⛪️⛪️⛪️⛪️⛪️⛪️⛪️⚓️⛪️⛪️⛪️⛪️⛪️⛪️⛪️🦅   This thunder-clouded, swarthy faced crowd gathered ‘round the early morning Bible class on the Temple steps, sarcastically calling “Rabbi,” to this Jesus Who taught the people and His disciples.   They were gleefully anticipating the answer from Jesus, in words they could use to entrap Him and expose Him as an imposter and enemy of the Temple and Sanhedrin.  They had thrown a woman into his circle, a woman who had been caught earl early that predawn morning, in the “very act” of adultery.  (Strange it is there was no thought or mention of the man whom had been “with” her.  But I digress.)   “Moses said every woman that is caught in adultery should be stoned to death!  What say ye Rabbi?,” the question hurled in anticipation of the entrapment of Jesus and His answer.   Some of those shadowy dark oppressors were already stooping to pick up stones to throw, others of the Posse of Religious Perfection ready at the hearing of one fact that would spur them on, stood at the ready to quickly stoop to pick up a stone.  These religious custodians of other peoples lives always were ready to stoop as low as it would take, to pick up a ready stone to be hurled at the object of their demonic hatred.   They stooped low enough to pick up stones; lower even than the guilty (no doubt of that) woman that had been thrown to the ground in a heap, half laying there, half slumped in a semi-raised position.   And Jesus . . . He just stooped even lower than the rest, not saying a word and with divine finger wrote in the dirt.  He paused and looked up at the Posse of Religious Perfection long enough to look in their eyes and say, “He who is without sin, let him first cast a stone.”  He simply stooped again, even lower than the guilty woman and resumed writing with His finger in the dust.     I don’t know what he wrote, but I know that one by one, stones were heard being dropped to the ground.  The sound of shuffling sandals scraping the cobble stoned pavement, scurrying away like rats to the safety of their dark shadowy realm of light-less security.   And Jesus, Whose classroom became a debacle and farce of a courtroom/plaza of lopsided and hate-filled graceless justice, turned into a Spiritual Hospital or ICU of Restoration as He Who was the personification of Grace and Mercy, said to the guilty shame-faced cowering whimpering woman; “Where are thine accusers?”  He asked.  “I have no accusers sir,  the courtyard is empty; they are gone.”   Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more.”   ~********~   I’ve heard it said, and have said it as well; “Don’t get in the stone-throwing business!”   “Once you have stooped and thrown the stone; it just cannot be ‘un-thrown!’”   I cannot say it loud enough!   You cannot un-throw a stone!   ~ Dr. John R. Crist ~ ~ The Breachmender ~ ~ Committed To His Kingdom Purpose ~

By C. M. Bone Table of Contents 1.Introduction 2.The Honor of the Ministry 3.Understanding the Pastoral Calling 4.The Role of a Pastor 5.The Divine Anointing 6.The Weight of Responsibility 7.The True Shepherd vs. The Hireling 8.The Attack on Pastoral Leadership 9.The Call to Serve 10.Walking Worthy of the Calling 11.Conclusion 1. Introduction In the quiet moments of reflection, I have often pondered the profound calling of God upon men to preach the Gospel. It is a calling that humbles me deeply, for God has enabled me, counted me faithful, and placed me into the ministry. This booklet is a collection of thoughts and insights regarding the sacred vocation of pastoral ministry, a role that is both honorable and humbling. 2. The Honor of the Ministry The ministry is a divine work, orchestrated by the Spirit and designed by Almighty God. Every role within it is a high and heavenly calling, but my focus here will be on the office of a pastor. As stated in Jeremiah 3:15 (KJV), “And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.” A pastor is a gift from God to the church, a vessel through which He imparts knowledge and understanding to His people. 3. Understanding the Pastoral Calling In today’s world, the role of pastoral leadership is often misunderstood and maligned. Yet, God still chooses to anoint men to oversee and nourish His flock. The desire to enter pastoral ministry is not merely a product of personal ambition; it is a divine calling, a yearning placed in a man’s heart by the Holy Spirit. As Paul wrote to Timothy, desiring the office of a bishop is indeed a noble aspiration. 4. The Role of a Pastor The pastor’s role encompasses a wide range of responsibilities: feeding, preaching, teaching, guiding, instructing, and protecting the flock. He must also reprove, rebuke, exhort, and chasten when necessary. This intricate tapestry of duties is designed by God to prepare a bride for Himself. A pastor must be aware of his humanity, recognizing that he is an imperfect man preaching a perfect Gospel to imperfect people. 5. The Divine Anointing Fulfilling the pastoral calling requires more than mere desire; it demands divine anointing and empowerment. A man who steps into this role without being called and equipped by God risks becoming presumptuous or misguided. The pastoral office carries with it a heavy burden, and it is only through the grace and strength of God that one can bear this responsibility. 6. The Weight of Responsibility Pastors carry the weight of responsibility for their congregations, as they must give account for the souls entrusted to them (Hebrews 13:17). This calling is not a trophy to be displayed but a grave responsibility that requires constant vigilance and reliance on divine guidance. The pastor is the buffer that protects the church from spiritual harm, standing against the forces of darkness that seek to undermine the faith of believers. 7. The True Shepherd vs. The Hireling In John 10, Jesus contrasts the true shepherd with the hireling, who flees when danger approaches. A true shepherd gives his life for the sheep, embodying the essence of self-sacrifice and service. The ministry is about serving God and His flock, not oneself. Paul exemplified this in 2 Corinthians 12:15, expressing his willingness to spend and be spent for the sake of the church. 8. The Attack on Pastoral Leadership We live in perilous times where the pastoral office is under unprecedented attack. Many men professing to be shepherds are driven by self-interest rather than a genuine desire to serve. The spirit of rebellion and selfishness pervades our culture, and it is imperative that true men of God rise to defend the integrity of the church and its mission. 9. The Call to Serve Jeremiah 23:1-4 warns against those who would destroy and scatter the flock. Pastors are held to a high standard and must remain vigilant in their calling. Vanity and self-exaltation have no place in the ministry; instead, we must strive to align our focus with God’s purpose and serve with humility and integrity. 10. Walking Worthy of the Calling As Paul admonished in Ephesians 4:1, we are called to walk worthy of our vocation. This means embodying the characteristics of Christ, the good Shepherd, who laid down His life for the sheep. It is a call to live a life that reflects the love, grace, and truth of Jesus. 11. Conclusion I write this not as one who has all the answers but as a young pastor seeking to navigate the complexities of ministry. I am in need of guidance from those who have gone before me and, most importantly, the help of the Holy Spirit. In this ever-changing world, we need more God-called men to stand firm against the pressures of our time and defend the flock of God—the Church.

