Henry S. Ficklin
Mt. Sterling, Kentucky (INTRODUCTION: Henry S. Ficklin (1883-1974) delivered this lesson over the radio in Athens, Ala., on April 1, 1962. It is still needed in Athens, Nashville, and everywhere else-though it is what some call “legalistic” and “dogmatic.” Ron Halbrook, 3536 Dickerson Rd., Nashville, TN. 37207.) After the lapse of almost a year, I am again able to speak to you of the radio audience. Through the goodness of God I am permitted to preach here “The Unsearchable Riches of Christ.” The speakers on this radio program, which has been conducted for a number of years, for the glory of God, for the up-building of the true church, and for your edification, would like to know how much good you, their invisible audience, are obtaining from these sermons. It is a bit different to speak to a radio audience from speaking with your audience at the church building. For on the radio we cannot be rewarded by seeing the lively expressions on your faces as you listen, and we cannot hear you say “Amen.” But there are other ways by which these radio speakers may know how much good you are receiving from these sermons. You may write and say that you were helped, and you can show it by being a more faithful Christian. And your speakers over the radio hope that there are some secret changes that you are making, that you are changed within, that you love the truth more, that burdens have been lifted from your hearts, and that you have a joy and peace in your soul that you have never known before. And if you some of you – should write in and tell them that you have learned the way of salvation from these lessons and that you want someone to come to you, that you might obey the Gospel, your speakers will rejoice to hear this from you. During this broadcast, and after it is over, too, I want us to be thinking about “Counterfeit Religion.” My text is Exodus the 7th chapter, verses 10, 11 and 12; “And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did as Jehovah had commanded; and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called for the wise-men and the sorcerers; and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents; but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.” From this text, I have derived my subject; “Counterfeit Religion.” There is great danger for us in Counterfeit Religion, as there always has been. I. Our Age Abounds in Counterfeits. We have false faces. We sometimes buy boxes of stationery, thinking we have bought a bargain, but find that, half-way down, there is a false bottom, and see that we have only about half as much as we think we have. Some years ago I went to preach at a new congregation in the mountains of Kentucky. On the outside there was a siding that was an imitation of brick. It was not brick, but it looked like brick. I hate for a congregation to pretend that it has something which it does not have. Let us not have any pretense on the inside and let us not begin pretending before we get into the building. And, some years ago, in Paris, Kentucky, officers discovered a factory for counterfeit money. This started me to studying about the counterfeit in religion. II. The Devil has Been In The Counterfeit Business From The Beginning. 1. He started it in Egypt, when God’s people were in bondage. God knew that Pharaoh would resist the will of God to bring his people out of Egypt, because of the hardness of his heart. So, the Lord empowered Aaron and Moses to work miracles before him when Pharaoh should say: “Show a wonder for you.” (Exodus 7:8) This came to pass when they went in before Pharaoh. And Aaron did as the Lord commanded-he cast down his rod and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh called for the sorcerers, the magicians, and they cast down every man his rod and it became a serpent. But Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods, just as every counterfeit will finally be exposed. 2. The devil produced a big counterfeit when Israel vis divided. The account of this substitute religion is found in 1 Kings 12:25-32. The Northern ten tribes had pulled away from Judah and Benjamin, and had made Jereboam king. Jereboam was a shrewd religious politician, one of the first that the people of God ever had to deal with. He saw that he had to institute a false religion to keep Israel divided. This is the account given in 1 Kings 12:26-32: “And Jereboam said in his heart: Now will the kingdom return to the house of David; if this people go up to offer sacrifices in the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem, then will the heart of this people return unto their Lord, even unto Rehoboam, king of Judah; and they will kill me, and return unto Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took counsel and made two calves of gold; and he said unto them it is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem, behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one at Bethel, and the other put he at Dan. And this thing became a sin; for the people went to worship before the one, even at Dan. And he made houses of the high places and he made priests from among all the people, that were not of the sons of Levi. And Jereboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he went up unto the altar; so did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made; and he placed at Bethel the priests of the high places that he had made.” III. Here we have a complete system of substitute, counterfeit religion. Here are false places of worship, Bethel and Dan, instead of Jerusalem; idols, calves of gold, instead of the invisible God; false priests, instead of those from Levi; false feasts on the eighth month, instead of on the seventh month, as the Lord had directed. (Lev. 23:39) Jereboam imitates the true worship, but he perverts it. He gives them gods that they can see. He makes it easier, for he tells them “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem.” Now, how far was it? It was just about twelve miles farther to Jerusalem from Bethel. But that was “too much,” too far for a backslider to go. We ourselves have heard that argument of the devil. You may live ten miles from where a faithful congregation worships. Satan will say to you: “That is too far for you to go. There is a denomination meeting just a mile from you; that is more convenient, stop there.” That argument, I am sorry to say, has often been the cause of many weak Christians going to places of worship that were not Scriptural. But mere convenience has no weight at all with Christians who have convictions. A sincere Christian would rather walk, or crawl, to the right place of worship, than to go in style to one that is wrong. And you who uphold the truth, let me urge that we never use an argument like that to get some one to come to the right .place of worship. Let us never use low motives. King Jereboam knew, too, that people want some kind of religion, even if it is the wrong kind. He knew, besides this, that people, many of them, want to see some form. This accounts for the many images of the saints and of Mary. They worshiped Jehovah under the form of the golden calves. The devil wants us to have a worship that resembles the true worship, some, if only slightly-one that seems right. But all false religion will bring heartache in the end. “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 14:12) IV. The Devil, It Seems, Has a Substitute For Almost Everything That God Does. Some time back it came as a distinct shock to me that there would be false Christs, even, for our Lord says “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” (Matt. 24:24) And the closer we get to the end, the more the false in religion will come out. The devil, of course, knows that the Christian religion is true and divine. That is why he imitates it and not a pagan religion. You never saw a counterfeit infidel, and no one today is counterfeiting Confederate (worthless) money. V. Let Us Notice Some of the Many Substitutes that the Devil is Putting Into Circulation: First, let us notice the living beings (persons) which he puts forward. 