May 11, 2009 | Articles
There are a lot of folks today talking about Pharisaic behavior. It is interesting to see what is most commonly labeled with this title. Typically it is used to refer to a perceived over ambition to follow the “letter of the law.” Legalism, if you will.
There is no doubt that the Pharisee’s view of the law was seriously flawed, and their rejection of Jesus was rooted in this self-righteous view of the Law. They reasoned that because they possessed the law in written form, and because they were children of Abraham, they should be able to attain complete righteousness on their own merit and had no need of a savior. Jesus corrected them of this view by showing them that they, though following many of the ceremonial laws very closely, had still sinned in other areas. They had neglected the moral laws and the principles of kindness, love and decency toward their neighbors and in doing so they had “swallowed a camel while straining out gnats.” Notice then, that the Lord’s condemnation of Pharisaic Legalism was not that they tried to follow the law as closely as possible, Jesus never failed to emphasize the importance of obedience, but that they thought they could attain personal righteousness without a savior, by adhering to a few ceremonies and rituals. (Matt. 23:23)
Does this attitude exist in the church today? I suppose it may. There may be some who feel that simply because they were raised in a faithful church and have family in the Church and follow a few important ordinances that they don’t need a savior, but that is a pretty serious charge. Jesus could read the hearts of those Pharisee’s; I cannot read the hearts of my brethren. I am inclined to believe that there are not many in the Church today that are like those Pharisee’s of old. Most with an attitude like they had would probably not see the need for the emphasis we place on the Gospel and would feel that their own goodness would be sufficient to save them in the last day.
But, even as I doubt that many in the church today really have that “pharisaic” view of self-righteousness obtained through the law, I do see many who certainly demonstrate Pharisaic Behavior, and it is troubling. There was something else about the Pharisee’s which was frequently rebuked and condemned by Jesus, and that was their arrogance and ostentatious religion. Notice the showiness of the Pharisee in a familiar parable of the Lord, “Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men-extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9-14)
Notice the contrast? The Pharisee loudly, flamboyantly declared all of his goodness and greatness, while the tax collector quietly, personally prayed to God. In this case we find the Pharisee boasting in his accomplishments, but occasionally we find them boasting in their HUMILITY! What a definition of the “false humility” spoken of by the Apostle Paul. (Col. 2:23) “Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.” (Matt. 6:1-4) “Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.” (16-18)
When I see people posting (or, should I say boasting) their prayer schedule on the internet, or constantly making quips, jabs and subtle indications that they are so much more spiritually minded than their frivolous brethren, I see pharisaic behavior. I certainly believe that we should demonstrate Christ in our lives, but isn’t it enough to just live the life of a Christian, will this not be perceived by those around you as godly, and yet not as arrogant, giving glory to Him and not to you? I suppose that those who seek to abandon the aspects of Christian living that so visibly distinguish us from the world (modesty, gender distinction, shamefacedness) are forced to “speak and post” their religion in order to make it known, perhaps that should serve as an indication. Can folks not identify you as a Child of God without a verbal introduction as such? If so, that is a shame friend. The Lord said that we may know what manner of person a person is by the “fruit they bear.” When men and women go about judging the hearts of their brethren with clever, sarcastic insults while at the same time bragging of their leaves to hide their barren branches, the church will suffer!
If you have a legitimate concern for the souls of your brethren, and honestly feel that they might be seeking to attain righteousness by some other way than the Way, you should go to them and guide them back to the truth, but before you start branding people “Pharisees” “remove the beam from your own eye.” – CED
Like this:
Like Loading...
Mar 27, 2009 | Articles
There are few themes more central to the religion of Christianity than the doctrine of Christ’s second coming. It is the hope and comfort of all believers, “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” (John 14:1-3) It is the driving force in the Christian’s service and holy life! From that awesome day when the disciples watched the Lord ascend into the heavens and disappear from their sight, when the angels appeared before the bewildered host and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11) It has been the watchful, earnest expectation that any day, Christ could split the eastern sky and appear for the second time. For such a central and vital doctrine to the Christian faith, it would be safe to say that there is no other subject that the modern religious world is more divided on. Ideas and theories about the Second Coming of Christ have driven some to cultic extremism, some to infidelity and others to every imaginable idea in-between.
