The Church of Jesus Christ

Earliest Reference to Christ Found: Discovery News.

I am sure that we will soon see another documentary from those great folks who brought us the ‘Tomb of Jesus’. Seems that the one thing that the Discovery Channel has not yet discovered is decency.

A team of scientists led by renowned French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio recently announced that they have found a bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., that, according to an expert epigrapher, could be engraved with the world’s first known reference to Christ.

If the word “Christ” refers to the Biblical Jesus Christ, as is speculated, then the discovery may provide evidence that Christianity and paganism at times intertwined in the ancient world.

The full engraving on the bowl reads, “DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS,” which has been interpreted by French epigrapher and professor emeritus Andre Bernand as meaning either, “by Christ the magician” or “the magician by Christ.”

“It could very well be a reference to Jesus Christ, in that he was once the primary exponent of white magic,” Goddio, co-founder of the Oxford Center of Maritime Archaeology, said.

Here is the main problem - THIS IS NOT THE EARLIEST REFERENCE TO JESUS CHRIST. The Earliest reference is found in the Gospels. This is not a reference to Jesus Christ, not of the bible. Well, I guess I put the Discovery Channel up there with FoxNews now, on the do not watch list.

Save Ferris « Energetic Procession.

I believe that it is very much our duty to support those that are in need - in or out of the Church.

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:14-17 NKJV

He needs more than just good cheers and all, so I am asking each of you to consider that this man has a family and to contribute something, each according to his or her means. For each of you who have blogs, please post his story.

newsobserver.com | Belief in cure attracts crowds.

Read the rest of this entry »

Evangelical Scholars Issue Statement on Jewish Evangelism| Christianpost.com.

Read the rest of this entry »

Joel Hemphill, part of the Hemphills, has recently published a book, To God be the Glory: The Bible View of God. Now, we all know the Hemphills for there many many recordings going back many more years than I have lived on this planet, but did you know that Joel H. is now denying the deity of Christ? Here and Here.

Now, it may be just me, but it puts a different spin on their works. I wonder kind of year Bill Gaither is having? With his artists becoming pro-gay (or coming out of the closet) and others denying the very deity of Christ, one has to wonder if he is really making music for God or the money.

What do you think?

For all of the Protestants dismissal of baptism as necessary to salvation, there are great many people that actually it to be so. Granted, dear critic, numbers does not make right, but Protestants are quick to belittle the actual history of the ‘Tradition’.

I am not going to attempt to answer ever argument about Baptism that Protestants throw at us, but I will make a few points that might lead to further discussion and development.

First, baptism is necessary, whether or not you see it as bringing about remission of sins. In Matthew 28.19, our Lord Christ commands then to baptize.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
(Mat 28:19-20 NET)

Beyond the theory of interpolations, the command of baptizing is still there. If not, then gone is the commanded to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. Gone as well is the command to teach them to obey the commandments of the Lord.

Now when they heard this, they were acutely distressed and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(Act 2:37-38 NET)

What was Peter’s response? (Remember, Peter had received the keys to the kingdom, what was the keys? Repentance, Baptism, and Indwelling) He told them to go and be baptized. What else could Peter do, but to tell them that when he had heard for himself the very words of Christ who had commanded everyone to be baptized.

Now, some will say that the baptism was just for the Jews (ignoring the fact that no where does God given one commandment to the Jew and other to the Gentile). They also point to the fact that the Gentiles received the Spirit before baptism, but Peter answered that question himself.

The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days.
(Act 10:45-48 NET)

The simple reason, is that the Gentiles received the gift of the Spirit before Baptism to show the Jews that they could be admitted to the Church and baptized, just as the Jews had been. In other words, to show that Christ was not just Messiah to the Jews, but to the Gentiles as well, and the promises included the Gentiles as well. Here also we see an emphasis on baptism.

Peter would go on to say in his first epistle,

Who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited[6] in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us–baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(1Pe 3:20-21 NKJV)

So, in Peter’s own words, baptism saves us, just as Noah was saved through water. Paul too saw the need for baptism.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Far be it! Seeing that we have died to sin, how can we live any longer therein? Are you ignorant that all we who were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried together with him through baptism into death, and just as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so also we should walk about in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we shall also be sharers of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man was crucified together with him, that the body possessed by sin might be destroyed, that we should no longer serve as a slave to sin: For he that has died in baptism, stands free from sin. Now, if we died with Christ, we know that without a doubt that we shall also live with him, Knowing that Christ having been raised up from the dead, no longer dies; death has no more dominion over him.
(Rom 6:1-9 CTV-NT / W)

So, baptism is necessary. I believe that it brings about the remission of sins, participating in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is our dying out to sin and our raising to a new life. Nevertheless the theological meaning behind it, it is a commandment from Christ our Lord which the Apostles followed suit.

Got baptism?

Growing up, I had the opportunity to live with my widowed Grandfather near Summit, Mississippi for a short (too short) season. He was a fine Southern Baptist Deacon at Mars’ Hill Baptist Church, and indeed had always been a Baptist, Southern. Every Sunday morning, as we prepared ourselves for the Sunday service at Mars’ Hill, the local country station would play nothing but Southern Gospel music, not what passes today for Southern Gospel, but generally leaning to more traditional sounds. This song would play and I remember that my grandfather would put down his newspaper, or bible, and mediate upon the words that so softly called him away. And since then, I have loved this song, but not so much as when I learned what Beulahland meant.