1. There are false angels. “Even Satan fashioneth himself into an, angel of light. It is no great thing, therefore if his ministers fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness.” (2 Cor. 11:14, 15) Besides this, the devil has angels, for Hell is prepared for the “Devil and his angels.” (Matthew 25:41) 2. There are the false spirits. So real and so dangerous are these false spirits that the apostle John warns us against them: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the anti-christ, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now is in the world already.” (1 John 4:1-3) The Thessalonians were warned by the apostle not to be misled about the immediate second coming of Christ, for he writes to them, “to the end that ye be not shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle, as from us, as that the day of the Lord is just at hand.” (2 Thess. 2:2) 3. There are false prophets. Our Lord said that “false prophets” would arise (Matthew 24:24), and he told. his disciples to “beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing.” (Matt. 7:15) And the apostle John in 1 Jno. 4:1 said that they had already appeared. 4. There are false shepherds, or preachers or teachers. The apostle Peter in his second epistle writes that, as there were false prophets of old “among you, also there shall be false teachers.” (2 Peter 2:1) Christ gives the marks of such teachers, shepherds: such a one is a “hireling and careth not for the sheep.” (John 10:13) Such preachers are man-pleasers. They follow: they do not lead. They go with the tide of worldliness that is engulfing us today. 5. There are false apostles. They were in Paul’s day, for he writes: “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:13) And we have them today. Any church that claims to have apostles today is either itself misled, or is trying to mislead you and me, for an apostle must have seen Christ. When an apostle was to be chosen “to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell,” the apostle Peter said that he must be chosen “of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.” (Acts 1:21, 22) When Paul was asserting his undoubted claims to be an apostle, he writes to the Corinthians, “. . . am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus my Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1) Any man who claims to be an apostle today is a “false apostle,” to use Paul’s own inspired words. 6. There are false Christs – counterfeit Christs. It is a shocking thing that anyone could claim to be Christ. But our Savior foretold that men would do that, “. . . for there shall arise false Christs.” (Matt. 24:24) Nothing will stop ungodly men from their false claims. But we must not accept them. 7. Then, there is the most familiar counterfeit of all-the false Christian-the hypocrite. He wants to have the name of being a Christian, without bearing his cross, and without living the Christian life. 8. The Devil Can Give Us, Too, The false church the false institution. The Lord has pictured for us the true church, made up of saved people, a divine holy institution, “. . . a holy temple in the Lord.” (Ephesians 2:21) But Satan has many substitutes to offer. He can give you a proud church, like Laodicea. He can give you a worldly church, with profane elders and deacons. He can give you a denomination that sprinkles babies and has a human creed and a human name. He can give you Babylon itself with its images, its worship of Mary, its “. . golden cup full of abominations.” (Revelation 17:4) Satan will offer you even a Christless church-the Unitarian church that denies the divinity of Christ. 9. There Are Counterfeit Ordinances, Too. a. There is the true Lord’s Supper, with its impressive simplicity, a spiritual feast, But Satan takes it and turns it into “The Mass,” with its unscriptural ritual, withholding the cup from the congregation, and having the priest drink that, of which Jesus plainly said: “Drink ye all of it.” (Matthew 26:27) b. The Lord gave us the One Baptism. It is the burial of a repentant believer. He is buried in the water, as Jesus was. He is baptized for remission of sins. But a paedo-baptist preacher, will take a little baby and will sprinkle water, or even rose petals on it. What a mockery! 10. There Is The Counterfeit Conversion. To be converted is something very deep, very sincere, my friends. It means that you and I have been born again. The apostle writes: “Wherefore, if any man is in Christ he is a New Creature; the old things are passed away; behold they have become new.” (2 Cor. 5:17) But you can do it a much easier way, if you accept the devil’s counterfeit. You can merely go through the form, and not really be changed; you can let it be all outward. Or, you can sit in the seat, and just hold up your hand. A President of the United States, not wishing to come as any other sinner, was enrolled without formality. 11. There is the counterfeit worship-It is simple, heart-searching, and soul-feeding, if done as God directs, with nothing material or carnal, such as a mechanical instrument, and no choir. But Satan can make it more attractive for you, if you are without spirituality. He can make it stiff, cold, proud, with no kneeling, and no note of victory. 12. There is the counterfeit Sanctification. True sanctification is deeply sincere and spiritual. But Satan can induce you to have the kind that merely has the groans, and the pious phrases. You can have a bragging religion, like the Pharisee in the temple. Even Love, the purest and most heavenly of all our affections, can be made counterfeit. The apostle Paul urges: “Let love be without hypocrisy.” (Rom. 12:9) And the apostle John urges, too: “My little children, let us not love, the purest and most heavenly of all our affections, can be made counterfeit. The apostle Paul urges: “Let love be without hypocrisy.” (Rom. 12:9) And the apostle John urges, too: “My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue but in deed and in truth.” (1 John 3:18) We can just say that we love Christ, while not keeping his commandments. That is counterfeit. 13. There are the counterfeit sacred books. God gave us the Bible. It is inspired, holy, complete, infallible, altogether heavenly. But Satan has seen to it that we have counterfeit sacred books. Mrs. Eddy’s Science and Health, and Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon. Do not accept these, my friends. And, if we do not watch, Satan will take even our virtues and turn them into something wrong-something counterfeit. I may think that I have firmness-surely a noble trait of Christian character-and my firmness may become stubbornness. I may think I have patience. That is good, but patience ceases to be a virtue when I tolerate evil or false doctrine, or perverted and vain worship. God wants me to be zealous and earnest. But Satan can get me to be fanatical, instead and destroy my influence. So my love may get to be just soft. An English author warns against extremes by saying: “What goodness can there be in the world without moderation, whether in the use of God’s gifts or in our own disposition and courage? Without this justice is no other than cruel rigor, mercy unjust remissness, pleasure brutish sensuality, love frenzy, anger fury, sorrow desperate mopishness, joy distempered wildness, knowledge saucy curiosity, piety superstition, care wracking distraction, courage mad rashness.” (Synonyms Discriminated, page 23) So, let us watch our virtues, and not allow Satan to pervert even them. 14. There Is the False Unity. Scriptural unity is found in (Jn. 17:21, but the devil offers the World Council of Churches; Communism; Buddhism-all forms of error. 