Two of the most prominent theories regarding the second coming are those of the A.D. 70 Theory, which places all matters dealing with the second coming and related themes in the past and Pre-millennialism, which places almost every prophetic utterance in the Bible in the future and directly relates it to the second coming of Christ. It is my belief that both of these theories and many ideas in-between them do not mesh with the teachings of scripture. We propose to offer a brief explanation of what the Bible teaches about the second coming of Christ. And why some of these commonly accepted theories cannot possibly be true.
This is an important question to ask and to answer because it might be established that since his “first coming” Jesus has “come” again at least twice already! In some sense it is certainly true the Jesus “came” at Pentecost when He established His kingdom. And many others believe that He “came” in the destruction of Jerusalem in another sense, but are these the events that are being referred to by the second coming? In Hebrews 9:27-28 the Bible says, “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.” This statement, made many years after Pentecost, is teaching something very important about the “second coming.” Very few would deny that in a sense Christ came at Pentecost, but it was very different from his first coming, as it was neither personal nor visible, and it was obviously not the second coming because the Hebrew writer speaks of that as being a future event. Most would also agree that in some sense Jesus came at the Destruction of Jerusalem, but this was much more like the coming on Pentecost than his first coming. No, when the Hebrew writer says that He will “appear a second time” it must be referring to something like the first time! It is speaking of a personal, visible coming that is taught many, many times in the scripture.(2 Pet. 3:10; 1 Thess. 4:17; Matt. 25:31-32)
Christ’s statements about His coming in Matthew 24, and its parallels in Mark 13 and Luke 17, are among the most controversial of all statements regarding the matter. There are many statements which seem to have an unquestionable reference to the coming of Christ, the end of the World and the judgment of the Nations and yet Jesus says very forcefully, “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” (Mark 13:30) How can this be? Some, like Albert Schweitzer and Bertram Russell, claimed that this proved that Christ was not the son of God because here were prophecies that didn’t come to pass. Others, like the A.D. 70 advocates claimed that it did come to pass in the Destruction of Jerusalem, and everybody has been interpreting the second coming totally wrong for the past 2000 years. Still others tried to make the whole discourse regard future events by claiming that the word “generation” means the Jewish race. And finally we find those who say that this verse divides the chapter into two parts, the first part dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem and the last part dealing with the Second Coming. There are problems with all of these theories. I believe that what Jesus said would happen, did happen, and what he said will happen is going to happen. I do not believe that the A.D. 70 theory is Scripturally plausible but neither do I believe that Premillennialism is Scripturally plausible.
And finally, while the last idea, of verses like Matthew 13:30 serving as a dividing mark sounds good on the surface, their great weakness is in the fact that they are preceded by verses like, “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven.” (Mark13:26-27)
I suggest another alternative. In Ezekiel 37 there is an interesting prophecy made about dry bones coming to life and being clothed again with flesh and blood. To the Jewish reader this would have brought to mind the great doctrine of the bodily resurrection, something that all Jews would have been familiar with and would have believed. (Job 19:26; 1 Sam. 2:6; 2 Sam. 12:22) But, a close examination of the text will show that the bodily resurrection was not the primary focus of Ezekiel’s message! The message was regarding the restoration of Israel from Babylonian Captivity to their homeland, but this was a difficult notion for the Jews to accept, so the prophet pictured it with something they had no trouble believing in. (Ezekiel 37:1-14) I believe that we see the same thing in Matthew 24 and its parallels. The disciples had already accepted Christ’s divinity and his promises for his returning and judgment on the world, but they had great difficulty is understanding that God was going to destroy Jerusalem and was finished with his specific work with the Jewish Nation, as is evident in Acts 1:6, “Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
So, Jesus, like Ezekiel of old, used something believed and accepted (His second coming and the Judgment of the World) to illustrate something that was not understood nor believed (the Destruction of Jerusalem and the End of the Jewish Age). Ezekiel’s comments are not a literal account of how the resurrection will occur, but they do teach us something about it in a secondary manner, the same goes for Jesus’ statements in Matthew 24. There are some things in Matthew 24 which might teach something about the second coming, but primarily, these comments serve as a picture of the destruction of Jerusalem. Above all things, it is important to remember this: 1) Although the resurrection was used to picture the restoration of Israel, the restoration of Israel is not the bodily resurrection and 2) although the Second Coming was used to picture the Destruction of Jerusalem, the Destruction of Jerusalem was not the Second Coming!