The Prophet Isaiah records these words

For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name. Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God. Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.
(Isa 62:1-4 KJVA)

Here, in the midst of Israel forsaken, God still holds a promise of compassion. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, we see that the relationship between God and Israel is cast in the light of marriage. So many times did God speak to Israel as a husband to a bride. The Prophet Hosea used marriage, and indeed the spouse, to illustrate to all of Israel, the strain of the marriage. The Prophet Jeremiah cloaked himself the images of divorce (Jeremiah 8.18-9.22) where many times the LORD is seen as suffering through a divorce. We know that divorce should be granted for only one reason, and that of adultery, which Israel had committed time and time again but worshiping other gods.

But, Isaiah prophesied a time when Zion would have a land of marriage, and filled, no longer desolate. In the New Testament, we see Paul speaking of the mystery of marriage that represents the relationship between Christ and the Church.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
(Eph 5:25-33 KJVA)

In John’s Revealing, we again see the marriage motif,

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
(Rev 21:1-2 KJVA)

One of the great tragedies of Christendom is that we have left the Hebraic roots of the Apostles. Suddenly, upon conversion, they did not give up their Jewishness (not to be confused with Judaism), as one who is converted today does not give up his culture. John, writing in the Revealing, uses seemingly countless Jewish expressions in the prophetic utterances to describe what he is seeing. One of those that needs to be looked at is the Jewish wedding. In several parables, Christ uses the wedding feast as a setting. Paul used it to describe the relationship between Christ and the Church, and yet, we cast their words in the mold of the Western Wedding traditions, and loose great insight into what is actually being said.

One of many beautiful things of the Jewish wedding traditions is that the Bride and Groom are considered husband and wife long before the actual wedding date. They sign an agreement that is to be redeemed at some time later. For one week before the wedding, traditionally, the bride and groom do not see each other. Then, at a somewhat unknown time the groom will depart and gather his bride. In this tradition, and there is much more, we have the full story of the Church and the expectation of the Groom.

Christ gave us warning that we must be ready for the coming of the bride’s groom, in order that we may not be caught unaware.

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
(Mat 25:1-13 KJVA)

In focusing in on the land of Beulah, I want to make it there, but in doing so, I have to be found chaste in Doctrine, and to be presentable. I have to have the oil (Spirit) and to have been washed clean (Mikveh/Baptism) in order to meet the Lord.

Returning to the song, indeed I am looking forward to a country which I have never seen.

There is a song that sometimes plays on the gospel station about going to the church of your choice, usually accompanied by the radio announcer saying the same thing thing, you know, ‘it doesn’t matter where you go, just go.’

How biblical is that? There is a wide variety of doctrines (or lack of doctrines), a wider variety of people willing tell you anything that you want to hear. Is that the Church of the Bible? Consider all the prohibitions against those people what would tickle, or scratch, your itching ear.

Look at the countless number of people being led astray and into rebellion by those that claim to be men of God. Let’s remember that God has a rigid plan of holiness, doctrine, and tradition. Let us be in the place where we can seek His face and His glory.

I pray that all of those who read this, or don’t, will have a good Sunday service (equally I pray that the Sabbath services where equally as powerful) in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Or, as Ignatius would say, our God, Jesus Christ.

If you are seaching for a Church, click the link in the About Section.

Ignatius usually gets a  bludgeoning from various people and groups that I deal with personally, but in the end I hold that he was a solid ‘modalist’ although that word would have been foreign to him. He invented the word ‘apostolic’ which is horribly misused by Rome and oneness people. He also was among the first (if not they first) to use the term ‘catholic‘ in describing the Church, but this is not the big C Catholic that we know of today, but instead the universal Church, both Jew and Gentile, Living and Dead.

His famous quote,

Where the bishop is, there let the people gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.

Expresses the unity of the Church, not a name or collective center such as Rome. After all, Alexandria would occupy the seat of papal authority long before Rome would. I have included a portion of Ignatius’ works, and a word of caution. One has to be cautious in discarding all of history because they are used and interpreted by the Trinitarians.

The Epistles of Ignatius (c35-110)

I have chosen to include several passages from different Epistles composed by this Bishop of Antioch, but I do so with caution. We know assuredly that this man lived and wrote extensively. We know fully that he was a Bishop of Antioch and that he was martyred for the Faith around 107 by the Romans. History, however, has given us several representations of his works. Along with most scholars, I have used only the shorter versions in which to extract doctrine. Many scholars will speak to the fact that it is plain one or the other of these versions (Shorter and Longer) exhibits a corrupt text, and scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius, but that theory is not without its faults. I will hold to that theory, but with the rider that interpolations[1] are known to have occurred.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

Introduction

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus[2], to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ, our God[3]: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace.

Chapter I

Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God[4], ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you.

Chap. XVIII

Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal. “Where is the wise man? where the disputer?” Where is the boasting of those who are styled prudent? For our God, Jesus Christ[5], was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

Chapter XIX

Hence every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared; ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life. And now that took a beginning which had been prepared by God.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

Chapter XV

The Ephesians from Smyrna (whence I also write to you), who are here for the glory of God, as ye also are, who have in all things refreshed me, salute you, along with Polycarp, the bishop of the Smyrnæans. The rest of the Churches, in honour of Jesus Christ, also salute you. Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ[6].