15. The False Centralization. Israel had it (i.e., divinely approved central authority, RH) under the Judges, Apostolic congregations were under Christ. My friends and brethren, let this be one of our mottoes: “Nothing but the truth.” God has given us the true religion-it is Christianity. Its doctrine is pure, sound. It is not human, but divine. Its worship is simple and divinely given; such will feed the soul. We can know that we are right, if we follow God’s way, given us in the New Testament. Human substitutes are vain, showy, carnal, attractive to the flesh, and give you an easy religion. But, if you follow them you will be bitterly disappointed in the end. Conclusion The true Church is still in the world today. For the prophet Daniel prophesied, “And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people but it shall break in pieces and consume all those kingdoms and it shall stand forever.” (Dan. 2:44) Our Lord himself promised: “Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18) So, there has always since then been a true church and there is today, and always will be. If you are not in it, any of you who are my listeners, let me urge you with all the strength I have to find it and belong to it, and give up all false doctrine and false and vain worship and be sure about your salvation. You that are members of the one body, I urge you to keep the church pure. You cannot watch too closely; you just can not stand too firmly for the faith. We are in great danger. The spirit of the age is modernism, luxury, ease, compromise. The apostle wrote the Corinthians: “But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and purity that is toward Christ.” (2 Cor. 11:3) From almost every college in existence young preachers are coming out with worldly ideas, and they mislead the churches very often. The true church is a glorious church. You could gild a lily or a rose far more easily than you could improve on the true church. The true doctrine is God’s thoughts. The gospel teaching will really save you, it will give you blessed assurance. You can know that you are right. As the apostle wrote to Timothy: “Hold the pattern of sound words.” (2 Tim. 1:13) “How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord Is laid for your faith in his excellent word What more can he say than to you he has said You who unto Jesus for refuge have fled? “Fear not, I am with thee, O be not dismayed I, I am thy God and will still give thee aid I’ll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand Upheld by my righteous, Omnipotent, hand. “The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose I’ll never, no never desert to its foes That soul, tho’ all Hell shall endeavor to shake I’ll never, no never, no never forsake.” Trying to justify something which a church is doing and has been called into question causes some people to latch onto a passage of scripture, take it out of its context, and use it as though it is proof for what they do.
Consider the practice of taking funds contributed into the common treasury on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1,2) and investing those funds in CDs or interest- bearing accounts and then citing Jesus’ parable of the “talents” (Matt. 25:14-30) as justification. In the parable, a man “going into another country” delivered his goods to three servants, “to each according to his several ability,” and went away. The first servant was given five “talents” (money) and “traded” and gained five more talents. The second servant was given two talents and likewise gained another two. The third servant was given one talent and, being afraid, hid the talent in the earth, doing nothing with it. When the master of those servants returned, he called them to give account for the money that had been entrusted to them. He commended the first two and rewarded them for their efforts. The third admitted that he had done nothing with his talent and tried to blame his master for his failure. Before his master cast out that unprofitable servant, he said, “…you ought therefore to have put my money to the bankers, that at my coming I should have received back mine own with interest” (v.27). Some brethren seize upon this verse to justify investing the Lord’s money solely for the purpose of earning interest rather than using it in the work of the gospel. Hundreds of thousands of dollars rest comfortably in such accounts. In the meantime, deserving gospel preachers around the world are in need of support. In some churches, efforts to reach the lost in their own community and edify the members are at a virtual standstill and needy Christians are denied assistance because someone has a tight grip on the interest- bearing treasury “purse strings.” What’s Wrong With This Picture? It is a misuse and abuse of Matthew 25:27. The Lord’s church and the treasury of the church are not even remotely included in this parable. Check the context: Matt. 24:45-51 is about an evil servant— an individual. Matt. 25:1-13 is about five wise and five foolish virgins—individuals— waiting for the coming of the bridegroom. Matt. 25:14-30 is about three servants—individuals.” What was Christ’s message in this parable? Was he really giving financial advice to churches about investment? If that was not his point, then it cannot be our point, and we must not violate the context and expand the intended application for some other purpose. The obvious application concerns personal ability and opportunity given to us by the Lord and our use of that ability and opportunity to its fullness. To be consistent, those who cite verse 27 as their “proof text” would have to say that the “one talent” servant represents a “one talent church” and the “talent” represents the treasury of that church. Would that mean the other two servants each represent a “five talent church” and a “two talent church”? Would that mean that the masters’ commendation of those two servants would authorize churches to go into business and “trade” to make money for the Master? By the way, by what means will the Master receive the “interest” in those savings accounts when he comes? Of course, all of this is nonsense! There is no such thing as a “one talent church.” Matt. 25:14-30 is about profitable and unprofitable individuals. Those who see themselves as caretakers and custodians of a church treasury may say, “It is none of your business what we are doing.” But it is the Lord’s business and it is the Lord’s money. It is right to warn those who stubbornly hoard his money that there will come a time of accounting to the Lord. The continuing context (Matt. 25:31-46) shows that we will stand before the Lord in judgment as individuals. There must be open transparency on the part of those who are involved in handling the Lord’s money. When he was raising funds (benevolence) for needy Christians, the apostle Paul went to great lengths to assure the Corinthian church that “avoiding this, that any man should blame us in the matter of this bounty which is ministered by us: for we take thought for things honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men” (2 Cor. 8:16-21). That being said, the right thing to do is to make a regular financial statement (report) available to all of the members of the church. Why not, if everything is open and “above board”? This is not charging that there is dishonesty or fraud—it is protection against such charges. All of the members have a right to know the full financial status of the church and should insist on knowing, and those handling the money should want them to know. A few misguided souls take the position that the treasury cannot be used to assist local members who are in need. Such people need to read Acts 4:32-37 about the Jerusalem church. “…For as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need.” Those who have a stranglehold on the treasury may say, “But there are conditions.” No doubt! There must be “need.” I fear souls may be lost because some are unwilling to spend the Lord’s money to spread the gospel to the lost and erring and because there are those who sit on the Lord’s money as though it belonged to them rather than to Him. ______________ Most members of the Lord’s church, along with most members of denominations who have ridiculed the idea of the importance of baptism, would probably be surprised and shocked to read the comments of some of the greatest scholars and theologians in those various religious bodies as those scholars emphasized the importance of baptism. Of course, all the comments of all scholars are worth nothing if they deny the plain teaching of the scriptures, but when they affirm it, as they so often have, it might be an eye opener to any person who would read their comments with care. I confess that I was astounded as I checked through all the writings of religious leaders and of the so called “church fathers” all the way back to Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John, and found no one who wrote in any derogatory way against baptism, or denying its importance in the plan of salvation.
It seems apparent that a large part of the eventual opposition to it came as a result of the fact that those “church fathers” and their followers in the Roman Catholic tradition taught its importance so strongly that they made it a sacramental act which had the power to forgive sins in an almost miraculous way, so that even a dying drunkard who was unconscious, or an infidel who did not even believe in Jesus could receive baptism and be saved by it. The doctrine became so entrenched in the minds of most religious persons that even among Protestants who had presumably rebelled against the Roman Catholic doctrines it was still taught. For example, the Methodist Discipline up to 1891 which was called “The Ritual, the General Rules and Articles of Religion of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South” states on page 708, Section 2 concerning The Ministration of Baptism to Infants, that the minister shall say this as a suitable exhortation, “Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and that our Saviour Christ saith, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God: I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this child that which by nature he cannot have: that he may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and be received into Christ’s holy Church, and be made a lively member of the same.” Then after a prayer which asked that this little child to be baptized would receive the fullness of his grace, the minister is to address those who brought the child for baptism thus: “In causing this child to be brought by baptism into the Church of Christ, it is your duty to teach him to renounce the devil and his works, etc.” Then his instructions are: “And then, he shall sprinkle or pour water upon it, or if desired, immerse it in water, saying, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Then in section 3, page 711, the ritual for baptizing “such as are of Riper years” the minister is to say, “Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin (and that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and they that are in the flesh cannot please God, but live in sin, committing many actual transgressions), and that our Saviour Christ said, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God: I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous goodness he will grant to these persons that which by nature they cannot have: that they may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost , and be received into Christ’s holy Church, and be made a lively member of the same.” One may note with astonishment the following things: First, that both the little child and the adult are thought to be in sin, with the adult being charged with actual transgressions, whereas the child was lost simply because he was born that way (which of course is not taught in scripture). Second, you may note that they understood that being born of water and of the Spirit involved water baptism. Third, it is specifically stated that without this baptism one cannot enter the kingdom of God. Fourth, when they were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost they would receive a new nature instead of the sinful one, and by that act be made a lively member of the Church of Christ. It was never made clear exactly how they got into the Methodist church. When one reads the words of Calvin, Luther and other Protestant leaders, it is not hard to see that although they rejected the idea that baptism saves as a sacramental regenerating act that automatically conferred the grace of God on the recipient, they mentioned many times that it was for the remission of sins. Calvin, for example says, “For he commands all who believe, to be baptized for the remission of their sins. Therefore, those who have imagined that baptism is nothing more than a mark or sign by which we profess our religion before men — have not considered that which was the principal thing in baptism; which is, that we ought to receive it with this promise, ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’ Mark 16:16.” When one reads what looks like contradictory statements from some of them indicating that they believed in salvation by faith only, we need to realize that many of those older and greater scholars did not mean by the expression “saved by faith” that a person was saved either by faith alone, or at the point of faith. They distinguished between “salvation only by faith,” which meant that it was gained only as one had and acted upon his faith (Hebrews 11:6), and “salvation by faith only,” which meant that a person could be saved simply by having faith. Many of their followers assumed that they believed a person was saved by faith alone when what they really taught was that it was only by faith that one could accept the salvation offered by the blood of Christ, and not by works of merit. Remember that they were very close to the Roman Catholic doctrine that salvation could come by doing penance, doing good works which would gain merit for a person, even dropping money in the box for a donation to build St. Peter’s cathedral would release a soul from purgatory. They opposed this. Then some of them, while teaching the importance of being baptized, for all of them knew it was a command of Christ, tried to reconcile the idea of being saved by faith and yet having to be baptized for the remission of sins by trying to split theological hairs. They said, “We were really pardoned when we believed, yet had no pledge of it, or formal acquittal until we were baptized.” As they continued to study, many of the more honest and thoughtful ones discovered that they could find no scriptural basis for that theology, and it created more problems than it solved, so they eventually came to the Bible doctrine that God did not promise to grant remission of sins until a person acted on his faith and demonstrated it by being baptized. But my primary point in this article is to show that we can find statements all the way from the early “church fathers” who lived directly after the death of the Apostles, all the way through the Protestant Reformation that shows that they taught at various times that baptism was necessary for us to receive the promise of salvation. We have already given an example of it from the Methodist Discipline, and could give similar quotations from Timothy Dwight, President of Yale who said, “It is to be observed that he who understands the authority of this institution and refuses to obey it, will never enter into either the visible or invisible kingdom.” One can find the same kind of sentiments in the Episcopalian Church Catechism, the Westminister Catechism and Confession of Faith, Doctrinal Tracts by John Wesley, published by order of the Methodist General Conference and practically all of the “church fathers” who mentioned the subject. It might be of value to read the specific remarks of Wesley on page 248, 249 of “Doctrinal Tracts.” “By baptism, we