By Murray E. Burr Introduction Division, whether it involves a nation, people, or religious organization, can be a senseless and tragically foolish thing. To illustrate this point, we can study the history of the division of the Kingdom of Israel as described in I Kings Chapter 12. The congregation of Israel approached Rehoboam with a just complaint: “Thy father made our yoke grievous; now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father and his heavy yoke which he put upon us lighter, and we will serve thee.” This division among the tribes of Israel was ultimately senseless. A little humility and understanding on Rehoboam’s part could have saved the day. Unfortunately, humility was a language he did not understand, as God had blinded his heart and mind. Flushed with pride and arrogance, he was determined to impose his will and crush all opposition, leading to disaster. Causes of Division Division in Israel can be attributed to two reasons that are applicable to religious organizations today: 1.Arbitrary Imposition of Will: Division occurs when a man or group of men seeks to impose their will upon others who do not believe they have a divine or moral right or authority to do so. 2.Lack of Sensible Statesmanship: Division arises from a lack of practical, down-to-earth statesmanship. As Paul pointedly addressed the Corinthians, “I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?” The Specter of Division Division is a grim specter that haunts religious movements, including the Pentecostal Movement. Thoughtful individuals recognize that it has haunted this movement in the past and will likely continue to do so in the future. If division ever comes to the United Pentecostal Church, it will be due to a lack of good practical statesmanship. Leaders who are arrogant and politically motivated can easily trigger disaster, much like Rehoboam did. Warning Signs Danger signals are evident when sincere, spiritual, mature individuals feel they may need to seek freedom and justice outside the movement. Such feelings are storm signals that should not be ignored. It is not the time to tighten control; rather, reform is urgently needed. A small group of thoughtful leaders can act as a magnet for the wounded and disillusioned, drawing them away from a cold and regimented machine religion that fails to satisfy. The Call for Reform An alarm has been raised by fearful individuals about those advocating for division. However, it is crucial to emphasize that what concerned individuals truly desire is reform, not division. The frustration stems from the belief that any meaningful reform will have to come from the grassroots rather than the leadership. This reality indicates how deeply the organization has become enmeshed in religious politics. Instead of addressing evils and abuses with truth and fairness, many leaders are more concerned with political expediency and their own careers. This shift toward political maneuvering instead of spiritual integrity is alarming. If reform does not come soon, the organization risks incurring the curse and blight of God. The Challenge of Reform The question arises: Can individuals reform this movement without facing destruction? While the organization claims to be democratic, safeguards to maintain democracy and avoid dictatorship have been neglected. The autonomy of local churches is being overtaken by centralized power, and freedom of speech and expression has been compromised. Imagine a manufacturer creating a fine automobile yet refusing to provide spare parts or a repair manual. This is akin to the current state of the organization, where there is no room for self-diagnosis or self-criticism. Objectives of the Organization What are the objectives of this organization? Are they still focused on evangelizing the world, maintaining a clean ministry, promoting holiness, and guarding fundamental doctrine? Or have they shifted toward building a political machine that crushes individuality, striving for worldly acclaim and centralized control? My soul cries out for the warmth and simplicity of early Pentecostalism, where brethren were equal, spirituality was fervent, and politics were absent. If action is not taken soon, the blessings of this movement will be lost to over-centralized, machine-like religion. Conclusion It is imperative for leaders to realize that nobody wants division or to break fellowship. Men are seeking justice, fairness, and the freedom to obey God without ridicule. The environment has become cold for many, and motives have been questioned without addressing the vital issues at hand. We have proven our loyalty to this movement in the past; we ask for a chance to prove it in the future. Roll back the move toward over-centralization. Remove the fears that haunt the ministry, and cooperation will flourish. Let us come together now to evangelize the world, for unless the Rehoboams are restrained, division may come to this movement. Brethren, give us a Solomon. Please don’t divide the baby. When Organizations Kill Men By Elder John Bradley Lambeth “We the people…”—these opening words of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States represent a relinquishment of individual rights in exchange for collective power and protection. Every constitution or charter of any organization is evidence of the birth of a mystical yet real entity. The Roman Empire lawmakers recognized that just as a fetus becomes a person with rights at birth, so does a collective group become an independent incorporation. Once formed, no single individual can extinguish its existence; only a collective majority can decide its demise. The Need for Caution Even the early church recognized the need for organization, but the Apostles were careful to maintain a loose framework with limited powers. The distinctiveness of the New Testament church came from its reliance on the Holy Ghost in decision-making. However, the sincere purpose of united objectives can be shipwrecked. Extreme caution is needed as we strive to fulfill our commission. We cannot reach the lost world or maintain the purity of doctrine alone, but the fear of isolation should not justify ignoring abuses within the organization. The Cost of Political Maneuvering Living in a country with strong roots in Roman Law has been enlightening. I recall a harrowing story of a man whose life was destroyed by political maneuvering during a military coup. He was legally “killed” by an organization that erased his existence. Many men have faced similar fates at the altar of majority votes, where mercy and forgiveness are overwhelmed by political maneuvering. Organizations can commit crimes, and the harsh truth is that individuals will stand before God to answer for collective sins. The Burden of Silence I wonder how many will stand condemned for casting a single vote during a collective witch-hunt against sincere ideals. Those who remain silent, knowing the wrongfulness of their brothers’ actions, must grapple with their complicity. These created monsters will not commit suicide, nor will the minority vote likely overcome the powers that be. However, there is a path for the sincere—much like the road to Damascus. Conclusion As we reflect on these issues, it is vital to recognize the dangers of over-centralization and the need for reform. The call for justice, fairness, and the freedom to obey God should resonate throughout our organizations. It is time to challenge the status quo and seek a movement that prioritizes cooperation, goodwill, and spiritual integrity over political maneuvering. Let us strive for a future where the warmth of fellowship and the simplicity of faith are restored, and where the true mission of the church is fulfilled in unity and love.

Written By: Elder Keith Joel Walker In a world where shadows whisper, And judgment often reigns, I stand with faith unyielding, In the midst of all the chains. For I believe in Jesus, The Everlasting Father, true, Not a fragment of a trinity, But the Holy One who renews. They call me heretic, false prophet, For I baptize in His name, Yet it’s His love that fills my heart, And ignites my holy flame. I’ve been cast aside by family, Peers who once called me friend, But in the arms of my Savior, I find solace that won’t end. Gossiped about in hushed tones, Warnings echo in the night, “Stay away from that man,” they say, But I walk in His pure light. What crime have I committed?What wrong have I done to you? I preach the name of Jesus, And the love that He imbues. I cast out demons in His name, I pray and teach with grace, Yet your anger blinds your vision, And hides the truth I embrace. Don’t throw me away, my brothers, For I stand on holy ground, With the fullness of the Godhead, In my heart, His love is found. You cast me away because I believe, In baptism in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins, And the Holy Ghost and fire, Where the evidence of tongues begins. Choose not tradition over truth, Don’t let religion lead you astray, For in the name of Jesus, I will never turn away. So hear my plea, my weary friends, Let love and grace prevail, For in the name of Jesus, Together we can sail. Don’t cast me out, don’t turn away, For I am yours, and you are mine, In the unity of His spirit, Let our hearts forever shine. In the fullness of His glory, I stand firm and unafraid, For in the truth of His gospel, My faith will never fade. Whether you believe it or not, Jesus gave it to me, this revelation bright, The oneness of the Godhead, Jesus is the Almighty God in Christ.

Sermon By: Elder Gary Martin Enoch, Genesis 5:24, and the Two Witnesses Genesis 5:24 (KJV): “And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.”   I. Context and Breakdown of Genesis 5:24 Genesis 5 is the genealogy from Adam to Noah, punctuated repeatedly by the phrase “and he died,” emphasizing the curse of death (Genesis 2:17) upon humanity due to sin. However, Genesis 5:24 breaks the cycle: • “Enoch walked with God”: A Hebraic idiom for consistent, covenantal fellowship with God, indicating agreement (Amos 3:3). • “and he was not”: He disappeared from earthly existence. • “for God took him”: God translated Enoch, removing him from the earth without dying, emphasizing divine sovereignty over life and death. Hebrews 11:5 clarifies: “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” Enoch’s translation is a prophetic typology of the overcoming believer walking in covenant with God and ultimately being delivered from judgment.   II. Enoch’s Translation and the Principle of Death for All Men Hebrews 9:27: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” The Word declares a universal appointment with death because of sin (Romans 5:12), and judgment thereafter. Yet Enoch did not see death, which raises theological considerations: 1. God is sovereign over His appointments: o While the general rule is death for all, God can make exceptions for His purpose and glory. o Enoch (and Elijah) stand as unique cases under divine prerogative. 2. Prophetic exceptions reveal God’s redemptive plan: o Enoch’s translation hints toward resurrection and rapture themes consistent with God’s ultimate deliverance of His people (1 Corinthians 15:51-52). 3. Enoch’s faith was the key factor: o Hebrews 11:5 connects faith with translation, showing the reward of a life that pleases God.   III. Enoch, Elijah, and the Two Witnesses in Revelation Revelation 11:3-12 describes two witnesses who prophesy for 1,260 days, are killed by the beast, lie dead in the streets for 3.5 days, and are then resurrected and caught up to heaven. Who are the two witnesses? Theories often propose: • Moses and Elijah: Moses representing the Law, Elijah the Prophets. • Enoch and Elijah: Both were translated without seeing death, aligning with Hebrews 9:27 if they return to taste death. Arguments for Enoch and Elijah: 1. Both never died, fulfilling “appointed unto men once to die” if they return to die as witnesses. 2. Enoch, as the seventh from Adam (Jude 14), prophesied about the Lord’s coming with ten thousands of His saints, connecting him to end-time prophecy. 3. Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:11), also never tasting death, and is prophesied to return (Malachi 4:5-6). 4. Their ministries align with the powers of the two witnesses (fire, shutting heaven, plagues, etc.).   IV. Theological Significance for the Church 1. Enoch as a type of the Overcoming Church: Enoch walked with God during a wicked generation before the flood, foreshadowing the Church walking with God before end-time judgment. 2. Faithful living brings divine favor: Enoch pleased God and was translated. Holiness and a walk of faith are essential for readiness in the end times. 3. The sovereignty of God over life and death: God can interrupt the cycle of death for His prophetic purposes (as seen in Enoch and Elijah) while maintaining His Word regarding sin and judgment. 4. A call to readiness for the coming of the Lord: The translation of Enoch points to the promise of resurrection and rapture for the Church (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) as God will take His faithful people. 5. Prophetic fulfillment in Revelation: The two witnesses serve as God’s final call to repentance and a testimony against the antichrist system before the final judgment.   V. Summary Points for Teaching and Preaching: • Genesis 5:24 breaks the death cycle, showing God’s power to deliver the faithful. • Enoch’s translation aligns with the pattern of overcoming faith. • Hebrews 9:27 remains true, but God can make sovereign exceptions to fulfill prophecy. • The two witnesses may be Enoch and Elijah, ensuring they fulfill the requirement of death while serving God’s prophetic purpose. • The Church must walk with God in faith and holiness, ready for translation when the Lord returns.   Conclusion: Genesis 5:24 is more than a historical note; it is a prophetic signpost for the end-time Church. God is calling His people to walk with Him like Enoch, to live in faith, and to prepare for translation. The faithful, like Enoch, will escape the judgment of the world and enter eternal fellowship with God. The two witnesses remind us of the unchanging power of God’s Word and the coming victory of His saints over death, hell, and the grave. May we walk with God until He comes and takes us, just as He did with Enoch.

JESUS CHRIST IS FATHER, WAS SON, AND IS NOW HOLY GHOST in the Church. The Scriptures given below will prove Jesus Christ is God Almighty. 1.    GENESIS 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.     JOHN 1:10-14 - He was in the world, and the world was made by Him... 2.    I CORINTHIANS 10:4 - Jesus is the Rock...     DEUTERONOMY 32:1- 4 - And the Rock is God. 3.    II CORINTHIANS 11:2 - Jesus is the one Husband,     JEREMIAH 31:32 - And the one Husband is God. 4.    MATTHEW 23:8 - Jesus is the one Master.     MALACHI 1:6 - And the Master is God. 5.    JOHN 10:14 - Jesus is the Good Shepherd,     ISAIAH 40:11- And the shepherd is God. 6.    ACTS 4:10-12 - Jesus is the one Saviour,     ISAIAH 45:21 - And the one Saviour is God. 7.    GALATIANS 3:13 - Jesus is the Redeemer.     ISAIAH 48:17 - And the Redeemer is God. 8.    REVELATION 19:13 - Jesus is the Word of God.     JOHN 1:1 - The Word is God. 9.    REVELATION 19:16 - Jesus is the Lord of lords.     DEUTERONOMY 10:17 - And the Lord of lords is God. 10.    I CORINTHIANS 2:7-8 - Jesus is the Lord of Glory.     PSALMS 24:10 - The Lord of hosts is the King of Glory. 11.     ZECHARIAH 14:9 - Jesus is the Lord over all the earth (one name),           ACTS 4:10-12 - For there is none other name under heaven given among     men, whereby we must be saved. 12.     PHILIPPIANS 2:10 - Every knee should bow to Jesus.           ISAIAH 45:22-23 - Every knee shall bow to God. 13.    COLOSSIANS 1:16 - Jesus is the Creator.           ISAIAH 40:28- And the Creator is God. 14.     COLOSSIANS 1:18 - Jesus is the Head,           I CHRONICLES 29:11- And the Head is God. 15.     JOHN 1:49 - Jesus is the King of Israel.           ISAIAH 44:6 - And the King of Israel is God. 16.     JOHN 8:58 - Jesus is the I Am,           EXODUS 3:14 - And the I Am is God. 17.     JOHN 8:24 - Jesus is the I Am He,          DEUTERONOMY 32:39 - And the I Am He is God. QUESTIONS 1.      ISAIAH 35:4-6 - If Jesus Christ is not God, when shall God come? 2.      MATTHEW 11:4-5 - And who did the work of God? 3.      LUKE 1:68 - If Jesus Christ is not God, when did God visit and redeem     His  people? 4.      JOHN 1:10; PSALMS 90:1, 2 - If Jesus Christ is not God, when was God who     made the world in the world? 5.     LUKE 1:35; MATTHEW 1:20 - If God and the Holy Ghost are two separate     spirits, which one is the father of Jesus? 6.      ISAIAH 7:14 - If Jesus Christ is not God, when will Isaiah's prophecy     be fulfilled? 7.      MATTHEW 1:23 - And when was God with us? 8.      MATTHEW 19:17; JOHN 10:11 - If Jesus Christ is not God, is He Good? 9.      JOHN 14:9 - If Jesus Christ is not God, why did He tell Philip:     "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father?" 10.     JOHN 20:28-29 - If Jesus Christ is not God, why did Thomas call Him,     "My Lord and my God?" 11.     I TIMOTHY 3:16 - If Jesus Christ is not God, when was God manifested     in the flesh? 12.    I JOHN 3:16; MATTHEW 20:28 - If Jesus Christ is not God, when did God     lay down His life? 13.     MATTHEW 4:7 - If Jesus Christ is not God, why did Jesus say to the devil     when the devil was tempting Him, "It is written again, Thou shalt not     tempt the Lord thy God?" 14.     MATTHEW 4:10 - According to this Scripture, we can worship only one God.       Is Jesus Christ He? 15.     TITUS 2:13; ACTS 1:11 - If Jesus Christ is not God, do these Scriptures     contradict themselves? 16.     ISAIAH 44:24 - Is the Lord the Redeemer who stretched forth the heavens     alone and spreadeth abroad the earth by Himself the same Lord that was     born in LUKE 2:11? 17.     JEREMIAH 10:10; I JOHN 5:20 - If Jesus Christ is not God, is He the Lord,     for the Lord is the true God? 18.     REVELATION 1:8; ISAIAH 9:6 - If Jesus Christ is not God, why did He say     to John, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the     Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty?" A warning to everyone who reads this pamphlet: Remember the words of Jesus spoken to the unbelieving Jews when they would not believe that He was God that should come, ISAIAH 35:4. DEUTERONOMY 32:39. So dear reader, if you do not believe that Jesus is God, you shall die in your sins. JOHN 8:24.