Epistle to the Trallians

Chapter VII

Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with ⁷⁶⁶ Literally, “unseparated from.” Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but ⁷⁶⁷ This clause is inserted from the ancient Latin version. he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, ⁷⁶⁸ The text has “deacon.” such a man is not pure in his conscience.

Epistle to the Romans

Introduction

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, ⁸¹⁹ Or, “most holy.” and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

Chapter III

For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is in ⁸⁴⁰ Or, “in.” the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. Christianity is not a thing ⁸⁴¹ Literally, “work.” of silence only, but also of [manifest] greatness.

Epistle to the Church at Smyrna

Chapter I

I Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom

Chapter X

Ye have done well in receiving Philo and Pheus Agathopus as servants of Christ our God[7] who have followed me for the sake of GOd, and who give thanks to the Lord in your behalf, because ye have in every way refreshed them. None of these things shall be lost to you.

Some time ago, I engaged in a discussion concerning Modalism and Trinitarianism. These following articles/posts are a result of that discussion that is on again, off again. I hear tell that it might start again, so in part because of that (and in part because I wanted to collect it all on one page, and in part because I recently discovered how to tag) I am posting this.

Pt 1 Pt 2 Pt 3 Pt 4 Pt 5 Pt 6 Pt 7 Pt 8 Pt 9 Pt 10 Pt 11 Pt 12 Genesis 1.26

Various writings,

Tertullian on the Generation of the Son, Stone-Campbellite Thoughts, William Penn, Athenagoras, The Apology of Aristides, From Eusebius

I have continued working on this, modifing it, polishing it, and getting it to a point for publication. Below is the introduction. Once completed, I will add the entire file to the blog for download and heavy criticism by my Trinitarian friends, if I have any left… Please bare in mind, that it is not completed.

Unus Deus

Author’s Note

I have attempted to create an apology for common use by The Church of Jesus Christ in an effort to avoid the use of materials published under any other banner but of the name of the Lord. It is my earnest desire to see The Church of Jesus Christ stand on her own when it comes to defending the historical Faith once for all delivered by the Apostles of Jesus Christ.

I have attempted to use the King James Version of the bible (1769 Oxford), but have found myself needing other versions as well. The most common of these is the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New English Translation (NET). For the Septuagint I used the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). I have found it necessary at times to diverge from the traditional KJV and use others because they may prove the point more thoroughly. Do not be dismayed at this. Doctrine is established in the Original Languages by the original words, not by a mere translation made by human hand. To rely upon only one translation when studying doctrine is to severely limit ourselves and find ourselves in the same pit as Tertullian and other who preferred Latin, and thus changing concepts, to the Greek.

With that said, I used the same Greek text (Byzantine Textual Tradition) for the New Testament that the KJV does as well as the Hebrew Text of the Masoretic Tradition. For the Septuagint, LXX, I used the critical text established for the NETS. I understand that for the lay person, koine Greek is as useful as ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and just as foreign, if not more so; however, I have attempted to include enough language tools in the same passage so that the point that I am attempting to make from the Greek is clearly seen and just as understood as if it were in English.

I have attempted, as well, to include in the footnotes the proper documentation as well as other helpful information. Some sections are amalgamated from various sources and therefore it is difficult to site every source, but efforts have been made to do so where required. The one thing that I do not want to be questioned on – not because of some imaginary ivory tower but because a falsehood will quickly dispel even truthful arguments – is scholarship.

It is my prayer not that this becomes the standard apologetic defense for The Church, but that it leads others into many works of defense of the great and Historical Doctrine. It is also my hope that this is the first of many works in developing a full and well versed Systematic Theology for The Church of Jesus Christ.

Introduction and History

And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Enquire, I pray thee, at the word of the LORD to day. Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king. And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might enquire of him? And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so…. And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good. And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, what the LORD saith unto me, that will I speak. So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king. And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the LORD? And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace. And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil? And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. 1^st Kings 22:1-19 KJV (selected)

This passage illustrates a most important principle: not always is the majority opinion true. Though many may support a theory and that theory may be supported by Tradition, that theory is not necessarily right. In Church History there have been many Micaiahs. They have, for the most part, constituted the minority, but that doesn’t make them heretics.

The Church of Jesus Christ has suffered many setbacks in her history and it has seemed from time to time that Hell has almost prevailed and through persecutions, torments and laws against us she has withstood all, but the worst of those hindrances have been when men went outside of the Word of God and tried to bring in false doctrine. Throughout the Bible, we find great evil occurs when scriptures are either wrestled with, or used impart, to create something new. The Church needs nothing outside of the Bible to substantiate creeds or dogmas. The Holy Scripture, the very God-breathed Word, is all we need. The great injustice of the Second Century and subsequent centuries was that the Church leaders went outside of the Bible for their authority, essentially leaving the Church itself behind. They invoked the decisions of Church Councils, saying they had just as much authority as the Bible and even today, these Councils are considered the only way to approach Scripture. With these Councils and Synods, men met to determine the current view of ‘Apostolic Doctrine’, thus damning heresies started began to creep in. The greatest of these is the Trinitarian Doctrine. This scripturally unsafe doctrine is found only in creeds established by men with almost total disregard for Scripture. Its thoughts were borrowed from paganism. As we know, when one foundation is removed, man is liable to remove other supports, such as baptism, holiness, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

When man looks to man, his end is confusion. The Trinitarian doctrine was formulated by men and thus we see the present denominational world in a steady state of confusion concerning doctrines, traditions, and conversions. The people are rarely firmly rooted in their tradition, but confused as to doctrinal boundaries. The entire denominational world is crumbling into a pool of waste.