who were by nature children of wrath are made the children of God; and this regeneration which our church in so many places ascribes to baptism is more than barely being admitted into the church, though commonly connected therewith; being grafted into the body of Christ’s church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace. This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God’ John 3:5. By water, then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again; whence it is also called by the apostle ‘the washing of regeneration.'” We have not quoted these men to prove that baptism is indeed for the remission of sins, for the Bible itself makes that plain enough, but to indicate that most of the greatest religious leaders whose primary concern was to expound on the meaning of scripture and to glorify God did not customarily make the kind of slurring remarks about the design, purpose and importance of baptism as their modern followers do, who seem more concerned with following some denominational tradition than they are with what God actually taught. T. Pierce Brown The psalmist wrote; “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Psalm 133: 1). The context of this verse would be concerning the people of God in the times of David in the Old Testament, but the truth or principle would apply to the Lord’s church today. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians the very first issue that he wrote about was the lack of unity that existed in the congregation. “For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you” (1 Corinthians 1:11). Before he began to touch on the many other problems in the church at Corinth Paul wrote first about the division among brothers in Christ, and division not because of doctrine, but because of personal pride that existed among them. It is true that there were many other problems such as their immorality (1 Corinthians 5-7), corruption of worship (1 Corinthians 11-14), as well as other spiritual problems, but it was the division that existed between brethren that Paul first brought to their attention. Paul knew that it would be very difficult for them to address the other problems that they had as a congregation without first having unity in the family of God. Paul encouraged them to seek to restore the unity among them when he wrote; “That no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10). Each Christian has to desire to have unity with other brothers and sisters in Christ and be willing to let opinion always take second place to God’s Word and unity in the church. That part is under our control
It is true that sometimes there will be divisions when some brethren want to follow the pattern of God’s will and others do not. Sound doctrine or the truth will cause divisions between people when some want to obey God and others want to do their own will (Jude 3), but the division under the context of Psalm 133:1 and in the letter to the Corinthians did not come about because of sound doctrine, but in reality just the opposite and that of practicing the false doctrine of pride and the opinions of man taking first place. A Christian must be one who seeks unity among brothers and also promotes it. Paul wrote to the Ephesians; “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4: 3). This challenge is for each brother and sister in Christ. We keep the unity as we obey God’s Word because it is the Word that provides a spiritual unity (Ephesians 4: 4-6). Christians keep the unity when they have humility of mind and attitude toward one another. If a Christian always has to have his way (opinion) about everything then that congregation will see divisions and problems. True biblical unity comes about when a Christian is willing to follow the truth set forth in God’s Word and to put off the pride that bring about division. by Wayne Brewer Steve Wolfgang
Danville, Kentucky Though it is not possible to measure or quantify precisely the impact of premillennialism on the Lord’s church, the influence of this doctrine might appear, at first glance, to be slight.(1) Many people assume that because the doctrine is not actively taught among most churches of Christ it is therefore not worthy of much attention. After all, some reason, most of those actively teaching this doctrine were identified and exposed in the 1930s, weren’t they? Consequently, one does not often hear the doctrine preached about at all, pro or con, in many pulpits today. One of the points we wish to emphasize in this article is that this sort of mentality helped create the climate in which the premillennial conflicts in the Lord’s church earlier this century were fought. Because the doctrine involves some subtle (and some not-so-subtle, to be sure) points of doctrinal discussion, some may be slow to see the significance of a thorough-going system of premillennial thought. Several generations of Christians, unschooled in the teaching and implications of this doctrine, now compose probably a majority of the membership of many congregations of the Lord’s people. Additionally, many have been converted from denominations which are steeped in one form or another of premillennial thought. It is needful for us not only to recall past battles over this doctrine, but to arm ourselves and do some preventative teaching on this subject before the climate becomes too inviting for history to repeat itself. A look at that history may prove to be profitable. Much of pre-Civil War millennial hope took the form of a glorious post-millennialism, which anticipated the reform of society through religious conversion on a scale so grand that the return of Christ would inevitably follow.(2) Like other Americans of their time, many of the early “Restorationists” (Alexander Campbell and his Millennial Harbinger in particular)(3) shared the enthusiastic postmillennial optimism of their contemporaries; like their counterparts they saw their dream of an American millennium dashed by the war which sundered the nation. The aftermath of that conflict lead many who had anticipated the “marriage supper of the Lamb” instead to what has been called “the Great Barbecue.” Post-Civil War Americans witnessed an ever-increasing series of “prophecy conferences” which became an identifying feature of much of conservative Protestantism, later styled “Fundamentalism.”(4) According to one church historian, “dispensationalism became standard for large numbers of Fundamentalists,”(5) and still another recent work identified The Roots of Fundamentalism as “British and American Millennarianism.”(6) Meanwhile, the remnants of whatever socio-religious optimism had survived the nineteenth century normally found expression in “the social gospel.” By the First World War some of these religious liberals found in the Fundamentalists enough of a threat to their own modernism to launch an attack (or counterattack, depending upon one’s viewpoint). It was a frontal assault across the board, not only against the conservatives’ view of miracles and verbal inspiration, rejection of higher criticism and comparative religions, but on the Fundamentalists’ millennial views as well. Shailer Matthews’ journal The Biblical World carried articles on “The Premillennial Menace,” and the Christian Century carried at least 21 anti-premillennial articles during World War I.