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly” (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q.95)
Our society can function only because we innately realize right from wrong. This aspect of the law promotes civil order and protects citizens from those who would cause harm. Hence, the second use of the law is a guide for morality and it equally applies to both believers and unbelievers.
Third Use of the Law
The third use of the law is only for regenerate believers. It does not apply to unbelievers. Calvin remarks:
“The third use of the Law has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns.”[4]
This use of the law is also known as the “normative” use.  When we state that something is “normed”, we mean that it is “patterned” after something. This aspect of the law reveals God’s righteous will for our lives: We are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works (Ephesians 2:10). When we state that a believer is not under law, we mean that he is not under the law as a covenant of works—as a means of salvation. However, as Christians, we do not lay the law aside because of our faith, but we seek to uphold the law (Romans 3:31).
We strive to uphold the law, not as a means of salvation, but because it reflects who we are as new creations: children of God.
We maintain the law and strive to do good work because of our love and gratitude toward God for saving us. The third use of the law serves as a blueprint for how an already regenerate believer can live a life that pleases Him (Heidelberg Catechism, Q.86 and Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 97).
Louis Berkhof wrote that the third use of the law is “a rule of life for believers, reminding them of their duties and leading them in the way of life and salvation. This third use of the law is denied by the Antinomians.”[5] If someone denies the third use of the law, then they are an antinomian. This is not good! Antinomianism perverts the grace of God into a license to sin (Jude 4).
Paul anticipated that some would interpret the gospel message as doing away with the law. He asks the rhetorical question: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?” He emphatically states: “By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31). This is the third use of the law.
A good example of Jesus practicing the third use of the Law is found in Matthew 28:20—“teaching them [new disciples] to observe all that I have commanded you.” He meant that Christians should be taught all that he commanded. They were taught this in the third sense of the law because they were already believers. The first use of the law had completed its work. It is God’s desire that Christians “walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him: bearing fruit in every good work” (Colossians 1:10). The third use of the law is the “Law of Christ.” It shows us how to live a life of gratitude.
The Difference between the Lutheran and Reformed View of the Third Use
Confessionally, both Lutherans and Reformed acknowledge the third use of the law. The early Lutherans articulated it well in The Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article 6:
“People who truly believe in Christ and are genuinely converted to God have been liberated and set free from the curse and compulsion of the law through Christ, they indeed are not for that reason without the law. Instead, they have been redeemed by the Son of God so that they may practice the law day and night.”
This is a good definition and is compatible with Reformed theology. However, since Reformation times, it is difficult to find a Lutheran theologian who consistently articulates the third use in this way. I recently reviewed the Lutheran classic, The Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel by CFW Walther (1897). I was disappointed the third use of the law was not affirmed and appeared to be repudiated (Thesis 23).
Lutheran theologian David Scaer, Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, believes Walther’s theses on the law and the gospel do not lend themselves to a developed doctrine of the third use of the law. He also points out that Gerhard Forde rejected the third use of the law as outlined in the Formula of Concord and thought it had no place in Lutheran theology.[6]
It’s noteworthy that Scaer believes this denial of the third use of the law was a significant factor in the decline in American Lutheran theology.
With these Lutheran views, it is not surprising that Bavinck (a contemporary of Walther) wrote:
“Lutherans do speak of a threefold use of the law, not only of a…civil use for the purpose of restraining sin, and of a pedagogical use to arouse the knowledge of sin, but also of a didactic use of the law to be a rule of life for believers. This last use, however, is solely necessary since…believers still continue to be sinners and have to be restrained by the law and led to a continuing knowledge of sin.”[7]
It is unknown which Lutheran theologian Bavinck had in mind (Walther?). However, it needs to be pointed out:
A “third use of the law” defined as merely a version of the first use is neither a confessionally Lutheran or a confessionally Reformed position.
Unfortunately, the non-confessional Lutheran view of the law (pedagogical only) seems to be the popular version on Twitter and social media. It is often passed off as the standard Lutheran view. Reformed Christians would do well by not integrating it with Reformed theology.
Concluding thoughts
It is critical to properly distinguish between the law and the gospel, but it is equally important to properly distinguish and affirm the three uses of God’s law. It is also important to remember that even the holiest people in this life have only a small beginning of obedience, yet they will have a sincere resolution (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 114). We should never base our justification on our sanctification.
Our obedience is motivated by our gratitude. This is the epitome of the third use of law.
The Reformed view of the Christian life is one of Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude: Guilt (Pedagogical: first use of the law), Grace (Gospel), and Gratitude (the Christian life: third use of the law). When we fail (guilt), the same order always follows. It is the gospel—our union with Christ—that brings us to life and provides us with the fuel and desire to live a life of gratitude.
Anthony Charles lives in Los Angeles, California and recently transitioned from the PCA to the United Reformed Church in America (URCNA). He is married and has two adult sons.  His Bachelor’s degree is in Theology from The Master’s University and he is a descendant of the French Huguenots.  Tony also hosts the @ReformedTwitt3r account. You can read more about him here. This article is used with permission.

[1] Bavinck, H. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation (Vol. 4, p. 453)
[2] Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Institutes 2.7.6
[3] Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Institutes 2.7.10
[4] Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Institutes 2.7.11
[5] Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (p. 615)
[6] Scaer, David. Walther, the Third Use of the Law, and Contemporary Issues. Concordia Theological Quarterly Volume: 75 Number: 3 in 2011, p. 329.
[7] Bavinck, H. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation (Vol. 4, p. 455)
Related Posts: