If it’s possible to become saved, is it possible to become unsaved? Can we fall away?
The Calvinist/Baptist position
The Calvinist position is that the saints will necessarily persevere, so that falling away is impossible in the NT. The Holy Spirit will so powerfully transform the Christian’s heart that he’ll ultimately choose to live as a Christian should and so be saved in the end.
There are certainly subsets among the Calvinists who teach that a Christian will continue to be saved regardless of his sinfulness and commitment, but most Calvinists argue that Christians will never so sin as to deserve to fall away.
Most Baptists are not Calvinists, and yet most Baptists teach perseverance of the saints (POTS). That’s because the Baptists branched off the Puritans, who were indeed Calvinists. During the late 19th Century, it seems that many Baptists gave up most of the elements of Calvinism, but they retained POTS.
This is said to present a security and confidence — a feeling that I am saved and cannot fall away. Of course, my Calvinist and Baptist friends all know people who said the Sinner’s Prayer, were baptized, felt this sense of security — and then apostatized (fell away). Their conclusion is that such persons were never truly saved — which, if true, means that the feeling of security isn’t all that sure.
The traditional Church of Christ position
Of course, the Churches of Christ take the Arminian position that we can fall away even if really and truly saved. And I have to say that I think the Arminian view seems better supported by the scriptures. But the Churches of Christ tend to err in the opposite direction — thinking that any sin or doctrinal error can damn until repented of — destroying any sense of security at all. In fact, under traditional Church of Christ teaching, the best you can hope for is to be occasionally saved or periodically saved.
The traditional Church of Christ teaching — the one that prevailed in the late 20th Century — is that any unforgiven sin damns. Therefore, when we sin, we are damned until we confess that sin, repent of that sin, and pray for forgiveness. Of course, this teaching has led to a lot of praying for forgiveness.
This teaching is actually not biblical but taken from the Catholic Council of Trent. The only difference from Catholic teaching is that we in the Churches of Christ don’t need to confess to a priest. Confessing to God is enough.
The standard has gotten harder over the years. It came to be taught that a “public” sin has to be publicly confessed — by “going forward” and confessing to the entire congregation — making this that much closer to the Catholic teaching.
In addition, when divorce and remarriage is taught, it’s also required that you make restitution — that you undo your sin as well as possible — as a condition of forgiveness. Hence, you must remarry the spouse you divorced or who divorced you. And if that’s not possible, you must do the next best thing, remain single. And if you’ve remarried, then you have to divorce your new spouse to be forgiven of the sin of divorce. Really.
Well, this is not only very legalistic, it’s entirely unworkable. I mean, if your record must be 100% clean to be saved, then you must have confessed, repented of, and made restitution for every single sin you’ve ever committed. And this is impossible. In fact, if you’ve repented of every sin, then you’ve stopped sinning entirely. You’d be Jesus reborn!
Recognizing the unbearable burden of this doctrine, sometime in the 1960s (best I can recall), we added this gracious exception. If you’re “walking in the light,” then the blood of Jesus continuously cleanses you. Which is a true, powerful, and important teaching based on —
(1Jo 1:7 ESV) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
It is correctly noted that “cleanses” is in the present, indicative tense in Greek, implying ongoing, continuous cleansing.
But, the preachers emphasize, this requires you to be “walking in the light.” And those who worship with an instrument or otherwise violate Church of Christ doctrinal boundaries violate this standard. In fact, any doctrinal error damns, because of —
(2Jo 1:9 ESV) Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
Which, of course, is precisely contradictory. Both readings of the scriptures cannot be true.
Faith
So how do we decide? Well, it’s really this simple:
(Joh 3:18 ESV) 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
(1Jo 5:13 ESV) I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.
As we’ve already covered, all with faith in/faithfulness to/trust in Jesus will be saved. Period. But, of course, faithfulness requires a penitent, obedient heart — someone who intends to obey and follow Jesus. Not perfectly. Not with perfect doctrine. But with a heart turned toward Jesus.
It’s just that simple. I’ll cover some key passages in detail. But we make the simple complicated in order to damn people who disagree with us about instrumental music or whatever. But any teaching that takes us away from —
(Joh 5:24 ESV) 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
(Joh 20:30-31 ESV) Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
— is error.
Royce, baptism and the accepting of forgiveness of sin is a very serious action, and should be thought upon in that way, and if you are not ready to live the Christian life then baptism might be better delayed until you are.
Yes you risk dying in sin, but you don’t risk tromping on the blood of Jesus Christ.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Dwight… Abram was justified by faith before he took his first step out of Ur. Long before he was circumcised.. I believe Rom 4 clearly states that we are children of promise by faith and not by faithfulness.. Although, I would agree that obedience is certainly an indication of saving faith. Yet, one must also agree that if performance (faithfulness) is how we are saved then we’re all in trouble.. Thankfully, Paul put that notion completely to rest when he said through the inspiration of the Spirit that we are saved by Grace through faith..and not by faithfulness (works) lest any man could boast…
The real issue I have with “falling away” is how far must one fall to be out of relationship with Jesus ? 50% unfaithful …75% ? 100% ? At what point did the prodigal son lose his “son-ship” ? At what point does Rom 8:1 not apply ? I guess I’m not able to make that judgement.
Christians who sin(trapped in a sin) and need turning back(restoration) to Jesus Gal.6:1 are to do what? Repent are they not? It’s not exactly spelled out in that context it’s taken for granted they know, or James 5:19-20 “if one of you wander from the truth and someone should bring him back(back from where?) remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way(not just a one time error but seems to suggest an ongoing thing) will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins. Physical death? Not hardly but spiritual death. If they are not brought back, finally. Jesus told the church in Pergamum to “repent.” He gave some Christians who were in Thyatira following the teachings of Jezebel time to repent or else he would punish them severely and strike her children dead. Not physical children but those who held to her false teachings with spiritual death. The church at Sardis is instructed to repent. Repent of their lethargy. Laodicea was told to repent for her self reliance and being lukewarm . Christ was going to vomit them out. Maybe that wasn’t really so bad, according to some. Of course we know from the O.T. what the Lord requires, a broken spirit and a contrite heart, those he will not refuse.
As to why we don’t need a rebaptism, it ain’t that hard. Because we aren’t instructed to do so. Though I know of many who were rebaptized because they felt like they had been baptized for various reasons that weren’t proper, for example without truly repenting or because everyone else was doing it. Is God mad if someone did get rebaptized even if it was for good reasons the first time? I doubt it, even though it’s not commanded. Just like I doubt God is angry if a Baptist says the Sinners Prayer over again for the umpteenth time. as so many do, as a type of formula. One can put faith in the Sinner’s Prayer formula as well as the 5 step plan.
Price, I think the problem is that we make too many judgments on when another falls and what it means to fall. When Paul confronted the issue of a man with his father’s wife in Corinth this was a sin that was on the books and not just a sin that man could imply. The people of Corinth were unwilling to call it sin and confront it as such.
On the other hand we will confront things that we perceive as sin, even though there is no record of God making a law or command against it. We judge another like the Pharisees did on non-commands, even while committing sins like not helping the helpless, etc.
We must be careful not to play God and only stick to sins that are sins.
Now “all men have sinned” and all men will sin, but when you come under Jesus you now have an avenue to God that wasn’t present before. Only a priest can go into the Temple and go to the Holies to Holies to talk to God and Jesus flesh was the veil and He is the great High Priest who makes intercession. Otherwise there really is no point in even Jesus if we can appeal to God without coming through Jesus.
Jay wrote:
“In the last few years, the Memphis churches have been torn up over elder re-affirmation — Dub McLish insisting that this not authorized and therefore is damning of the entire congregation.”
Interestingly, much of the drama between the conservative COCs arose due to two events:
1. When Dave Miller took over Apologetics Press and
2. When Dub McLish was fired from the Gospel Journal
Jay, you have hit the nail on the head. Conservatives cannot agree on what error damns and what error is covered by grace. If it wasn’t so very tragic and sad, it would all be humorous. The Memphis SOP weekly publication (The Harvester, I believe) actually ran an article about the danger of drawing drawing one’s fellowship circles tighter and tighter. Imagine that for a minute.
Dave Miller is no progressive by any stretch of the imagination, yet conservative congregations have largely drawn fellowship lines based on whether they support him or dis-fellowship him. At issue is Elder re-evaluation/re-affirmation (ERR) and the APPLICATION of a single example of MDR. McLish and his backers think both situations are “fatal error.” (Incidentally, “fatal error” is the subject of the upcoming Bellview Lectures in Pensacola, which features Dub and his supporters.) The ERR issue arose when Miller was in TX and an Elder voluntarily asked the congregation if they still supported him. The Elder had an arbitrary figure in his own mind, and when he didn’t receive the percentage of support that he desired, he stepped down. Dub doesn’t believe an Elder can do this, which is just asinine.
The MDR situation is even more bizarre. A man married his own cousin (unlawful in itself) in a successful effort to enable the woman to remain in the country. As cousins, they never consummated the “marriage.” After the woman was allowed to remain in the country, the cousins divorced. Miller argued that the couple committed fraud and never intended to be married in God’s eyes. Dub thinks the cousins are to remain man and wife. Again asinine. Ironically, Miller’s teaching on MDR mirrors Dub’s almost verbatim. They only disagree on the application in this one isolated situation. Miller would allow “divorce” in cases where the couple (who is not eligible to marry in the first place) fraudulently marry to avoid deportation.
Other equally asinine “fatal errors” according to some of today’s conservatives:
-Supporting the COC Disaster Relief Fund
-Speaking at a lectureship alongside another speaker who has been marked (by them of course)
-Persistently using the term “church family” because that’s the “language of Ashod”
-Using material in Bible Study classes that were authored by a “marked” individual or organization, specifically, using Apologetics Press materials. It doesn’t matter if the content is actually “sound” in itself. Using any AP material in Bible Study constitutes sin, and thus fatal error if one doesn’t publicly repent. I’m not kidding. I actually wrote a letter to the Pensacola preacher who authored the article and asked him if he ever used a KJV Bible, a Bible dictionary, Naves, or Strongs. Never got an answer back.
@ Dwight.. you make a good point about the law being “on the books.” It’s actually a specific part of the Law from Leviticus.. Seems Paul thought that the moral laws were still very much applicable.
From what I understand cousins married cousins in the OT, just as brothers married half-sisters, but could not marry direct sisters. The problem that they would have to deal with is the lying and the fact that they announced themselves as betrothed with no intent to marry. The problem comes with what do they or we consider binding.
In today’s society not much is binding, but in God’s yes a yes is a yes and no is a no or should be. Oaths are oaths, even made in foolishness and were designed to be honored.
Now it could be argued that both parties were under the understanding that there was no real covenant and thus they were not intending to hold one another to the covenant and the intent was to not. This might change the situation, since they both were not under the impression that the other was to meet the obligation of man and wife. They lied and that is all. This is serious, but would not constitute a real covenant. And yet when two people say something to the crowds that affirm them to man and wife, then how is that not an oath.
Only man could create a quagmire that no one can escape like this.
All I know is that it was a specific prohibition in the Law… see Lev 18
I guess the distinction would be if your cousin was “near kin” or “far kin” as only “near kin” were forbidden.
Jay should be able to share what they did in Alabama with all the cousins marrying there… LOL…
Price,
I believe you have my home state confused with Arkansas. Around here, all the married-cousin jokes are based on Arkansas — I suppose because there are too many Mississippians here in West Alabama to make it safe to pick on Mississippi.
LOL… @ Mark… Me too !!! Walnut Ridge… And Amen to MS and DC… LOL…
I was unaware of the McLish/Miller controversy. But, even though almost a lifetime ago I had a major controversy with Miller, basically I was a victim of the MDR teachings; I had recently encountered a work of his that I thought was outstanding. That being the message contained in the “The Silencing of God” DVD. The average Christian does not have the resources to assemble that information to support the founding of our government on Christian principles. With this much information available and in permanent carvings it does seem that many leaders of believers in Christ have avoided making a public exposition of those in government and the other forces on their presentations about separation of church and state. If there are other authors who have addressed the subject, I would like to know of their works.
Jay
I look forward to seeing your comments on Heb 6: 4-6. I would also like to see your take on Heb 6: 1-3 sometime. Specifically about the laying on of hands. If I read the passage correctly it is listed as a first principle of our faith. Been in the CofC for over fifty years and never heard it mentioned except as a bit of Biblical history. I know some CofC practice it, but I’m guessing that is relatively rare.
I have been in the coC all of my life and have never seen a laying on of hands as it is related to miracles. It must be rare or limited to certain coC in places I have never been to.
David and Dwight,
Most Protestant churches do not practice laying on of hands other than Pentecostals, and they see it as a means of receiving miraculous gifts of the Spirit (some, not all).
My church has, at times, practiced a laying on of hands by the elders on newly baptized converts, solely to follow the examples in Acts and as a commissioning — part of a prayer for the newly born Christian. Has nothing to do with tongues and prophecy, and we believe the Spirit is received whether or not hands are laid on the convert. But it’s a good practice that I recommend.
First, it’s good for the elders to pray over anyone, esp. a brand new convert. It brings the convert together with the elders through touching — which is a powerful thing. Inevitably is followed by hugs. It’s just a great way to initiate someone into the kingdom and profoundly biblical.
Second, it adds a ancient, mystical flavor to the baptism. Baptism itself is at least 2,000 years old, but it’s in a chlorinated, heated, modern tank of water. Something about hands takes us back to Acts. I mean, we’re restorationist and primitivist. Why wouldn’t we lay hands?
Third, laying hands is commissioning for mission. And all Christians should be charged to be on mission for God.
So I rather like the practice myself. The church seems to respond well to it, as do converts. I highly recommend.
Jay, IMO it would not be improper to even suggest that in the laying on of hands that God, in His great mystery, could in fact impart some special gift, whatever it might be, into the new convert as he/she is accepted into the church. The spiritual gifts were never fully articulated much less limited to prophesy or tongues… All the things you mentioned were obviously appropriate but I think we sometimes shy away from what we don’t understand or have trouble explaining.. I like that you do it anyway.. Let’s just allow for God to be God and do today what He did back then.. Who knows.. He might just respond to the faith of a mustard seed.
I love this! It’s something I would like to see our elders do.
Often people come for prayer and some of them request to be anointed with oil and have the elders pray for them. Every time the elders put their hands on the person and many people around them do too. I have never heard any teaching about laying on of hands but we practice it none the less.
In small groups I and others have gathered around a person sitting in a chair and all of us touched that person as we prayed for their concern.
God is so gracious! Many times our requests are granted in ways that can only be credited to Him.
Larry,
How ironic. The DVD that you mentioned, “Silencing of God,” is the exact same material that I referenced. See the article here (Nov 2008, page 5):
http://www.bellviewcoc.com/Defender-PDF/2008-Defender.pdf
Pretty depressing reading throughout this pdf. In this particular article, Michael Hatcher states, “…I cannot conscientiously recommend that our congregation view or promote this video. My reason is because this would be in violation of 2 John 9-11 and Romans 16:17. We would be fellowshipping a marked false teacher—Dave Miller…Even though we might agree with the contents of the DVD “Silencing of God,” to recommend or promote the DVD is to make oneself a partaker of Dave Miller’s false doctrines. (By false doctrines, I mean doctrines if believed and acted upon will result in one’s being lost eternally.) Sadly, the West Hunstville leaders have decided to be a partaker of false doctrine. We must continue to pray and teach these (and other) brethren the error of their ways before it is everlastingly too late.” What??
Hatcher believes that viewing, recommending, or promoting this DVD – even though he agrees with the content – constitutes sinful error that will damn one’s soul. I wrote Hatcher a letter asking him if he ever read or studied or viewed theological material that had been authored by anyone outside of the Churches of Christ. Never got an answer from him, which is ironic given how quick this journal points out that someone didn’t answer their inquiry…it even happens in this very article with reference to Miller! What about lectureship books that included articles by Rubel Shelley when he was still at Getwell or his own Defender lectureship books? Surely, Hatcher has burned those books. Right. Greek lexicons? Gone. Songs written by anyone other than members of “sound” COCs? Banished.
The lack of any critical thinking skills by Hatcher is truly astounding.
Thanks Jay and Price. I agree 100% with both of you. Touch is a powerful thing, maybe even miraculous. I joined with Pentecostals in laying on of hands and prayer for my comatose father-in -law who would “not live through the night” because of his massively damaged heart. No instantaneous cure. It took all of eight hours for him to wake up and begin talking. And if I remember correctly, he left the hospital a day or two later. He lived another five or six years. I went into his hospital room skeptical of laying on hands, but it did not take long for me to become a believer. P/S :We laid hands on his feet and arms and prayed, not his head.
Interesting that the Anglicans still put hands on most people when giving out the host every Sunday and when hearing confession before being given communion for those who responded to the unspoken invitation (altar call).
Kevin,
Thanks for that link, I was unaware of most all of these communications even though I am not far from Sunny Slope in Paducah Ky. After reading some of these publications, I see it is no wonder why most of the brethren in the pews are leaving the churches. I don’t see any of Christlike attitudes displayed in the communications. Name calling, back biting, demeaning other brothers in Christ all without addressing the scriptural content of the subject matter. Christ or none of his Apostles communicated with these attitudes and who are we supposed to appear to be like to the world? If the world read these communications they would readily recognize the source of the attitudes expressed.
I really should not have used the concept that I was a victim in the earlier post, that made it sound like I had been divorced and that was the reason to be a victim. The event was because I apposed Dave on his teaching on MDR. He was advising some couples in the congregation because they had married a divorced partner, to get another divorce and was requiring that they would have to live a single life to be saved. One of the sisters in the congregation had married a man who had been divorced 5 times, they had two children. She was sure that she could not rear them by herself, after much distress, Dave told her that they could live in the same house as long as they had separate bedrooms and of course never slept together. There were no Elders at the church. The man with credentials and powerful speaking abilities always wins in a confrontation such as this, therefore I was disfellowshiped for being a false teacher.
.Actually, I have seen a great value in the event that was done to me, because as a result I have been able to avoid being brainwashed in some of the doctrines that were being taught in churches during my youth.
It really is a horrible situation to condemn good teachings because the teacher has believed some wrong ideas. Actually, this carried to the extreme would destroy all teaching unless the teacher was sinless. Which would back fire upon those who are casting stones.
I still hold to the concept that Dave did a good job in this DVD and would recommend it to anyone Christian or not, it really should enlighten anyone who has no roots in Christianity. I also was impressed as Dave considered those who were founding the government and writing the documents as Christians explaining that they were Christianity in action. Yet, understanding that they were not known as members of The Church of Christ, that term or name for churches was not in existence at that time. He readily stated that most of these were Anglican, some Protestant. My first thought was these are not condemned men because they were not members of The Church of Christ as most all of our preachers have taught. These men stood up for Christianity in a powerful way, puts most Christians I know to shame. My brother must have grown more than I could imagine, he really considered them brothers, Praise God! .
Larry, I have had a similar thing happen to me, but not to the point of disfellowship. I created a study on MDR, that was I admit a different slant on the whole concept and sent it to a well known preacher asking him to critique it. I considered him because he had edited books and wasn’t anybody I knew, thus no personal bias. He disagreed with the study and pointed out some grammatical errors, but couldn’t answer me why it was wrong. He offered no logical help or any scriptures. I then had a meeting with the preacher of my congregation over another issue and then was presented with this study and told I was wrong. Somehow the other preacher found our where I worshipped and contacted my preacher and sent him the document that I had asked the other preacher to critique. I was summarily scolded for teaching error, even though I never approached that preacher in a teaching way, but as one to be taught. My preacher however couldn’t lay forth a scripture to why my position was wrong, but just told me that “everybody knows that marriage isn’t like that.” I later found this not to be true…especially among the Jews.
The point is that there is a push to mark another rather than discuss. It is shoot first, then don’t ask questions later. We want to crush another into submission and shut the ears of others.
I fear Jesus wouldn’t have gotten anywhere in our environment and would have been condemned as well.
Price,
Our most senior elder explains that God sometimes chooses to work through the laying on of hands. I don’t want anyone to conclude that the Spirit can only be received by hands — as some would question their salvation for lack of this apostolic practice. That should not be a worry. On the other hand, there’s something about laying on hands that the Bible seems to favor. Who am I to tell God what he can or cannot do? I just follow the examples I find, and the worst possible outcome is the new convert is welcomed into the church by the touch of his or her elders.