Since the final formulation of the Trinitarian dogma in 381[1] the Catholic Church has persecuted and condemned any who would question it[2]. It matters not that their dogma came from man and was recognized as something foreign to Scripture, Rome pretends to be the representatives of God. The Vatican claimed authority to condemn people for simply rejecting their human dogma, and in making the denial of the Trinitarian dogma a capital offense, they revealed their hearts and their master. The New Testament never gives license to kill. Neither does it sanction torture. The Early Church knew nothing but persecution, but sometime after the Third Century the tables turned and the Catholic Church began persecution in the name of the Lord, forcing true believers underground while declaring them heretics. They issued polemics against them, and removed them from Church office. They literally attempted to write them out of the history books.

And those who wrote the books, as well as those who write the books now, either label us falsely or attempt to fallaciously portray our doctrine.

It is difficult to escape terms that we have placed erroneously on ourselves or have had placed on us. I fully recognize that the term ‘oneness’[3] cannot be found in the Bible, in any language in any honest translation. I will accept the term ‘Modalist’, only so far as it is recognized that this too is a man made concept, and one imposed on us by ancient Trinitarians. Granted, ‘oneness’ seems to be a much more Biblical term than ‘Trinity’[4], but if I am going to criticize the Trinitarians based on the fact that ‘trinity is not found in the Bible’[5], then we should be honest and recognize that neither is ‘oneness’. I prefer ‘people of the one God’, or’ monotheists’, or even Unitarians (however that term has taken on a negative con notation due to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Unitarian-Universalists, but Trinitarians will claim that as well (although I believe for a majority of them, this is made in error). Unless absolutely necessary, I will try to avoid placing Modalism in opposition to Trinitarianism. Although they are opposed one to another, to define doctrine in opposition to another doctrine does justice to neither, and creates a reality that the other doctrine has merit as well at the situation that develops whereby we use the terms of the opposing doctrine and assign them our own definitions.

For our attempt to build a systematic theology of the One God, I would like to begin by recognizing areas of agreement and disagreements between the Trinitarians and Oneness believers. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate that our differences are not merely over semantics, but over concepts. For example, a concept that is foreign to the Modalist view of God is the theory of the ‘unified’ Godhead[6]. For most Modalists the term ‘unified’ still carries within itself the idea that a separation or distinction exists. Here, we must cast doubt on the notion that distinction does not mean separation. According to Webster’s Dictionary[7], distinct means (1)’separate in place; not conjunct; not united by growth or otherwise;’, and (2) ‘so separated as not to be confounded with any other thing; not liable to be misunderstood; not confused; well-defined; clear; as, we have a distinct or indistinct view of a prospect.’ To the lay person, a distinction in the Godhead more than alludes to a separation but calls for an outright separation. We have to remember that in the bible, the διαστολή, which means ‘distinction’, is only applied to musical notes and to the believers, and never to God (1^st Co 14.7). In the former, there is a distinction among the musical notes; in the latter, there is no difference, distinction, or separation in the believers (Jews or Greeks).

Both Oneness and Trinitarian theologians agree that the Bible teaches the existence of only ‘one’ God; both agree that the New Testament sees a difference between the Father and the Son; both views maintain that the Scripture speaks of Father and the Son as God. The question remains: to what level is there a distinction, if any, which exists in the Godhead? I believe that there is no distinction, or separation, in person; however, there remains a difference in manifestations, or spheres of operation, and that difference is temporary, caused by nature and condition.

Oneness and Trinitarian theology both attempt to answer certain questions concerning God, but we do so from different starting points, and end up with two different conclusions. I start with the clear and historically recognized teaching of the Old Testament and the Jews that God is one, and like the Apostles I seek to know Christ and interpret His gospel in light of His words while understanding the different New Testament manifestations between Father and Son in light of the foundation the Law and the Prophets. Trinitarians start with the terms ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ and attempt to justify the OT assertions that God is one in light of these, often relying upon one another’s interpretations. The result is that Oneness theologians usually understand the temporary differences as arising in the incarnation, while Trinitarians understand the differences as absolute eternal distinctions of divine persons in the Godhead both prior to, and after the incarnation. Further, while some Modalists see the Spirit as being the divine power, Trinitarians see the Spirit as being a third person co-equal with the Father and the Son. Throughout the New Testament, Christ and His apostles interpret the current events in light of the Old Testament; however we see no fundamental change in the understanding of what was being interpreted[8]. We must not deviate from that example.

Many assume that the oneness doctrine is new, existing only shortly after the Azusa Street Revival in 1916, but in reality, Modalism goes back to the patristic Church, and past them, even to the Apostles themselves (as it would be natural to do so). To the victor go the spoils, so for Praxeas, Sabellius, and Noetus, we have nothing but the interpretation of their doctrines, perhaps even mischaracterizations, and the guile bestowed upon them by their opponents.