(7) Naturally, the Fundamentalist response was to return fire, resulting in the full-scale warfare now known as the “Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy” of the 1920s.(8) Though evidently retreating in disarray following the death of William Jennings Bryan immediately after the Scopes Trial, this conservative-premillennial impulse was only shallowly submerged. It remained close enough to the surface of American religion to be seen by anyone who cared to look (which few did – particularly those in the political, social, and religious “mainstream”). Though perhaps finding limited expression in the early Billy Graham campaigns, this undercurrent of extreme premillennial (“dispensational”)(9) religious conservatism found even Graham too “ecumenical” for their taste.(10) As is often the case, conditions in the denominational world had an effect upon some within churches of Christ. In 1908, several gospel preachers helped to arrange a public discussion between Charles T. Russell, leader of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and champion of their brand of millennial theology, and L. S. White, gospel preacher.(11) Among who, according to one source, became enamored of Russell’s style during the debate, and afterward concocted his own brand of premillennial theology.(12) When Boll became the front-page editor of the Gospel Advocate in 1909, he began to use his column as a forum for the introduction and exposition of premillennial concepts. This led to friction with the management and editorial staff of the paper, and Boll was eventually dropped from the staff after a period of editorial skirmishes.(13) A fuller account of these episodes has been related in some detail elsewhere,(14) and the format of this article will not permit us to explore them here. Suffice it to say that through debates and other exchanges occurring over the next twenty years, premillennialists became isolated from other brethren, at least in many places.(15) In truth, since premillennial congregations, preachers, and Christians were a distinct minority among churches of Christ, premillennialism might be seen as having minimal impact on churches of Christ – numerically, at least.(16) Still, they were a visible minority, circulating a paper (Word and Work) and establishing a college at Winchester, KY, and a private school at Portland Avenue in Louisville. Generally, many Christians recognized that a division existed, whatever its size, between the two sides of this issue. However, there was a larger group of Christians “on the fringes” of this movement, who were often referred to as “premillennial sympathizers” and were accused by many of being “soft on premillennialism.” While not publicly advocating the doctrine (indeed, usually publicly disavowing the doctrine iteself), they were seen by the more vocal premillennial opponents as lending moral support, if not aid and comfort, to premillennial advocates.(17) Charges and counter-charges were exchanged regularly from the 1920s to the 1940s and there were several dismissals and/or resignations from the faculties of various “Christian colleges.”(18) Again, the story of these incidents has been recorded elsewhere; to recount them would require more space than we have available. However, an incident not previously published may serve to give some insight into the true impact of the premillennial controversy on the church. Perhaps the single factor most evident during this period was the unwillingness of many brethren, whether openly premillennial or not, to engage in any sort of controversy over the issue. Those who were involved with churches which eventually divided over the issue (for example, M.C. Kurfees and others in the Louisville area where R.H. Boll lived), or those whose disposition was to meet head-on any hint of deviation from sound biblical teaching (Foy E. Wallace, Jr., for instance), could see clearly the actual effects and future implications of the doctrine and would argue the case against premillennialism and its proponents. But others were not inclined to get too excited about the issue, urging “caution,” “love,” and insisting that “God’s grace” would cover deviations about doctrinal matters such as questions about God’s kingdom and the earthly reign of His Son. preached in various places throughout the state of Kentucky and elsewhere. Though dead many years, Jorgenson’s influence is still evident in the area of the country where I now live. He was perhaps best known as the compiler of the hymnal, Great Songs of the Church. When Roy Cogdill came to Louisville for a meeting at the Bardstown Road church in April, 1942, he preached on premillennialism. during the week, and recorded some radio sermons on the subject to be broadcast after he left town. His preaching drew the ire of E.L. Jorgenson, who attempted to get Cogdill banned from the airwaves by surreptitiously writing to the management of radio station WGRC. Like other premillennial teachers, Jorgenson attempted to portray in public the very image of a sweet, loving, “non-controversialist” who wanted no breach of fellowship over the issue. What he (and others like him) apparently meant by insisting on the right to “disagree peacefully” was in reality their “right” to teach as they pleased, while expecting others to hold their peace about the subject. The incident over Cogdill’s radio sermons in Louisville demonstrated a more realistic portrait of premillennial. advocates than they intended. Brother Cogdill had been involved in the fight against premillennial doctrines and teachers in the church from an early age. His first writing was done in 1923 in the Herald of Truth, published by E.M. Borden. It was Borden who made some of the original charges about Harding College’s sympathies toward premillennial teachers. Brother Cogdill had also formed a close friendship with Foy E. Wallace, Jr. – in whose paper Cogdill continued to write about premillennialism and which friendship continued through Wallace’s battles against premillennialists in the 1930s and 40s.(19) Brother Cogdill was preaching at the Norhill church in Houston when that congregation organized the Houston Music Hall meetings in 1946, inviting brother Wallace to preach on the subject of premillennialism – which sermons were later published by brother Cogdill’s printing company as God’s Prophetic Word.(20) Jorgenson wrote to the radio station a month before Cogdill came to town – not waiting even to hear what Cogdill might say. His letter to the radio station charged that only two or three of about thirty churches in the Louisville area supported the kind of preaching Cogdill would do (a blatant falsehood), calling them “dogmatic, sectarian, and bitter in the extreme. . . they do not represent the Churches of this area even in doctrine, much less in spirit and attitude.”