Touching Jesus Christ being the Son of God now, the bible tells us: “As the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same...” Hebrews 2:14 (That he there, was God.)   God made a promise in Genesis 3:15 concerning the seed of the woman. God was speaking of the body which He was going to beget and make from Mary’s body. The scripture says, He was made of a woman, made under the law. The Sonship began in Mary’s body. This was the beginning of God’s Son. He was God’s Son because God beget that body, for it is written, He was conceived of the Holy Ghost. No man had anything to do with Mary to beget that body.   Justice declared without the shedding of blood there was no remission. We, the human family, had sinned and came short of the glory of God. The blood of bulls, heifers, turtle doves, pigeons or anything else could not redeem us back to the holy state which we lost in the garden of Eden, therefore, God Himself came. He did not come from Heaven flesh and blood, but He came here and took on flesh and blood when He made a body from Mary’s body according to what Mary’s body consisted of . . . flesh and blood. This is what God Almighty offered up to the Eternal Spirit . . . to Himself.   The body which He beget by Mary and made from her body, had a natural and Divine Life in it also. The natural had to die and shed blood for us and by it we can be redeemed back to the Holy State which we lost in the Garden of Eden, because the body hung between God, the Eternal Spirit, and us the human family. Therefore, He was the mediator between God and man. You must admit that through and by the death on the cross we were able to reach God, the Eternal Spirit.   When the natural life was leaving this body, the Eternal Life came out and the natural life cried out to the Eternal Spirit, saying, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The Eternal Spirit came out of that body so that body could die. When that body died and shed blood that was the end of God’s Son. God only prepared that body for use for a certain length of time, until He, through that body made it possible for us to be holy again.   That body was sown a natural body.  (This was the end of God’s son.)  but was raised a Spiritual body which was God Himself.  He will never live here again or in Heaven like he lived when he was born from Mary’s womb, because the bible said, Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.  When he was born from Mary’s womb, he was born the Son of God and at the same time He was God. He was human and divine; He was God and man. The man died, then the divine life entered into that body, and he went back to what he was . . . Spirit. It was a Spiritual body that rose from the dead. The bible says, He was sown a natural body. He did not come back like he was sown. He went down one thing and came back another.   When Thomas saw Him in the 20th chapter of John, he said, “My Lord and my God.”  That is the truth. When Peter said, "Thou art the Christ, the son of the Living God", he told the truth. He was that then, because he had on a human form, but when he went to the cross and was put to death in the flesh, he was quickened by the Spirit. 1st Peter 3:18. “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit."   The work of the cross had been accomplished and we were brought back to the holy state which we lost in the Garden of Eden by His death. He was the Son of God then, (the Christ, the Son of God) but he is not the Son of God now. There never was more than one in Heaven and Jesus Christ is that one, but he does not have on flesh and blood in heaven. If we had not sinned, God wouldn’t have had to come down from Heaven and put on a body, but after we sinned, it took a body of flesh and blood to redeem us for the scriptures declare, “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” Hebrews 9:22    God Almighty visited the house of David and chose Mary, a virgin that never knew a man. He made a body and got in that body. For bible proof, read Matthew 1:23. When Jesus Christ was born, He was God with us. Luke 1:68 “Blessed be the God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people."   Jesus Christ was God Almighty manifested in the flesh. He got rid of the human body while he was here. He did not carry it to Heaven. That human body had never been in Heaven and did not go to Heaven. The Apostle Paul said, "We know him no more after the flesh.”  2nd Corinthians 5:16. "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh. Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more."    Jesus told them in John 16:7-10, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin because they believe not on me: Of righteousness, because I go to my Father and ye see me no more."   He told his disciples they would see him no more. They didn’t see him anymore in a human form which was God’s Son. God’s Son ended on the cross.    In Matthew 27:54 we read, “Truly this was the son of God."  When the bible speaks saying, He is the Son of God, it is talking about what he had been as if it is. For bible to back up my statement read, Romans 4:17 “…even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.”  God speaks of things that are not as though they are.    In Isaiah 9:6 it says, “Unto us a child is born, a son is given.”  It is written is born. We would use that word as present tense. Literally speaking it is present tense but remember when the prophet said a child is born, a son is given, it was about 700 and some years before that child was born.   Going back to my thought in Romans 4:17 “…Even God who quickeneth the dead and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” You can see dear reader that the bible does not contradict itself.   I contend that there never was a son in heaven, the son didn’t go to heaven, neither did he come from heaven. The Son of God didn’t rise from the dead. The Sonship started in the womb of Mary and ended on the cross.   In Acts 9:20, Paul preached Christ in the Synagogue, that he is the Son of God. Paul was speaking of what had been.   The Eunuch said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”  This is speaking of things that were not as though they were. There is no scripture in the bible that says, Jesus Christ is the Son of God now. I repeat, THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE IN THE BIBLE THAT SAYS, JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD NOW. I defy the whole world to produce bible for such a statement. There is none.   The Apostles did not preach him the Son of God now. I am ready to answer creation. I say according to the bible. . . God was manifest in the flesh. GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.   “And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1st Timothy 3:16.   He was sown in the flesh. The flesh was the son and the Eternal Spirit, which was in that flesh, was God. Thus, the Apostle Paul said, God was manifest in the flesh. This makes what I said true because the flesh was the son begotten by the Spirit. That same Spirit which begat that body was in that body.  Read John 14:10, the son was talking here: “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” Then again, he said, “My Father which is in heaven.”   The Eternal Spirit which filled that body, filled heaven, filled hell, and filled every place. He was the Father of the body he was in. This makes my statement true. The body did not start in heaven, the Sonship did not start in heaven, but it started in the womb of Mary and ended on the cross for, when he died, he said, “It is finished.” The work that he came to do was finished because by the way of the cross he brought us back to the holy state which we lost in the Garden of Eden. He did what the blood of bulls, heifers and turtle doves could not do. If he had not come and done among them what no other man had done, they would have had a cloke for their sins, but since he came and did what no other man could do, they had no cloke for their sins.   Remember, he had the power to lay down his life and to take it again. He said, “No man taketh it from me. I lay it down of myself.”  It is true that the Son of God does not exist anywhere now.   Jesus Christ was the Son of God when he was here in the flesh. There is no scriptural proof that he was the Son of God anywhere else but here, if he was, I want you to give bible, chapter, and verse to prove it.   In Mark 13:32 we read: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, nor the Angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”   All those who believe he is the Son of God now, put him in a very ignorant position. If he is the Son of God now, as some say, then he doesn’t know of the day or hour and that would be a contradiction of the scripture, because it is written: The disciples said unto him, Lord, thou knoweth all things.   If he is the Son of God now, as some say that he is, then, he does not know when to come or when he is coming, although there is only One in heaven and that One is He. If that is true, he won’t know when to come because the bible says: . . .the Son doesn’t know but the Father only. Now, there is only one in heaven and that one is Jesus Christ, so then our hope is in vain because according to their statement, the one that is up in heaven doesn’t know when to come. Can you see what a terrible mistake they have made?   Jesus Christ is not the Son now; he is the Father. There is no Son in heaven to come. There never was a Son in heaven and never will be. When he ceased to be the Son on the cross, he went back to what he was before he was the Son . . . and that is the Father. He went back to being a Spirit.  That is what he meant when he said, I go to my Father. The one that was in heaven was God. He had no father or mother.    Read the 7th chapter of Hebrews, verse 3. He is without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but abideth a priest continually.    If the one which was in heaven did not have a father, mother, no descent, nor beginning of days or end of life, then you know he was not anyone’s son. He came down here God. Isaiah said, in the 35th chapter, verses 4 and 5: “Be strong, behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence: he will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.”    When Jesus came, he fulfilled what Isaiah prophesied that God would do when he came. God came and did what Isaiah said he would do. God was not anyone’s son. He was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.   I defy creation to say he was anyone’s son before he came down from heaven. The one that came (which is God) took on flesh and blood according to Hebrews 2:14.   There never was but one in heaven for the bible says, all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus. Some say, I have said there is none but Jesus. Yes, I said it and will live up to it with bible.   Some say there are three distinct persons in the Godhead. That is not the truth. It is an unscriptural statement. The bible does not teach three distinct persons in the Godhead. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said, There is none good but one, that is God … and in John 10:14, I am the good shepherd. There cannot be two or three Gods, but must be like Jesus said… One good. That one came down from heaven and put on a body. When he told the Jews, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it and was glad. The Jews looked on his flesh and said to him,"Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them; Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was I am.” (John 8:56-58). He was not talking about his flesh existing before Abraham, because Abraham was dead 1800 years before Jesus was born in the flesh, but he was talking about the Eternal Spirit that was in that flesh. Can’t you see that he was human and divine? God and man? There are not two or three. There is only one.   When the Jews asked him, Who art thou? He said unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.   When he was seen of the King in the burning fiery furnace, the King said,The form of the fourth is like the Son of God.  He showed himself unto the King in the form in which he was coming, and when he came, he said unto the Jews, I am he.   In Isaiah 43:10 and 11, God said,"Ye are my witnesses saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.”   There could not be another savior which came apart from God. That would make God a liar. He was the savior spoken of in Isaiah 43:11. He came in a body this time. Isaiah bears me out. Read Isaiah 35:4. "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance: even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.” This takes me back to Luke 1:68 where Zacharias said,“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people.”    Again, I defy the religious world to contradict my statements with the bible. I am ready, prepared, and able to go to work in the scriptures to prove what I am telling the world to be a fact without the shadow of a doubt.  May God open your eyes that you may know the truth

Written by Keith Joel Walker In the quiet of my youth, where shadows danced and played,A janitor spoke softly, where my heart had strayed.With eyes like pools of mercy, he shared a love so true,In the depths of my rebellion, I saw the light break through. At twelve, I was a wanderer, lost in sin and pain,But Jesus found me gently, with arms stretched open wide.Though I cursed and turned away, His love would not relent,In the silence of my heart, His grace became my lament. At thirteen, I fell broken, on my knees I cried,Repentance washed over me, in the Spirit I would bide.Baptized in fire and glory, with tongues of heaven’s grace,In Clovis, I found freedom, in His warm embrace. Oh, the revelation came, like a thunder in the night,That Jesus is Jehovah, the source of all my light.No Trinity to bind me, just one God, pure and whole,In the depths of my surrender, I found the truth that makes me whole. The journey is one road, one path, one door,The Lord Jesus Christ, the truth I can’t ignore.You must be born again, of water and of Spirit,According to Acts 2:38, the plan, I will not fear it. With every step I take, I pick my cross with pain,For the One who died for me, forever by my side.I hunger for His presence, I thirst for His embrace,In the tapestry of heaven, I find my rightful place. So let the world around me fade, let the trials come and go,For my heart beats with a passion, in the love I’ve come to know.May I willingly lay down my life, for the One who set me free,In the shadow of the cross, I find my destiny.