Praxeas explained that while Christ was the Father incarnate, Jesus died only in His humanity as the Son. Sabellius attempted to answer the charge of Patripassianism in a similar way[9]. Noetus, according to his opponent Hippolytus, said, “When indeed, then, the Father had not been born, He yet was justly styled Father; and when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself became His own Son, not another’s.” Hippolytus[10] comments on Noetus saying, “For in this manner he thinks to establish the sovereignty of God, alleging that Father and Son, so called, are one and the same (substance), not one individual produced from a different one, but Himself from Himself; and that He is styled by name Father and Son, according to vicissitude of times. But that He is one who has appeared amongst us, both having submitted to generation from a virgin, and as a man having held converse among men. And, on account of the birth that had taken place, He confessed Himself to those beholding Him a Son, no doubt; yet He made no secret to those who could comprehend Him of His being a Father. That this person suffered by being fastened to the tree, and that He commended His spirit unto Himself, having died to appearance, and not being (in reality) dead. And He raised Himself up the third day, after having been interred in a sepulcher, and wounded with a spear, and perforated with nails. “ Noetus, although presumably a disciple of Praxeas, is derided by Hippolytus[11] as being a disciple of Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher some 600 years before Christ (although Justin Martyr calls this long dead philosopher a Christian), who promoted an idea akin to pantheism. Nothing of the writings of Noetus, Praxeas or Sabelliusremains, only the words of their detractors.

The same Hippolytus who said, “The one God, the first and only, both Creator and Lord of all things, had nothing co-eternal. . . . No, he was one, to himself alone. And when he so willed, he created those things which before had no existence other than in his willing to make them and inasmuch as he had knowledge of what would be, for he also has foreknowledge”[12], is the one that the Trinitarians who promote co-eternal pre-existence promote as a great defender of the Faith. Hippolytus’ attacks were not limited to Modalists, but also to Quartodecimans[13] and Montanists[14]. (Polycarp, saying that he received his doctrine from the Apostle John, was a Quartodeciman and Tertullian became a Montanist.[15])

Tertullian, the founder of Latin theology, is widely quoted as saying, “the simple, indeed (I will not call them unwise and unlearned), who always constitute the majority of believers[16], are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God….They are constantly throwing out against us[17] that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshipers of the One God.” In his discussion of the Trinity, Tertullian acknowledged that the majority of believers did not accept the Trinity. Calling them simple, Tertullian failed to follow Paul’s directive of ‘not going beyond what is written’ and found himself ‘puffed up’[18]. Tertullian goes on further to say that it was Praxeas that brought Modalism to Asia. What must be noted as well, are the many times this Latin father spoke of the Father and the Son as two separate beings.

Praxeas, Sabellius, and Noetus seemed to preach what some hold today as Modalism, although they might not recognize the term. They preached that the Father incarnated His Word as Himself from Himself, or God speaking Himself. They preached that it was the Son that died, or rather the human nature, while also preaching subordination of the Son to the Father, and a temporary, albeit only by nature and condition, distinction.

Contrary to what Tertullian assumed, Oneness theology does not believe that the Son is the Father, but rather that the Father is in the Son and that when you see the Son you see the Father. As Commodian, and ancient Christian Latin poet, said, “The Father went into the Son, one God everywhere.” Sabellius explained that the Logos was not the Son but was clothed by the Son, referring to the Son as the temporary human nature. Although Modalism holds to the passability of God (in opposition to one of the philosophical errors that gave rise to the Trinity, that of the impassibility of God); however, we fully recognize that the Father cannot die in any physical sense but can be affected by or that he participates in the suffering of the Son (the flesh). During the schism created by Hippolytus[19], Bishop Zephyrinus of Rome said, “I know only one God, Jesus Christ, and apart from Him no other who was born or could suffer… It was not the Father who died but the Son.[20]” (There are minor variations in the quote, but the sense is still the same.)

We have a historical tradition of a firm doctrine of what the world calls Modalism which conflicts with Trinitarianism which simply has a history of development. We also have seen that the greatest Trinitarian theologians, those giving the most to the development of said doctrine, have been found to themselves to be separated against the Church. Be it Hippolytus or Tertullian, both men were members of sects that were later declared heretical by Rome, yet their theology is retained.

Trinitarians point to the ‘one in substance’ argument, but that is a human notion that is troubling on more than one front. What substance? Would not the feeble human analogy of triplets being of one substance yet distinct be accurate? If you have a set of identical triplets, they are literally of the same substance, and distinct. Applying this picture to the Trinitarians view, they would have us believe that the triplets are one person. Yet, distinction clearly means separation. Do we see a separation at all in the Godhead? We know that Father was assigned a person in scripture, but neither the Son nor Spirit was. If the substance is the Father’s as is the Person, and if the Son and Spirit have neither Substance nor Person, then Son and Spirit must originate from the Father.

**This will be a mutlipart series**

So many times today, we see that the ‘Church’ is loosing ground in humanity’s fight against ‘organized religion.’ (Here, Here,  ) Too many times, the Church is merely seen as a building contrary to that of the Biblical usage of the community, the bride, and the body of Christ. Granted, the building tells the story of what is going on inside, but one has to realize that very few ‘church’ buildings existed before the late second, early third century. Luke tells us that the very first converts,

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
(Act 2:46 KJVA)

Yet, ‘the Church’ is mentioned nearly ever New Testament book and always in reference to an organized group of believers who share the common salvation, the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints, and Jesus Christ has Head. They were all baptized into His name, received salvation by His name, and wore His name. To remove the Church as ‘organized religion’ is to remove a key principle that united the primitive Christians.