The fatal flaw of the theories of Premillennialism and A.D. 70 is in their teaching that the world will continue to exist and function after the second coming. If it could be established that this is an impossible notion, then these theories would fall. There are several things which serve us to this end. The ascension of the living and resurrection of the dead, the judgment of all the world and the destruction of the material universe, all of which are connected to the second coming, seem to me to be strong enough reasons to establish that the world will not continue after the second coming, even for a brief moment, the idea that the world and the affairs of men could go on for 2000 years is utterly preposterous! But there is more evidence to this end.
It is interesting to note that there is a time limit put on the ordnances of worship. Notice what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:26 regarding the Lord’s Supper, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” That the Lord’s Supper was the centerpiece of all first century worship services is evident by the wording of Acts 20:6, “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread…” The conclusion? If the Lord’s Supper was “until He comes” then after He comes there will be no more precedent to assemble for worship. If so where is the scripture for it?
In the mid 1800’s James White and his wife Ellen began to travel across the United States preaching the Miller Prophecy Chart which predicted the Second Coming of Christ in October 22, 1844. When this did not occur the “Adventists adopted the view that probation for sinners and all the unconverted world ended in 1844.” Mrs. White stated, “Christ’s work as man’s intercessor before God had ceased.” Over time, of course, this idea was abandoned, but it brings to mind the very real biblical doctrine that one day the “door of mercy will be shut.” One day the opportunity for gospel obedience will end! Now, we read in Revelation 14:6 that the gospel is “everlasting.” But this statement is made to teach that as long as this world stands, the gospel will be available. Notice the words of Christ as he gave the Great Commission:
“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.”
What does this mean? Are we to imagine a world where Jesus is no longer with his people? If we imagine that the world continues after the second coming (the end of the age) this is our predicament. After the Second Coming there is no mention of salvation, only judgment. In Romans 14:11 the Bible says, “For it is written: “As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.” Now this is not to suggest universal salvation at the second coming, such would be in gross contradiction to countless other passages, rather this passage refers to the fact that at the second coming there will be a universal acknowledgment of Christ’s divinity.
A world with no salvation and no worship! Could there be anything more preposterous? And yet such would be the case if the theories of Premillennialism and A.D. 70 were true! Even if you were to “spiritualize” the resurrection, the judgment and the end of the world, you are still faced with the fact that the world could not possibly continue after the second coming. Jesus Christ is coming back my friends! And with him come the end of this world and this system and the beginning of the eternal system. When He comes the second time walking on the water will be child’s play, for He will come stepping on the clouds! May our daily prayer be, “Come quickly Lord Jesus!” Amen. – CED
Like this:
Like Loading...
Mar 11, 2009 | Articles
What would you think if someone were to ask you your thoughts on realized eschatology? What about hyper-preterism or Max-Kingism? Most would probably be dumbfounded by such terms, and there is no shame in that, because these are all alternate titles to the little known idea most commonly called the A.D. 70 Theory. It is uncertain just how old this theory is but it did not become widely accepted in theology until the 1800’s when it began to be propagated by a sectarian preacher named James S. Russell in his book, The Parousia, taken from the Greek word for the coming of Christ.