The following is a list of some prominent figures in the early Pentecostal movement who were baptized in Jesus' name. They were well-known leaders at the time of their baptism, or would be shortly thereafter. Charles Parham is not included here, for there is no direct evidence that he himself was baptized in Jesus' name, although his testimony implies that he was. Andrew H. Argue (1868-1959), a convert of William Durham, a pastor in Winnipeg, and an influential leader in western Canada. He did not enter the Oneness movement but was an early leader in the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. A grandson, Don Argue, served as president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Leanore "Mother Mary" Barnes (1854-1939), an early evangelist in the Midwest, associate of "Mother" Mary Moise in rescue mission work in St. Louis, and a charter member of the Assemblies of God. Frank Bartleman (1871-1936), historian of the Azusa Street revival and an international evangelist. Bartleman never joined a Pentecostal organization but maintained fellowship with both Oneness and trinitarian believers, although he remained committed to Oneness beliefs. Eudorus N. Bell (1866-1923), the first general chairman of the Assemblies of God(1914). He later repudiated his baptism in Jesus' name and served as chairman a second time (1920-23). William Booth-Clibborn, a grandson of William Booth (founder of the Salvation Army) and an evangelist. He was active in early Oneness organizations but later returned to fellowship with trinitarians, although he never renounced his Oneness views. He penned the words of "Down from His Glory." George A. Chambers (1879-1957), an early Canadian leader. He was a minister in the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World in 1919. He soon repudiated the Oneness position, however, and became the first general chairman of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. Glenn A. Cook (1867-1948), business manager of the Azusa Street Mission, evangelist who brought the Pentecostal message to Indianapolis and to the Church of God in Christ, and assistant to Frank Ewart in Los Angeles. He brought the Oneness message to St. Louis and Indianapolis, baptizing Mother Barnes, Mother Moise, and Ben Pemberton in St. Louis and L. V. Roberts and G. T. Haywood in Indianapolis. Frank J. Ewart (1876-1947), assistant pastor and successor to William Durham in Los Angeles. He was the chief proponent of the Oneness doctrine in 1914, in conjunction with Glenn Cook. At his death he was a minister in the United Pentecostal Church. Elmer K. Fisher (1866-1919), associate of William Seymour and then pastor of the Upper Room Mission in Los Angeles. He did not enter into the Oneness movement. His son-in-law, Wesley Steelburg, was a minister in the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, but he later became general superintendent of the Assemblies of God. A grandson, Stanley Horton, became a well-known Assemblies of God theologian. Howard A. Goss (1883-1964), a convert of Charles Parham in 1903 and onetime field director of Parham's work in Texas. He and E. N. Bell were the chief organizers of the Assemblies of God in 1914, and he served as one of its first executive presbyters. He later became the general superintendent of the Pentecostal Church, Incorporated and the first general superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church. Lemuel C. Hall (1867-?), a convert from Zion City and an evangelist. He later became the first chairman of the Pentecostal Ministerial Alliance (a Oneness organization). Eventually, he accepted the pastorate of a trinitarian church, but he never abandoned his Oneness beliefs. Thoro Harris (1874-1955), black gospel songwriter. His songs include "Jesus Loves the Little Children," "All That Thrills My Soul Is Jesus," and "He's Coming Soon." Garfield T. Haywood (1880-1931), black pastor of a large interracial church in Indianapolis, outstanding Bible teacher, author, songwriter, and one of the most influential leaders in the Finished Work camp. He later became the presiding bishop of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World and served until his death. His songs include "I See a Crimson Stream of Blood," "Thank God for the Blood," "Jesus the Son of God," and "Baptized into the Body." Bennett F. Lawrence (1890-?), author of the first history of the Pentecostal movement, The Apostolic Faith Restored (1916), and first assistant secretary of the Assemblies of Godin 1914. Robert E. McAlister (1880-1953), Canadian evangelist and pastor in Ottawa, Ontario. He helped found the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and became its first secretary-treasurer. He stayed with his organization when it embraced trinitarianism and denounced the Oneness belief. Aimee Semple McPherson (1890-1944), missionary and evangelist. In 1923 she left the Assemblies of God and founded the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. Believing that the Oneness movement to be devisive, the Foursquare church maintained neutrality concerning the correct form of baptism. Charles H. Mason (1866-1961), co-founder of the Church of God in Christ and general overseer when the group was reorganized as a Pentecostal body. According to numerous sources in the black Apostolic movement, he was baptized privately in Jesus' name in Chicago in 1930. When the leaders under him did not accept the message, he did not proclaim it but stayed with his organization. He continued to have some fellowship with black Apostolics. "Mother" Mary Moise (1850-1930), a pioneer in Pentecostal social work and operator of a rescue mission in St. Louis for social outcasts. She received a first prize at the World's Fair in St. Louis in 1904 for her work with homeless girls. Daniel C. O. Opperman (1872-1926), a founder of the Assemblies of God, one of its first executive presbyters, and its first assistant chairman. He had formerly been superintendent of the high school system in Zion City, Illinois, under Alexander Dowie. He was an early leader in Pentecostal education, conducting short-term Bible training programs. He soon became the chairman of the General Assembly of the Apostolic Assemblies, the first group to be founded as a Oneness organization. L. V. Roberts, pastor in Indianapolis and evangelist who baptized E. N. Bell in the name of Jesus. He later returned to trinitarianism. H. G. Rodgers, an early leader in the South who received the Holy Ghost under G. B. Cashwell. He briefly led a loose association of ministers called the Church of God (Dothan, Alabama) but soon merged that group with Howard Goss' wing of the Church of God in Christ. One of the founding members of the Assemblies of God, he never withdrew. He maintained fellowship with Oneness ministers and continued to baptize in Jesus' name, however. His daughters became part of the United Pentecostal Church. Franklin M. Small (1873-1961), Canadian evangelist and one of the founders of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. After it adopted trinitarian theology, he withdrew and founded the Apostolic Church of Pentecost, of Canada. George B. Studd (1859-1945), younger brother of missionary C. T. Studd, an associate of Dwight Moody, and an organizer of the Worldwide Camp Meeting at Arroyo Seco in 1913. He served as Frank Ewart's assistant pastor in the Los Angeles area for many years. He was a noted supporter of missions who gave away his inherited fortune. Andrew D. Urshan (1884-1967), immigrant from Persia and international evangelist. He brought the Oneness message to Russia and was rebaptized there in 1916. He served as foreign missions secretary of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World and of Emmanuel's Church in Christ Jesus. At his death he was a minister in the United Pentecostal Church. His son, Nathaniel A. Urshan, became general superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church, International. Harry Van Loon, associate of William Durham and Frank Ewart in Los Angeles. Maria Woodworth-Etter (1844-1924), well-known Holiness evangelist who accepted the Pentecostal message and who preached at the Worldwide Camp Meeting in Arroyo Seco, California, in 1913. She never became part of the Oneness movement.