(21) Because Jorgenson’s supposedly confidential letter was released to others and later published in the bulletin of one church, readers were (and are) able to judge for themselves who had the “attitude problem.” But it is this very idea that we wish to emphasize in the conclusion of this article. Historical hindsight seems to suggest that the churches in this period were experiencing a change of “climate.” Several decades had passed since their major rupture with the “Christian churches,” and a second (even the beginnings of a third) generation had come to maturity. Many preachers and Christians seemed to be allergic to any sort of controversy, and willing to do nearly anything to avoid it, including embracing premillennial teachers (if not their doctrine), “running interference” for them, and, at best, ignoring critics of premillennialism. Often, the only attack some were willing to make was to attack the opponents of the premillennial teachers. It has been noticed by contemporary observers, including this author, that the descendant of those in premillennial churches are very open to “Restoration ecumenists” such as W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett.(22) Often, one hears premillennial theorists refer to their conception of God’s “grace” as making millennial views relatively unimportant (though they continue to insist upon teaching their particular views of millennial theories). Several years ago, two of the surviving leaders of the premillennial churches commented upon the situation in years past, both mentioning some surprisingly similar ideas regarding the flavor of premillennialism. among churches of Christ. LaVern Houtz, president of the premillennial college (Southeastern Christian College at Winchester, KY), was interviewed in 1967 for the “avant-garde” (read: “liberal”) publication, Mission, by David Stewart of Sweet Publishing Company. When asked about “the attitude of openness among premillennialists,” Houtz said, “Among our brethren there is a great emphasis on grace rather than on legalism. The love of God manifested in Christ makes us more tolerant. We do not have as many tests of fellowship as does the legalist who bases salvation on doctrinal conformity.” Houtz also admitted the possibility that “premillennial churches of Christ feel a closer kinship to premillennial denominational groups than they do to other amillennial Churches of Christ.”(23) Several years later, H.E. Schreiner, a stalwart among premillennial churches in Louisville (Schreiner had debated Robert Welch on the premillennial question in 1956), was asked by Ron Durham (then editor of Mission) to publish an article describing the premillennial movement. Durham was impressed with Schreiner’s “maintaining that the thousand-year reign was not the most basic issue at all in this particular division . . . The main issue, Schreiner says, was the doctrine of grace . . . The ‘pre-mills’ depended so heavily on the return of Christ that they also depended heavily on the forgiveness he would bring, and in fact appropriated it confidently in the present. Thus they enjoyed greater confidence of salvation than main liners. . .”(24) That Durham is not misrepresenting is evident from Schreiner’s own comment that “the real issue dividing us was the grace of God. I found many who were depending upon their correct doctrinal position for salvation.”(25) I must say that I find this particularly instructive in view of some current circumstances. It is dangerous to attempt to overdraw historical “parallels,” but we have heard much in the last fifteen years about “God’s grace” (or at least, some preacher’s perceptions of it), from some who seem to have an “aversion to controversy” (i.e., who want the right to teach their views about “fellowship” without being criticized). Some of those advocating “wider fellowship” have found a ready audience among a younger generation which grew up in relative peace, not having experienced firsthand the doctrinal controversies which tested the mettle of their spiritual forebears. I must wonder how much of the discussion has truly been about scriptural teaching on “grace,” and how much has been simply a mask for the yearnings of some for wider fellowship and greater “respectability.” One wonders whether it was the case that premillennialism. had an “impact” on the church, or whether the type of climate had developed among churches in which many Christians either welcomed the doctrine, or, at least, were quite disinclined to consider its implications and confront this false doctrine. Certainly it is true that the doctrine itself developed from denominational ideas and contacts with sectarian preachers and publications – it certainly did not originate from the Scriptures. But the “impact” in terms of number of converts to the doctrine and preachers openly advocating premillennialism was slight. More significant, however, was the revelation of the larger numbers of Christians who were unwilling to oppose anything except those who were combatting the premillennial teachers. By the time that generation (and their children) and others they converted came to maturity, the time was ripe and the stage was set for a fullscale division in the 1950s. If it is true that “those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it” (and it is certainly true that “there is nothing new under the sun”), then we need to inform ourselves, “lest we forget.” Obviously, the “issues” of the future will not be the same, identical “issues” of past generations. The motivations, aspirations, and tactics of digressive teachers, however, often remain the same from generation to generation. It is a time for study, a time to teach about these issues and attitudes, and a time for resolve that we shall not fall victim to error – whether of teaching, practice, or attitude toward God, His word, or our brethren. Endnotes1. In 1976, a well-known premillennial preacher estimated that “today we number about 12,000 members” (H.E. Schreiner, “Of Love and Labels and the Thousand-year Reign” [Mission, 9:9, April, 19761, P. 198). Several years earlier, the president of the premillennial college at Winchester, KY, bracketed that figure with an estimate of “about 120 congregations embracing a membership of between 8,000 and 15,000 members” (David Stewart, “On Premillennial Views: An Interview With LaVem Houtz” [Mission, 2:8, February, 1969], p. 248). The following section of this article, with accompanying notes, comes from the author’s “Millennialism and the American Political Dream, in Guardian of Truth, 26:4 (January 28, 1982), pp. 54-58t, reprinted in A Study of Premillennialism (Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1982), pp. 100-112. Footnotes in this article are primarily to guide readers who might be interested to appropriate sources for further reading. 