People will shout down ‘organized religion’, calling themselves faithful or spiritual, but not members of a religion or a Church. They seek to deny anything that seemed organized in the Bible, yet, we read that the Apostles and Elders held a council to discuss the application of certain dietary laws Gentile converts. This was the Church, the Body of Christ.

But, just how central is the Church, especially when it concerns salvation?

Returning to Acts, chapter 2, we find that after Peter’s startling sermon, full of doctrine and calls to repentance, some 3000 souls were saved.

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
(Act 2:42-47 KJVA)

I have heard this preached, and I do not think that I am the only one, to represent a Calvinistic viewpoint of God adds to the Church those that should be saved, indicating that their are souls that should not be saved. This is a faulty reasoning based on a faulty translation.

John Gill, a Calvinist commentator from the 18th century, calls those in v47,

whose hearts the Lord inclined to give up themselves to the church, and walk with them in all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord; and these were such whom God had chosen to salvation by Jesus Christ, and whom he had redeemed by his precious blood, and who were now regenerated and sanctified by the Spirit of God, and so should certainly be saved

The phrase in question is a translation of a participle - τοὺς σωζομένους  (tous sōzomenous) and should be translated as ‘those being saved’, indicating a present action. The correct sense is found in the New King James, which reads,

(P)raising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
(Act 2:47 NKJV)

Thus, we see the Church as the harbor of those saved. (It can be said that in both translations, the Church is given the central role that she deserves.) Those which were saved did not exist outside the Church. In a previous sermon, I noted what the Church was. Here, though, we note the necessity of the Church. We also have to note that the souls which were saved was added to what Paul would call the Body of Christ which has Apostles, Elders, Deacons, and the Laity. It was organized, even here. Luke says that the souls continued in the Apostle’s doctrine, meaning that they constantly turned to the Apostles for that doctrine, that meat.

The Church is the place where the Saved resided. Outside the Church of Jesus Christ, there is no salvation, or as Cyprian said, “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” (It must be noted that Rome has a similiar doctrine but generally makes allowances to individuals). Those that think that they can be saved and exist or subsist out of the Church will find themselves alone on the great Day of Judgment.

Concerning those that say that the Church is merely the believers, Paul would remind us through Titus of the particular part of Order in the Church, saying

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you–
(Tit 1:5 NKJV)

If the Church was to be unorganized, then why was order, or conduct, such an important thing to the Apostle Paul? If the Church was such an unimportant part to the primitive Christians, then why is it given such a prominence in the writings of the New Testament? It is called the house of God, the body of Christ, the New Jerusalem and the bride adorned for her husband, and yet the centrality of the Church is often loss on Christians who view ‘church’ as a place of worship generally reserved for Sundays. We know from Scripture that it was established by Christ on an unmovable rock, with the foundation being the Apostles and Prophets. We know that as Paul was ending his race, he sought to ensure that the Church was well organized and set in order, waiting for her husband. Again, why is it that so many fail to see the Centrality of the Church to the Christian?

Is a wife not central to her husband? Or children to their parents? Or a body to the head? Is not Israel/Jerusalem central Judaism?

Where the bishop is, there let the people gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. - Ignatius of Antioch (50-107)

Did you miss the weekly news?

By the time Mr. Cahill gets to the Apostle Paul, I am convinced that the author does not believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. By that I mean that he seems to think that the words found on the paper are merely a human invention instead of being directly breathed by God, but I have not stopped reading yet. And I am glad I did not.

On page 120-121, he brings to the readers mind the notion, and rightly so, that the Apostle Paul was in the right man for the right time and job. He says,

Had he (Paul) appeared a little earlier - say, soon after the “raising” of Jesus and the descent of the Spirit - his intellectual ardor would probably have been too much for an inchoate community of simply educated disciples who were just beginning to get their minds around those inexplicable events. Once they had got their bearings again, come to understand what had happened as a coherent story, and begun to give voice to their unique experiences, they were - whether they knew it or not - ready to hear from someone more intellectually incisive than they, someone who could give a more precise formulation to there experiences, someone who was part of them but also part of the larger world of which they had only limited knowledge.

He goes on, saying,

Had Paul arrived on the scene much later than he did (when the movement, settling down as an elaborated organization with defined structures, had become the Church it would become,) his emotional edginess - his intolerance for muddleheadedness, his knowing when he was right and you were wrong, his essential abstraction from the details of ordinary life - would have made him a poor candidate to be an organization man; he would soon have been isolated and eventually cast aside.

What first threw me against the wall was Mr. Cahill’s accurate description of, well, me, especially when he describes “his (Paul’s) intolerance for muddleheadedness, his knowing when he was right and you were wrong, his essential abstraction from the details of ordinary life”. But, we are not here to talk about me, just yet.

Mr. Cahill is making a fine point on the timing of God without actually pointing towards God. (For him, God seems to be a distant relative to the events that unfold in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas after Christ.) A good many times, we sit and wonder why God has not moved or has moved now. Humanity has a nasty habit of never being satisfied. We can know from Scripture that God sent forth His son in the fullness of time.