The basic idea of the book was that the second coming of Christ, in fact all biblical prophecy (the judgment of nations, the resurrection of the body, the end of the world etc.) was fulfilled in or by the destruction of the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. (thus the term Realized Eschatology, meaning that the “last things” are already realized or accomplished and Hyper-Preterism, meaning that everything in Bible prophecy has already occurred in the past) This bizarre notion turned Christian theology on its ear and cause those who accepted the theory to totally reinvent the way they read the Bible. In the 1960’s an Ohio preacher named Max King introduced the theory into the cups/Sunday-school churches of Christ and brought one of the greatest divisions of its kind since the Boll Premillennial Movement. Until recent years the movement has been virtually non-existent among our brethren, but it has begun to rear its head, and for this reason we face it with the word of God.
The A.D. 70 Theory is the antithesis of Premillennialism, which makes the mistake of taking everything in the Bible literally, sometimes to the absurd! In like manner the A.D. 70 advocates make everything figurative or spiritual, also many times to the absurd! To the Realized Eschatologist, the judgment was God’s punishment of the Jewish Nation for rejecting Jesus, the end of the world was the end of the Jewish World (their religious and civil system), and the bodily resurrection was the resurrection of the Church, the Body of Christ, from a supposed 40 years of wilderness wandering (???) and the second coming was when Christ came to reign over his kingdom which, we are told, was not established fully until A.D. 70. This means that there will be no future coming of Christ, no end of the material universe, no judgment of the world and no resurrection of the physical bodies of men and women. Interpretations of what all of this means for us vary greatly, but looking at the history of the A.D. 70 theory will reveal that it has been the cause of much evil in religion. Notice the words of the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 2:16-18, “But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.” It is not clear what the nature of this false doctrine was, but I attest that it must have been similar to the modern A.D. 70 Theory and today the faith of many is “overthrown” by this great heresy. I would like to briefly consider some of the ideas that have resulted from different people’s acceptance of this doctrine.
Universalism
In the 1800’s this doctrine was beginning to gain some popularity in the religious world, as can be seen by the fact the Brother Benjamin Franklin, a notable preacher from the Restoration Movement spent much time addressing and refuting it in his Gospel Sermons vol. 1. When Brother Franklin debated Erasmus Manford on the subject of Universalism, Mr. Manford showed how he had come to accept universalism as a result of his believing the A.D. 70 theory. Since he believed that the judgment had already passed, he concluded that the future held no judgment at all, only purification and salvation. Perhaps Mr. Manford was more honest and consistent than some of his modern heirs are willing to be with the logical conclusions of the theory.
Hyper-Celibacy
Most students of religious history in America are familiar with the now extinct religious sect known as the “Shakers.” So called because of their worship services in which they would “shake and jerk” supposedly under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but they are perhaps most famous for their unique teaching on physical relationships. The Shakers taught what might be called “hyper-celibacy” in that they condemned marriage and forced all couples who were converted to separate and give their children over to be raised by the church. This teaching resulted in the group literally dying out! One might ask why anyone would believe such a bizarre doctrine, and the answer is once again in the A.D. 70 theory. The Shakers believed that they were living in the resurrection time and thus there was no “marrying or giving in marriage.” (Matthew 22:30)
Once Saved Always Saved
Sometime ago I was involved in a study with a preacher who had become a follower of the A.D. 70 school and in the course of our conversation I asked him about the Lord’s statement in Matthew 22:30 that in the resurrection we would, “die no more.” I pointed out to him that if this referred to physical death then you would be faced with the absurd notion of 2000 year old people walking around today! However, if we should take the position that the death Jesus referred to was “spiritual” then the result is the doctrine of eternal salvation, or once-saved-always-saved. I was told by this preacher that “if that was where he was led then that was where he would go.” If he went there, he would not be alone. There have been many religious organizations who have been led by the A.D. 70 theory to believe in the impossibility of “spiritual death” for the believer.