Dwight,
With experiences like ours we really learn to trust preachers and elders don’t we. I will have to admit that I do not know any preachers or elders that I would dare to communicate some of the subjects that we can discuss here, Jay has not shown that he would gather other elders into a force to attempt to disfellowship anyone who disagrees with him here. Actually, he is the only one I would trust in a congregation setting. But, then the majority of my fifty five + years since obeying the gospel the churches that I have attended did not have elders. When I was attending where there were elders they only did deacons work and did not appear to understand their role as spiritual leaders. But, then I was disfellowshipped twice by churches which did not have elders, just the preacher and his clan. And we call congregations like that the Lords Church. Then I get to read about one body of elders who withdraw fellowship from another body of elders (like in the link Kevin provided) and wonder where there is an example in scripture that portrays those actions in the church of the scriptures. All this really supports another concept about the church which God added me to (that Spiritual Church the Kingdom that Jesus said was not of this world). Are you in that one too.
I don’t consider myself in the coC, even though I attend with coC people, but rather in the congregation of Christ or kingdom of God at large. Many elders and preachers fall into the protectionist realm, where they are protecting the system or their church from not being looked down badly by other coC churches. An interesting thing about Revelations is John writing to the 7 churches in Asia and telling them to handle their issues, but the better off churches weren’t told to break away or look down on the other churches who were having trouble. And they weren’t told to separate from the church in Corinth who was having many, many issues. We have become reactionary to the extreme.
Grudem is all about Calvinism and it comes through in his writings. Especially systematic theology. He has concepts in there I have never seen in the bible.
David,
That’s a powerful story about your dad. Of course most in the Cof C(not me) would just say your prayer (not the Pentecostal’s) was what did it. God gets the glory. I had a situation where I befriended a man through a benevolence call, helped him with some bills, he had many health issues. I prayed with him, baptized him(over the course of weeks) and continued to help with food and bills. He then got a bad staff infection in his leg and was in the hospital, I prayed with him ( he was told if he wasn’t better by morning they would have to take his leg. That afternoon a Pentecostal preacher came by and asked to pray with him, he told him he was first going to pray in tongues(not to alarm him) so he prayed in tongues which completely floored him, then he prayed in regular speech. He told him he was not going to lose his leg and sure enough he got better that night and kept his leg. This brother gave credit to the Pentecostal preacher for “saving his leg” I suppose because he spoke in tongues. We had both prayed. But he spoke in tongues. I find that interesting. I wasn’t after the credit. But my prayer had been just as heart felt. I am happy the Pentecostal preacher prayed with him, perhaps it was his prayer, or both our prayers, that helped. Whichever, God gets the glory!
Monty,
It is defiantly a hard line to draw when a preacher seems to be able to command healing and gets results, ( I said command because as you listen to many of their prayers they are very demanding that God provide their request, even to the point of intimidating God). I have never believed that God would submit to that type of a request from man, but it is very hard to convince someone who has received a benefit that there is another source under heaven that has enough power to perform these good deeds to confirm his deceptions. We are warned and given examples of men expecting their reward because they were involved in these miracles performing them in Jesus name.
Larry wrote,
I’m saddened that you’ve not been around elders whom you could trust to discuss such issues without fear of disfellowship. I’ve spent a lot of time with elders of many other churches — admittedly fairly progressive Churches of Christ — and I’m rarely the least threatening person in the room. I mean, I’m nowhere near as nice as most of the other elders I know. So my world is very different from yours. I believe every word you say. It’s just sad that you’ve not been around some of the great elders I’ve gotten to know over the years in many different churches.
If you’ve never done so, you should visit some of the more progressive lectureships — Pepperdine, Abilene, Tulsa, Lipscomb, Rochester — and just hang out with the men there. I went to Abilene one year and went to not a single class. I spent an entire day in the vendor display room talking to preachers, elders, missionaries, and just absorbing all the wisdom walking through the aisles. I guarantee an uplifting experience.
Dwight wrote,
Excellent point! I wish I’d thought of it.
alegler,
Thanks. I wonder if anyone has attempted a New Perspective systematic theology?
Monty,
Thanks for the story. Very encouraging.