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
(Gal 4:4 KJVA)

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
(Eph 1:10 KJVA)

‘The fulness of time’ is not some date on a calender, but the cumulation of events that lead to an earth shaking moment in history where Heaven’s hopes cross with humanity’s path and bring about something that was foreseen and prepared for.

It was not until a certain time which God had ordained before that He chose to send forth from Himself His Logos and to be clothed in the flesh of mortal man so that God could shed His own blood for the salvation of man. It was not until He had accomplished those things on earth that the prophets had foreseen (not had they not been fulfilled, they would have been false prophets), that He walked up Calvary’s hill for the final act of humiliation, that of the cross. But, all these things were not by choice, or in a random coincidence, but in God’s time.

The same is said for the Apostle Paul who lamented that he had been ‘born out of due time.’ (1st Co 15.8) He arrived at an opportune moment in Christian, and world, history, when the Church had needed someone to flesh out the doctrine and to preach to the Gentiles. Note, he did not ‘develop’ doctrine, as Peter’s sermon was enough to relate the Gospel, but he spent many hours with ink and parchment in some darkened room writing the very words that God gave him (not a committee or council) to further strengthen the congregations individually and the Church primitive and modern. Had he arrived with Peter, then Peter’s mission might have been disturbed. And who would have been zealous enough to persecute fellow Jews and thus force the gospel to spread, and when he had been enlightened, become able to be a strong testimony to the power of God?

Had he arrived later, then would congregations have fallen or slipped into dangerous heresies? Of course, I have to wonder what Paul would have said at the ‘Ecumenical Councils’. Had Paul been converted after the destruction of the Temple, what effectiveness would he have had? Would he have perished in the destruction of Jerusalem? One has to wonder what would have happened to Paul, and the Church of Jesus Christ, has the Lord God not struck him down that day on his way to Damascus.

In walking in God’s will, we have to be willing to accept that God has a ‘fulness of time’ yet to be fulfilled. From the Last Day to His will for our life. We may never be Paul or Peter, but we have to remember that it was Andrew, scarcely mentioned in the Gospels and never again, that kept bringing people to Christ. Not only do we have to let God direct our paths, but we have to be willing to wait patiently until He does. We cannot run ahead of God nor drag Him down. Truly, everything in God’s time.

For the dispensation of yielding fruit waits on the fulness of time - Hilary of Poitiers

Did you miss the weekly news?

As you might head out today to some service this morning, or perhaps you are waiting until tonight, just remember, ‘The church of your choice’ is a good song, a good slogan, but not biblical. Think about all those that make the false prophets there ‘choice;. If it does not have sound biblical doctrine, the complete doctrine, don’t go there.

Here.

Andrea says,

1. Chuck Smith  - About a year ago, on his radio program “To Every Man an Answer,” I heard Chuck Smith state that he has personally known believers who have walked away from the faith.  He says that we must abide in Christ, or else we may just get left behind when the rapture occurs.

Truth: No true believer will ever cease being a Christian.  Once saved, always saved.  And, if a believer is sinning when the rapture comes, he will most certainly be raptured all the same.

The Bible says,

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
(Heb 6:4-8 KJVA)

Looks like Andrea lost that one. Granted, when someone is wrong on their very first try, it usually behooves one to cease from discussion, but I am rather an unbehoovable.

Andrew says,

2. Oneness Pentacostalism - Denies the trinity and claims that speaking in tongues is required for salvation.

Truth: God is a trinity, and speaking in tongues is just one of the spiritual gifts that God might give a new Christian.

I believe that I have covered a tiny bit of what the bible says about the One God, starting here

Besides, the God says that He alone is the only God.

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
(Isa 43:10 KJVA)

I encourage Andrea to take a look at the other blog posts in the Unus Deus series.

She then says,

3. Praying to the saints or to Mary - Many Catholics think this is ok.  It’s not.

Truth: Christians are to pray only to God, whom we have access to through the blood of Jesus Christ.  Praying to anyone else is wrong.

Which is correct, except that Jesus Christ is God. No, we don’t pray to saints or Mary, only to God, our Lord Jesus Christ

I wonder where Andrea gets that ‘once saved, always saved’ garbage? Is certainly is not in the Bible.

Here is an article on MSNBC.

I am opposed to congregations getting involved with politics on any level and indeed, people who use the name of Christ to get involved as well. What worries me is that the Constitution provides for a clear separation of Church and State, and while people bemoan and wail if the State was to encroach on the Church, they seem willing to allow the Church to encroach on the State.

In the past 2 elections, the Republicans have co-opted the ‘religious right’ while demonizing the ‘religious left’. Suddenly, the volcano of evangelical political power that had been building since the last 70’s, ebbing in the Reagan years, and again coming to the national scene with the election of the Clinton-Gore ticket, erupted when the evangelicals played an important part, even providing the deciding factor, in a presidential race. It was built with Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, and Kennedy, among others, writing books, building colleges, networks of media outlets, and disciples that promoted all things right-wing. The evangelical agenda explored to new heights, believe it or not, when congregations of various denominations all participated in the 40 Days of Purpose Driven Life programs. Suddenly, denominations were united on a different level and it was proved that pastors would yield their pulpits to an outside voice if that voice was backed by a furor from the public.