The Spiritual Supper
One of the most glaring doctrinal difficulties of the A.D. 70 theory is the impact it has on the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” It is the opinion of this writer that this scripture offers one of the most devastating blows to the A.D. 70 Theory. One of the purposes of communion is to declare the Lord’s Death, “till he comes.” Was the Lord’s supper only an ordinance of the church for 40 years? Many A.D. 70 advocates say yes. Notice this explanation offered by the Pensacola Orthodox Preterist Baptist Assembly in their statement of faith about the Lord’s Supper “We believe that the Lord’s Supper was the commemoration of His death, burial, and resurrection, and the New Testament saints observed it until He came. Our Lord said that he would not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God would come, and it came in AD 70. Then the Lord’s Supper was made new in the New Covenant in the spiritual kingdom of God thereby now, since AD 70 we have endless communion and fellowship with the Lord in observing the Lord’s supper anew without the elements, spiritually and perpetually because He, the Lord, dwells with us and in us by His Spirit in the spiritual kingdom of God.” “We believe every time that the assembly assembles together to worship we observe the Lord’s Supper spiritually.” “We believe the Lord’s table is always set with spiritual food and we are always and at all times invited to come and dine with him not in the flesh but spiritually.” [1] Most A.D. 70 advocates in the churches of Christ word it that the communion is now a “celebration of Christ’s reign.” To some that might sound like a convincing answer, but where is the scriptural proof? All of the scriptures quoted on their website, in fact all of the scriptures in the Bible, according to them, were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (the Second Coming) so how do we know how to worship after the second coming? The confusion that this strange idea causes about the Lord’s Supper has led many to the next position we will consider.
No Need For Church
When I discuss the idea of Realized Eschatology with people in the Church, and even in the world, the same question continually arises: “If this is true, then what is the point of it all? What it the point of the Church? What is the Point of Christianity?” There is no doubt that the A.D. 70 Theory seems to rob much of the glory and hope from the Christian religion and has led some to outright infidelity![2] The hope of the Resurrection, the redemption of the body, has been the hope of God’s people through the ages. The hope of the second coming of Christ is a central theme of Christianity and was a doctrine taught to all Christians everywhere. The Day of Judgment and the destruction of the material universe are principle points of Christian theology. Christianity is incomplete without them and taking these great doctrines away will leave an empty space in the religion of Christ. As we have seen, some have tried to fill that empty space with new theories and wild ideas while others have been driven to the point of giving up on the church all together.
How true it is to claim that “the resurrection is already past” will over throw men’s faith! And so we resolve to give Biblical proof for the truth on these great themes that are challenged by the A.D. 70 Theory. Some today have tried to say that this theory is not so dangerous and can coexist with the other ideas about end times, but let this be the proof to the contrary. The A.D. 70 theory is a heresy against the word of God and must not be tolerated in our pulpits and its advocates should not be supported.
In coming weeks we will write on the following subjects:
1. The Second Coming of Christ
2. The Bodily Resurrection
3. The Judgment of the Nations
4. The Destruction of the World
5. The Establishment, Identity and Future of the Kingdom
Please check the website each week to reason with us on these great Bible themes. – CED
[1] http://www.preteristbaptist.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=articlesoffaith.index
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer#Theology
Like this:
Like Loading...
Feb 26, 2009 | Articles
That J.W. McGarvey, the little giant of the Restoration Movement, was opposed to instrumental music in worship, is a fact too well known to be disputed. While in Lexington, KY some years ago, my wife and I visited the Broadway Christian Church, where McGarvey preached and held membership for many years. We were met by Marshall Leggett, who was then the personable minister of that church. He proudly pointed to a large picture of McGarvey hanging on the wall and remarked. “He left when they put in the instrument.” Leroy Garrett, writing in One Body, recently acknowledged that McGarvey “objected to the instrument as much as anyone in our history.” Garrett then quoted McGarvey as saying, “I have never proposed to withdraw fellowship from brethren simply because of their use of instrumental music in worship.”