2. See, David Edwin Harrell, Quest for a Christian America (Nashville, DCHS, 1966), pp. 39-58. 3. See Steve Wolfgang & Ron Halbrook, “Alexander Campbell & The Spirit of the Revolution, I & II,” in Truth Magazine, 22 (February 16 & 23, 1978), pp. 123ff. & 137ff. See also Richard T. Hughes, “From Primitive Church to Civil Religion: the Millennial Oddyssey of Alexander Campbell,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 44 (March, 1976), pp. 87-103; and Earl Kimbrough, “How the Restorers Dealt With Prophecy,” in The Restoration Heritage in America (Florida College Annual Lectures, 1976), pp. 57ff. 4. Named for a series of pamphlets titled “The Fundamentals” first appearing about 1910 and issued in four bound volumes by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1917. 5. C.C. Goen, “Fundamentalism in America,” in American Mosaic. Social Patterns of Religion in the United States (Phillip E. Hammon & Benton Johnson, eds.; New York; Random House, 1970), p. 87. 6. Ernest R. Sandeen (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970); reprinted in paperback edition by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978). Other recent studies of Fundamentalism include C. Allyn Russell, Voices of American Fundamentalism: Seven Biographical Studies (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976); and the excellent recent book of George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism & American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), cited below. 7. Marsden, pp. 147-148, 271. 8. For an excellent documentary of some aspects of the conflict, see Willard B. Gatewood, Controversy in the Twenties.- Fundamentalism, Modernism & Evolution (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969). 9. The following books may be useful in separating the various strands of millennial thought (postmillennial, premillennial, amillennial, dispensational, pre-tribulational, post-tribulational, etc.): Robert C. Clouse, ed. The Meaning of The Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), with chapters by George Eldon Ladd (Historic Premillennialism), Herman A. Hoyt (Dispensational Premillennialism), Lorraine Boettner (Postmillennialism), and Anthony A. Hoekema (Amillennialism): Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, ME Eerdmans, 1979); Millard J. Erickson, Contemporary Options in Eschatology: A Study of the Millennium (Grand Rapids, ME Baker, 1977); For some historical backgrounds see Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), and C. Norman Kraus, Dispensationalism in America: Its Rise and Development (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1958). 10. Steve Wolfgang, “Neo-Evangelicals: Shift Toward Modernism, ” in Truth Magazine, 22:43 (November 2, 1973), pp. 694-696, especially note 61. 11. The debate was edited by F.L. Rowe and published as the Russell- White Debate (Cincinnati, 1909). See Earl West, “L.S. White,” Restoration Quarterly, 20:3 (Third Quarter 1977), pp. 151-155. 12. Robert C. Welch, “R.H. Boll: Premillennial Visionary,” in Melvin D. Curry, ed., They Being Dead Yet Speak: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981, p. 52. See also Welch’s article, “Why Fellowship Does Not Exist With Premillennialists,” in A Study of Premillennialism, pp. 113-118. 13. Welch, “R.H. Boll,” p. 53. See also Edward Fudge, “Millennialism in the Restoration Movement,” Gospel Guardian, 21:12-14 (July 24-August 7, 1969), pp. 182-183. 14. William Woodson, Standing For Their Faith: A History Of Churches of Christ in Tennessee, 1900-1950 (Henderson, TN: J & W Publications, 1979), pp. 107-130. 15. Probably the best-known debates on this question were (1) the Boll-Boles debate, entitled Unfulfilled Prophecy. A Discussion of Prophetic Themes (a written debate carried in the Gospel Advocate from May to November, 1927, and later published in the book form); and (2) the Neal-Wallace Discussion on the Thousand Years Reign of Christ (an oral debate also published by the Gospel Advocate, as a book, in 1933). Neal and Wallace had a similar discussion in Chattanooga, TN. In 1956, H.E. Schreiner debated Robert C. Welch in Louisville on this question, and this debate was also published. 16. A quick glance at Mac Lynn’s Where The Saints Meet for 1983 (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation, 1982), shows approximately 100 premillennial congregations, primarily in Kentucky (36), Indiana (17) and Louisiana (26), with the remainder scattered through about ten other states. 17. Cecil Willis, W. W. Otey: Contender For the Faith (Akron: By the Author, 1964), pp. 264-267, 304, 310-312. 18. Lloyd Cline Sears, For Freedom: The Biography of John Nelson Armstrong (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing, 1969), pp. 213-219, 275-299, especially 215-216. Sears was Armstrong’s son-in-law. See also William S. Banowsky, Mirror of a Movement: Churches of Christ as Seen Through the Abilene Christian College Lectureship (Dallas: Christian Publishing Company, 1965), pp. 196-199, and especially pp. 223-224). 19. Sears, pp. 213-215,277.! See also Roy E. Cogdill, “It is Written” (Guardian of Truth, 27:22 [November 17, 1983], pp. 685-686 [reprinted from Herald of Truth, 3:3-4, April 12-19, 1923]). Several of Cogdill’s articles from the 1930s have recently been reprinted in the Guardian of Truth. See “The Present Position of Jesus,” Guardian of Truth, 26:12 (April 15, 1982), pp. 224ff. (reprinted from Gospel Guardian, 1:1 [October, 1935], p. 33); and “The First and Second Coming of Christ,” Guardian of Truth, 26:17 (July 1, 1982), pp. 397ff. (reprinted from Gospel Guardian, 2:2 [February 19361, p. 27). 20. Steve Wolfgang, “There Were Giants in the Earth: A Sketch of the Life of Roy E. Cogdill” (Guardian of Truth, 29:14 [July 18, 1985], pp. 419ff). The author is at work on a biography of Roy Cogdill. 21. Jorgenson to Program Director, WGRC, Louisville, KY, April 16, 1942. A file of Jorgenson’s letters was on deposit in the Southeastern Christian College Library in 1976; xerox copies are in the author’s possession. The college was closed in 1979, and I am not aware of what became of Jorgenson’s papers. Also included in the file was a five-page “Analysis of Attack” by Jorgenson, Boll, and Cecil B. Douthitt, then living in Louisville, and a “confidential” letter to Jorgenson from J.N. Armstrong attacking Foy E. Wallace, Jr., as the editor of a “slanderous” paper with “evil designs. ” 22. See Connie W. Adams, “A Pernicious Error Lives On,” Searching the Scriptures, 23:2 (February, 1982), pp. 27f. 23. Stewart, op. cit., p. 249. 24. Ron Durham, “In the Margins,” Mission, 9:9 (April, 1976), p. 194. 25. Schreiner, op. cit., p. 198 |
Archives
January 2022
Categories
All
|
Site powered by Weebly.Managed by Baggies Web Solutions
Copyright © Eagle Park church of Christ 2022, All Rights Reserved