STEP 1 HAVE FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR SAVIOR AND REPENT • Believe Jesus Christ is Lord and died for you. • Be sorry for your sins and recognize your need of the Savior as in Acts 3:19. • Determine to turn from sin and give your life completely to Him. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH: Salvation itself. Believing is absolutely essential, but only the first step! See Acts 8:12-17 and 11:14-18. STEP 2 BE BAPTIZED BY IMMERSION IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST • Be buried with Him by total immersion in water. • Have the saving name of Jesus Christ pronounced over you as in Acts 22:16. • Obtain remission of sins in baptism through obedience and faith in His name. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH: Repeating the titles "Father-Son-Holy Ghost" sprinkling or pouring! See Acts 8:35-38 and 19:1-6. STEP 3 RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM EVIDENCED BY TONGUES • Meet the conditions of repentance, faith, and obedience. • Believe God has promised it and that you can receive it as in Acts 2:4. • Know that tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Murray E. Burr The Bent Plumbline Text; Amos 7:7-8 "Thus he shewed me: And behold, the Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with a plumbline in His hand." (Verse 8) "Then said the Lord, behold, I will set a plumb- line in the midst of my people Israel; I will not again pass by them anymore "Durr" "Art Introduction to an Answer" Spread before me on my desk Is a transcribed copy of a series of lectures entitled — "The Church in Transit". These lectures were delivered last summer in one of the largest Camp Meetings in the nation and by one of the most respected voices in the organization. Charitably, they constitute one of the most weird, far-out and bizarre concoctions of tortured, twisted one! wrested typology these poor, tired old eyes have looked up on in many a moon. His interpretation of the Feasts-of-Tabernacles and the Tabernacle of David was down-right silly His exposition of the dispensetional time-frames was heretical; while, his entire scries of lectures were, quite obviously the product of superficial Ihmking. I am finding it extremely hard to understand how men, noted in times past, for a life-time of constructive, conservative and intelligent thinking, could fake a definite and positive one hundred and eighty degree turn away from the New-Birth Holiness Message and find themselves out in lett field defending the charismatics. This man has definitely put himself way out on the hypothetical limb; and sir, I believe there are still enough sharp doctrinal saws in the Pentecostal Movement to cut that limb off cleanly and decisively. This little booklet is not, intended as an answer to the Church in Transit. Let us label it rather as "An Introduction to an Answer to the Church in transit" Perhaps if time and need so decrees there shall be other booklets. Certainly the man has put into our hands enough subject morter for many booklets. "Burr" "FOREWORD" I saw this with a depth and intensity of emotion bordering on onger. I deeply resent the doctrinal, moral and spiritual mongrelization of the Pentecostal Movement that certain Pied Pipers of Apostasy are so blatantly promoting under the guise of End-Time Revival. To hold up the modern "Charismatic-Latter Rain Revival so-called" of 1983 alongside True, Classic Revival certified by the Apostles and bearing the Apostolic Imprimatur of Peter, is like comparing Leonardo DaVinci's Mona Lisa to some of the lewd and obscene drawings one sees on the walls of public restrooms. The comparison is not only ridiculous; it actually borders on blasphemy. Many of us recall only too well when "Latter Rain" (so-called) struck the Pentecostal Movement such a devastating blow over thirty years ago. Strong, New Birth-Holiness churches under decisive leadership and with a genuine move of God in their midst came through unscathed. But tragically, many churches bearing the Jesus Name Pentecostal label were not so fortunate. There are certain areas of the country that are notably weak on the New Birth message. Into these, Latter-Rain made deep in-roads from which they have never recovered. Now, thirty years later and after all the evidence has come in, we are able to make a clear evaluation separate and apart from the heat of emotion. From a thorough and clinical examination, a number of things emerge very clearly. (1) First, and starkly evident, "THE LATTER RAIN-CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT DISPLAYS NONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF TRUE REVIVAL True revival is always marked by an intense zeal and love for the Truth, and a reviving or resurrection of True Bible Holiness. Truth and Holiness are actually objects of mockery to the Latter Rain-Charismatic Movement. They do not attempt to pay even lip service to either. (2) Secondly — Their contention that they preach no doctrine is extremely misleading. THE DOCTRINE OF "NO DOCTRINE" BECOMES A DOCTRINE UNTO ITSELF. (3) The basic and fundamental doctrine of "LATTER RAIN" as well as the CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT of 1983 is "ECUMENISM", or the doctrine of "THE ONE WORLD CHURCH." This Satanic Doctrine runs like a dark and sinister thread throughout all their teaching and practices. I am finding this same dark and sinister thread running through the lectures on the "Church In Transit." One time conservative Holiness preachers, succumbing to this sinister and highly contagious spirit, are receiving prophetic messages for their wives to cut their hair, wear make-up and pantsuits; in fact, mod-dressing, they say, has been endorsed by the Holy Ghost. The greatest perversion of all is dramatized when veteran New Birth-Holiness preachers publicly apologize that they were ever so narrow-minded as to preach Holiness and Doctrinal Standards. Somebody's Pot of Manna is certainly breeding worms and stinking. Pastors, in their unreasoning frenzy to make it happen at any cost, expose their congregations to extremely dangerous situations. To play with spirits as deadly and deceptive as these is like a fly playing with sticky fly-paper. Gentlemen, in all probability, you will leave a portion of yourself behind. My experience from close-hand personal observation for over thirty years, is that once infected, it is almost impossible for the victims of the Charismatic-Latter Rain Spirit to ever recover. Apostasy is not a laughing matter. When men seek revival separate or apart from the Acts 2:38 frame work; and revival void of repentance or purging — "DISASTER IS SURE TO FOLLOW." Certain minister friends, concerned by the deadly trend in the Pentecostal Movement, asked me what effects, if any, would the Charismatic Movement have on the Jesus Name sector. Here is my answer: Thirty years ago when Latter Rain struck, strong and commanding action was instantly taken. Decisive men in positions of leadership quickly identified Latter Rain (so-called) as a betrayal of truth, and rejected it without hesitation. THE PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENT AS A BODY, POSSESSED SUFFICIENT STRENGTH AND LEADERSHIP TO THROW OFF THE MALIGNANCY. Today the story is different. The Latter-Rain spirit and teaching of thirty years ago has been resurrected and is making a surging come-back. Men of prophetic discernment have no difficulty recognizing the Charismatic Spirit for what it is — MERELY THE INVASION OF THE ECUMENICAL OR ONE-WORLD CHURCH SPIRIT WITHIN THE RANKS OF THE JESUS NAME PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENT. Here is where weak, effeminate and professional leadership becomes a curse. Instead of decisive, commanding voices identifying and branding the Charismatic Spirit for what it is, double-minded men in high positions are bending sympathetic ears toward the charismatics, and even openly embracing them on a basis of fellowship. When we were so rudely ejected from the Great Organization a number of years ago, stern and unrelenting voices denounced us and prophesied that we would be off in false doctrine in six months. I find it indeed strange that great camp meetings and conferences in the Organization are holding sympathetic seminars to promote a better understanding and relationship with the charismatics; while some of the most respected voices in the System are definitely and positively leaning Charismatic. So much so that they are preaching the same old shop-worn and disproved Latter Rain message we rejected over thirty years ago. I would remind these gentlemen that the tortured, twisted and wrested typology set forth in "Church-in-Transit" is the very same, identical and resurrected Latter-Rain teaching that a stronger and more decisive leadership identified and rejected many years ago. It leaves me grimly amused when they offer to share with us "CERTAIN MATERIALS" fresh from the Mind of the Spirit. My answer to my minister friends is as follows: "I just do not believe the Pentecostal Movement today, and especially the Organized Sector, possesses the necessary moral and spiritual strength and stamina to throw off a spirit as malignant and contagious as the Latter Rain-Charismatic Spirit. Something