However, I have read a quote several times in different papers which was attributed to McGarvey which indicates that he felt that he had made a mistake in his approach to fellowship and the use of the instrument in worship. The latest version appears in Firm Foundation, April 8, 1986. It is an account of an exchange between McGarvey and Jesse P. Sewell in which McGarvey reportedly said, “Brother Sewell, I want to say something to you, if you’ll accept it in the spirit in which I mean it.” Sewell told him he’d appreciate anything he had to say to him, and Sewell gave this account of his statement: “You are on the right road, and whatever you do, don’t let anybody persuade you that you can successfully combat error by fellowshipping it and going along with it. I have tried. I believed at the start that was the only way to do it. I’ve never held membership in a congregation that uses instrumental music. I have, however, accepted invitations to preach without distinction between churches that used it and churches that didn’t. I’ve gone along with their papers and magazines and things of that sort. During all these years I have taught the truth as the New Testament teaches it to every young preacher who has passed through the College of the Bible. Yet, I do not know of more than six of those men who are preaching the truth today. It won’t work.” This was about ten years before McGarvey’s death in 1912.
I would like to point out to my brethren that McGarvey was also opposed to individual communion cups. Can we learn a lesson from McGarvey as he viewed the scene at the twilight of his illustrious career? Does his statement tell us anything about the folly of lending influence and encouragement to something that is wrong? No doubt, McGarvey thought he was doing the right thing, but if this quote is accurate, he came to see the inconsistency of his course. McGarvey believed the instrument in worship and individual cups were fads that would pass away with the passing of the years, but perhaps he came to see that “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone” (Hos 4:19).
If I know my own heart, I can say that I have nothing but the kindliest feelings for brethren who have embraced Sunday School, individual cups in the communion, and instrumental music in worship. I am concerned about them and I pray that they may come to a knowledge of the truth. I sincerely and fervently hope that the day may come when we can lock arms and fight the evils of sin and division together, but I am convinced that I will never bring them to a knowledge of the truth by joining in with them in their error.
Some years ago a man said to me. “If I were to ever begin preaching, I would start in the beer joints and taverns.” At the time, I thought there might be some validity in his statement. But in the light of clearer thinking, I realize that many of those who are in those places are there by choice and may even be there because they know they are in a place which is void of anything resembling gospel preaching. What influence would I have if I walked in and made myself comfortable in their midst?
I say that McGarvey gave good advice. In the quest for that unity which the psalmist David declared to be both good and pleasant, (Psalm 133:1), let us never be tempted to stray into the paths of error. Remember, our light may be the only one those in error will ever see. – Johnny Elmore
Like this:
Like Loading...
Feb 14, 2009 | Field Reports
During the month of January I was privileged to travel with Brother Mike Criswell to Moscow and Penza , Russia . I am very appreciate of the opportunity and the confidence show in me by the church at 85th and Euclid in Kansas City , MO. In my estimation the trip was very fruitful. We spent two weeks in Penza (the church in Tula had unfortunately dissolved prior to our coming) and preached each night. The first night Mike began by preaching verse-by-verse through Ephesians 1 and I followed up with a theme sermon from some idea discussed the night before and we would have questions and answers after the service. We continued through Ephesians up until that Saturday, but the question revealed that those brethren are not as effected by Calvinism as we are here in the states, and we changed our direction the next week. Sunday Mike spoke on the “Seed of the Kingdom” and Monday I began a series on the History of the Russian Orthodox Church with mike following up by addressing specific doctrines (Priesthood, miracles, icons etc.) The crowds grew and the discussions were very productive. By the time we were ready to leave those brethren had become very dear to me and I was sad to go, but it is my prayer that more conservative preachers will make trips to that land to encourage those churches in their difficult struggle to stand for the Faith of Christ. Upon my return to America I was able to worship with the brethren here in Columbia before I left for a meeting in Turlock , California . The Meeting in Turlock went wonderfully with good attendance throughout the meeting including several preachers. It was an absolute joy to stay in the home of Brother and Sister Rodney Nelson and to get to visit with Richard and Glenda DeGough and the other brethren there. I know of few finer people in all the world. My next meeting is not until April, and so I look forward to spend time working here at home with these brethren. I solicit your prayers for the work. – CED
Like this:
Like Loading...