In 2004, in the midst of the campaign, I was taking a political science class at a university. The professor, a strong liberal, taught a class of 90% liberal democrats. Then there was the lone Republican and me. No one believed that the Evangelicals could vote for the Republicans again, because of the war, but when I begin to put it in terms of American support for Israel, it became clear that many evangelicals would vote for Bush because they saw the Iraqi war in eschatological terms. (Think LeHaye’s awful series, Left Behind).

Now, we see a mad rush by both candidates to reach out to Evangelicals, the religious center to right. The problem that I see, is that congregations, and the Church, should not be involved in politics. Paul told Timothy not to be entangled in the affairs of this world, and yet we see so many trying to sway politics. Can you really imagine Paul waging a campaign for a Roman Senator? Our mission on this planet is not to change the planet, or to pass laws, govern nations, or to enforce the morality of Christianity on the populace. Instead, we are told to reach the people, speak the truth, preach the word. We are to be soul winners, not political campaigners.

And may God have mercy on those that use the pulpit to campaign for any particular political party. Is it not the same as using the name of God to murder people? (Crusades, Iraqi War) How many things have been done in the name of God and Christ? For centuries, Rome maintained a nominal control over western Europe, while the great Seljuq Dynasty maintained control over a good deal fo the Middle East, reaching into Asia. Both seats of power ruled in the name of their God and both forced people to do things for religious reasons. Why? Because some thought it best to use the things that should be reserved for God for the things of this world.

I am not suggesting that either Senators McCain or Obama will attempt to ignite a new theocracy, but the picture is still startling. Why must you court the religious right? (Or religious left for that matter) Why should a presidential candidate court the pro-Israel lobby? Remember the young shepherd boy, David. who was tending sheep while the great king was in trouble with the Lord. Or even the twelve year old Jesus, who was about His Father’s business while the Jews planned a rebellion. His Father’s business, as we know, was to preach repentance.

We need to be about our Father’s business, if indeed God is our Father. If you live in the United States, then vote the issues that matter to you. Search the issues in the bible and see where it ranks with God. Abortion? Justice? Environment? War? Defense? So many issues that matter to Americans, but do what matters to God? Don’t confuse the two. (And don’t confuse this country with some divinely establish nation that is the sole greatest country on earth).

Take this also into account. In 2000 and 2004 the Evangelical leaders said some awful things about God (God is pro-war, Falwell) and drug His name into the basest mud. They drug Him out and had Him endorse George W. Bush as a Christian candidate. They made it the eleventh commandment to vote Republican. All on the promise that George Bush would end abortion. Yet, nothing.

Remember, Christ said to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s and politics is too unholy to be from God.

I would ask the candidates to stop these silly appeals to envangelicals and instead focus on real issues. Leave the things of God up to God, and God alone.

The above video features Rhonda Vincent and Rebecca Lynn Howard performing what has quickly become a favorite of mine.

We live in a very trouble world, as you may have noticed, and the very base unit of humanity is under attack. We have mothers and fathers who act only as machines for reproduction, expecting to enjoy the act of creation and to dismiss the created. Families are the beginnings of civilization, the very root of our communities. Without the basic family unit, we have no communities, and thus no civilization.

I heard the Dolly Parton/Sonya Isaacs version on XM-14 last night on my way home from Church. Being tone deaf, bluegrass is the only music that I can actually pick out and enjoy. (Or maybe Souther Gospel just sounds like everything else and thus I reject it). As you will see from the lyrics, it tells the story of a harden father made low by the death of his wife. I have to wonder, how many homes now experience a set of hardened hearts…hardened to the word of God, to the love of God, to the grace of God. And what does that do to the family? The children, I mean.

What drives love but God?

What drives compassion but the mercies of God?

When this world finally rids itself of the awful burden of a loving God, what will become of the children? Who will take care of them when their loving, and many of them God-fearing, grandparents and parents are gone. From whom will the children learn compassion and to be led by the heart instead of the wallet or the survival instinct? What about the love for one another that is derived from being in a family?

Doesn’t a family teach children about love, security and responsibility? Doesn’t the family show the nature of the relationship between God, the Church, and us?

Do you realize that in 2005 nearly 1500 children died from child abuse, but some researchers say that about 50 to 60% of children deaths by abuse are unreported?

In the song, the father is pictured as a drunk and angry man, with the usual sin of gambling. He wasted the time that he had with his children, and railed against the wife’s submission to Christ. In the end, it took the words of his dying wife to bring him around. That is not always the case for parents who need humbling. And if it does happen, how solid is that person anchored in the Church?

We have to remember to pray for the families, not just those ‘in Church’ but all families as all share the same responibility, whether they know it or not. I would hate to stand in front of God and give account to the Judge and Father of us all, on my example that shoved my children from God. I would hate to think that my life hardened my children from God or that I allowed them to do anything that they wanted just to get them out of my hair, pushing them into sin. So pray for the children and the families.

Here, first.

Go here. I know that this is old, but go here too. And here

Written by Ira & Charlie Louvin

A house, not a home
Was the picture Satan painted
For sweet little sister and me
Our daddy would frown
While mother was prayin’
His heart was so hardened
That he would not believe

In anger he’d swear
His voice cold and loud
His Sundays were spent
Out with the ga