frightening has happened to the Pentecostal Ministry. The Word of God does not mean very much to them any more. Their love and zeal for "THE TRUTH" has decidely waned. They are obsessed with bigness and numbers, and the power and prestige numbers will bring. The Latter Rain-Charismatic Movement opens to them a whole new world for exploitation, but only if they will renounce traditional Pentecostal Standards of Doctrine and Holiness. Permit me to repeat, the great fallacy they are embracing is, namely: Revival without repentance; and, (2) Fruitfulness without purging. "THE BENT PLUMBLINE" By Murray E. Burr Text: Amos 7:7-8 "Thus he shewed me: And behold, the Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with a plumbline in His hand." (Verse 8) "Then said the Lord, behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel; I will not again pass by them anymore. Here is my personal testimony. I began as a young man. I am rapidly becoming an old man. It is with a sense of deep satisfaction that I can look back and say that I have spent my entire life fighting for the purity of the Pentecostal Movement—doctrinally, spiritually and morally. Sadly, I must confess that for the most part it has been a losing fight; a desperately fought, last ditch, rear-guard action to buy precious time before the long night of apostasy closes down on a confused and leaderless movement, in utter, total and demoralized retreat on every front. I harbor no regrets; nor by God's Grace, shall I flinch or cease or desist as the cowards, the compromisers and the defeatists have urged me to do. I am not an opportunist; therefore, I shall not remain silent; neither shall I hold back my sword from blood. I shall ever strive to be "THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS," repeating the message over and over and over as long as breath remains in my body, leaving behind the request that it be etched on my headstone. Let this graphically demonstrate to friend and foe the depths and intensity of my feelings. God has assigned me a crucial, and in many instances, a painful task to perform; with His help, I shall not fail that assignment, though it means forfeiting friends and even life itself. Murray E. Burr has no intentions of changing courses. Neither is he listening for a different drum-beat. The True Apostolic-Pentecostal Beat with marching orders sounded in my ears over forty years ago. Mine eyes beheld the glory of a Divine, ultimate and unchangeable Truth. A Truth that was indelibly and irrevocably etched on the tablets of my heart and mind. Let all these Apostles of Apostasy fetch their charismatic hog-wash elsewhere. I am simply not interested in any warmed-over and revised version of what was identified and rejected a score and a half years ago as "ECUMENICAL LATTER SPLATTER". Are these Pied-Pipers of Compromise not self-deluded? Are they not willingly ignorant? These leaky vessels one time vowed unswerving devotion of the Apostolic, New-Birth, One God, Holiness message. Strange and subtle spirits have captured their attention. Now under the guise of seeking revival, they are qualifying that devotion. Why the dramatic transformation? Are these foolish and fickle modern-day Galations so blinded by the Spirit of Gimmickry and Ecclesiastical Quackery that they cannot see that the only way the "ECUMENICAL SPIRIT" could ever breach the ranks of the Jesus Name Pentecostal Movement is through some form of “CHARISMATIC MANIFESTATION"? Can they not see that in their "SHIFTING OF COURSES", they are actually fulfilling prophecies they personally made years ago? While men with convictions in harmony with my own seek through fearless writing and preaching to hold the line on truth and purify the Pentecostal Blood-Stream, certain men seem obsessed in their mad frenzy to poison every spiritual spring in the Movement. Permit me to repeat my charge — "THEY ARE SUCKERS FOR GIMMICKS." To these Modern Men of Mars Hill, seeking new things in the name of Evangelism, none are too Laodicean or bizarre. No Philistinian Cart is too pagan or obvious for them. They seem to glory in their defiance of traditional Apostolic-Pentecostal standards; in many instances, openly apoligizing for them. Every alien form, system, method or gimmick advanced by the Apostates around them are eagerly sought out, dusted off and mounted on pedestals with the proclamation — "THESE BE THY GODS O ISRAEL". These men are not the intelligent and constructive thinkers I one time thought them to be. They are proving themselves to be guilty of negative and superficial thinking in the most extreme form.They stand condemned as practitioners of self-hypnosis, with their senses drugged by the opium of their own dramatic and excessive verbiage. I solemnly warn them, "BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO STAND FOR SOMETHING, THEIR CHILDREN, BOTH SPIRITUAL AND NATURAL, SHALL FALL FOR EVERYTHING." In their mad passion to explore New Trails to greater numbers and glory, they eloquently urge the Pentecostal Movement to renounce fixed, ultimate and certified truths proven to be genuine. Shamelessly and without hesitation they are bending the Plumbline of Apostolic Truth to fit every new charismatic Manifestation regardless of how weird or bizarre they may be. They are so blinded by the Spirit of Religious Hucksterism that they cannot see that what they are foolishly and inconsistently gushing over as new discoveries, are the same old, worn and slippery paths to apostasy all the other organized religious systems before them pursued to Spiritual Oblivion. O God, when will men ever learn? 1983 could very well stand as the "WATER-SHED" year in Pentecostal History. Up until now our Pied-Pipers of Apology were content to introduce their Phillistinian Carts, while continuing to pay lip-service to Jesus Name, New Birth, Holiness teaching. This is rapidly changing. These Termites of Compromise are coming boldly out of the Pentecostal Woodwork in increasing swarms. There is clearly and definitely a "SHIFTING-OF-COURSES" far more pronounced than anything that we have witnessed in our lifetime. The Pentecostal Movement, and specifically the organized sector, is unquestionably pitching their tents toward Sodom. This is being done shamelessly and without seeming embarrassment under the guise of "END-TIME REVIVAL" Here is the cry, permit me to use the term "CONSENSUS CRY" of more than one Organizational pastor striving desperately to hold on to truth and holiness — NOTE: We sat through the day services and we sat through the night services of the largest Jesus Name Pentecostal Campmeeting in the land, "BUT WE NEVER HEARD THE WORD HOLINESS MENTIONED ONE TIME." We watched as secular politician after secular politician was paraded across a supposedly sacred platform, and glowingly praised. We listened with growing disgust to open, blatant and shameless campaign pitches coming from across a Pentecostal pulpit, "BUT WE NEVER HEARD THE WORD HOLINESS MENTIONED ONE TIME." We watched in dismay as twice-married preachers were exalted and given the chief assignments. Unbelievably, they were assigned the task of teaching family life and devotion to the children; to the plastic and impressionable youths of the encampment; and to the confused and struggling parents as well. We could not help but exclaim, "WHAT A MOCKERY." BUT WE NEVER HEARD THE WORD HOLINESS MENTIONED ONE TIME." We listened in utter amazement as Typology was tortured and Truth glossed over, and the virtues of the charismatic extolled. We could not believe our ears when apologies were made for our narrow-minded attitudes of the past — "BECAUSE WE INSISTED ON STANDING FOR SOMETHING." Clearly compromise was the lusty champion of the day and winning all the contests hands down. "BUT WE NEVER HEARD THE WORD HOLINESS MENTIONED ONE TIME." We listened with weary boredom to a grand and eloquent display of irrelevant preaching. To the exalting of Systems and Personalities and Programs. The only way they could have said less would have been to talk more. "BUT WE NEVER HEARD THE WORD HOLINESS MENTIONED ONE TIME." We read vivid, lengthy and descriptive accounts of the political activities of this Great Pentecostal Encampment. The Must and Mecca of every secular politician in the State. The media, in full-page accounts, related instances where the mass block voting of the people of this encampment had been the deciding factor in State Political Contests and issues. We listened intently as their political exploits were recounted — "BUT WE NEVER HEARD THE WORD HOLINESS MENTIONED ONE TIME." Pastors who were there told me this. Ladies and Gentlemen — "HOLINESS" has definitely become an embarrassment to these men. The retarded child that is never brought forth and displayed in family reunions anymore. Regarding their alien and bizarre theories, I want them to know that their every word shall be scrutinized long and hard. Gentlemen, you had better watch your footing. These are treacherous and slippery paths you have chosen to walk in. My prediction is that you will come up with mud on your faces. In fact, from certain clear and explicit statements, "THESE GENTLEMEN ALREADY HAVE MUDDY FACES." They are shredding loo many wild gourds into this charismatic concoction for there not to be DEATH-IN-THE-POT. It has everything but an authentic Apostolic ring to it. One would have to search for and long to come up with a more weird and tortured mass of wrested typology. There can be no doubt about it, they are definitely and obviously bending the Plumbline. An Old Testament prophet asked Israel, "WHY TRIMMEST THOU THY WAYS TO SEEK LOVE." If I understand the subject correctly, a sailor trims or shifts his sails to catch prevailing winds. The winds of transition and change are blowing through the Pentecostal Movement like a storm, all of it under the guise of "CHARISMATIC REVIVAL AND EVANGELISM." But true Apostolic-Pentecostal ministers resent the bending of the Plumbline to fit anybody. The very act is intolerable. If this charismatic revival, so-called, is indeed true revival and not as this writer contends — "THE END- TIME BATAAN DEATH MARCH TO THE ONE-WORLD CHURCH"; if these charismatics are sincere, born-again Truth-Seekers as they profess to be, there will be no difficulty; THEY WILL EAGERLY AND GLADLY SEEK OUT AND MEASURE UP TO THE ACTS 2:38 PLUMBLINE JUST LIKE ALL THE REST OF US HAD TO DO. The very thought is asinine; but can you imagine the Apostles bending the Plumbline to fit anybody? Paul sternly warned the fickle Galatians, and then lest they had misunderstood him, repeated his warning for emphasis — (QUOTE) Gal. 1:8 — "THOUGH WE OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL UNTO YOU THAN THAT WHICH WE HAVE PREACHED UNTO YOU, LET HIM BE ACCURSED." These learned Party Theoreticians one time professed undying loyalty and obedience to Gal. 1:8. Paul's words now have become the epitome of negative preaching to them. The fickle spirit of the Galatians is very much in evidence among the Pentecostal Ministry of 1983. I marvel that they are so easily moved from proven Apostle Landmarks. The very fact that such "CHARISMATIC DRIVEL" would even be entertained and discussed sympathetically in great Pentecostal Camp Meetings and conferences is stark and graphic testimony to the doctrinal, spiritual and moral degeneracy that is transpiring in the Pentecostal Movement today. Gentlemen, I repeat, you are rapidly becoming the “MODERN-DAY-MEN-OF-MARS-HILL, paying homoge to any and every unknown God of Promotion that is dedicated to your false concept of End-Time Revival. I am saddened and shocked that veteran, one-time conservative Pentecostal preachers would deteriorate doctrinally to the extent that they would inject into the Blood-Stream of the Pentecostal Movement teachings so bizarre and far out. If the "ECUMENICALS" arc listening, surely they must be rejoicing over these New Pentecostal Champions of the One-World Church. Poor men, burdened as they are with an extra Baptism of superficial thinking, they are grimly determined to “MAKE IT HAPPEN," whatever the cost. It should not be too difficult for us to understand why many strange and alien looking “ISHMAELS" that bear none of the true family traits or resemblance are showing up in Pentecostal Family Reunions now-days. They neither speak the language of the Israelites (Apostolic); nor do they speak the language of the Ashdodites (World) — Neh. 13:24. Not only are whole masses of Pentecostal people losing their identity, they are also losing their language, as well as their music. The very word “ROCK-GOSPEL" is a stench and an insult to spiritual people. When confirmed “FUNNY-BOYS" take over the composition of a Movement's music, moral disaster cannot be averted. Concerned ministers as well as knowledgeable laymembers are voicing their disgust over the degeneracy of Pentecostal music. I listen in amazement at some of the choir and quartette singing coming from Pentecostal meetings. To say the least, it is weird, unreal and far-out. Some learned man in history stated, “LET ME CONTROL THE MUSIC OF A NATION OR CULTURE, AND SOON I CAN CONTROL THE NATION." Blending my voice with countless thousands, we cry in plaintive appeal — “WHERE, O WHERE HAS MELODY GONE? Lay the charges at the feet of our modern Pied-Pipers of Apostasy. In their mad and frenzied outreach for numbers at the expense of truth and reason, they have turned almost exclusively to the Bond Woman (Hagar—Gimmicks) for reproduction and revival. Their favorite slogan is “LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN." Well if half-breed Ashdodites swaying to Rock-Gospel and Wild Ishmaels dressed out for vaudeville are an indication, they are certainly making it happen. These Gentlemen rule out almost entirely the possibility of a strong, doctrinal, holiness church ever having revival. If I understand their broken and half-Ashdodite speech correctly, the lack of love coupled with a rabid Pharisee Spirit precludes such a church ever winning the lost in appreciable numbers. Sirs—do I understand you correctly? Are you telling me that I must compromise the truth before I can have Revival? If you are, then I have but one word in reply — "HOGWASH". When a modern Pied-Piper of Compromise stands up with an Afro hair-cut and informs Veteran New Birth-Holiness preachers that their out-moded standards have kept thousands out of the Kingdom of God — Murray E. Burr is simply not impressed. If begetting strange children by the "BOND WOMAN" constitutes true revival, then poor Sarah is indeed left with blasted hopes, because all that Sarah has is the Word and Promise of God that if she will await His time, a "TRUE HEIR" will be born. It is apparent that these Gentlemen do not place too much stock in God's Word anymore, especially when the Word runs counter-productive to some of their asinine theories. My Bible has always told me that the children of the Bond Woman will be more numerous and come far more easily than children by the free. This sobering thought continually haunts me: "I WOULD HATE TO SPEND A LIFETIME BUILDING A HOUSE OF STRAW THAT COULD BE DEMOLISHED BY JUST ONE SERMON FROM AN OLD-FASHIONED, HARD-NOSED, NEW BIRTH, HOLINESS PREACHER STANDING UP LIKE A TRUE PROPHET OF GOD AND TELLING IT LIKE IT IS." Their reasoning is not hard to track. "Why", our charismatic fuzzy-heads reason, "should we wait for these slow-conceiving Sarahs and the meager and backward Isaacs, when with just a few gimmicks and a little wrested typology, our prolific and fertile Hagars will produce half-breed Ashdodites and Wild Ishmaels, complete with Afro's, by the litter. Thus, the temptation overwhelms them. Tossing to the wind a lifetime of conservative Apostolic thinking, they reach up and bend the Plumbline to their own spiritual and Moral detriment, and the destruction of Doctrinal and Holiness Standards in the Pentecostal Movement. One is made to wonder — "DID THEY EVER REALLY BELIEVE THE TRUTH IN THE FIRST PLACE; OR WERE THEY MERELY PAYING LIP SERVICE TO A MESSAGE THAT SERVED THEM WELL? They are indeed building with wood, hay and stubble. Sirs, your illegitimate charismatics will never bear the true family resemblance. Neither will they ever learn the language of spiritual Israel. Always they will be but half-breed Ashdodites; Wild Ishmaels that can never be tamed or taught or brought to respect and submit to a shepherd's authority. God's command to Abraham was stern and irrevocable — "CAST OUT THE BOND WOMAN—HER SEED CAN NEVER INHERIT WITH THE TRUE HEIR." Let these Pied-Pipers of Apostasy boast of their wall-to-wall people won by compromise. Let them glowingly tell us of their strange and wild Ishmaels, begotten by them because they refused to trust the Promises of God to send True Revival on time and within the framework of Scriptural and Apostolic Teaching. Murray E. Burr rejects this modern move to abandon ancient landmarks in the name of Evangelism as anti-scriptural, anti-Pentecostal and motivated by the Spirit of Anti-Christ. With the readers permission, permit me to pin-point the number one reason why these deluded, Charismatic leaning Preachers in the Pentecostal Movement are pursuing a fantasy. In doing so I shall render a quotation from the Lectures of "THE CHURCH IN TRANSIT". I insert this quotation as a typical example of the Doctrinal and Holiness Turn-around that is dominating the thinking of many of these men. I shall entitle this phase of this brief work as . . . "THE NUMBER ONE FALLACY OF THE CHARISMATIC REVIVAL SO-CALLED . . . "FRUITFULNESS WITHOUT PURGING" OR "REVIVAL WITHOUT REPENTANCE" (Quote): "We all know what we went through as far as an Organization is concerned: Four years of turmoil; and there were men, preachers no doubt, that backslid during that time of the T. V. issue. Uh, they just tolked about one another, we uh, it was a horrible time. I hope that we never go through something like that again. A time of "HORRIBLE CARNALITY" that we passed through when we struggled with one another in our effort to find out what we believed to be the right course of action. Uh, right now the United Pentecostal Church is uh, WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO TURN AROUND TO FIND OUR PLACE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH" (Unquote). (From "Church in Transit) If there is a single preacher in the Pentecostal Movement who could be classified as a student and even a master in the Study of the Art of Revival, the author of the above quotation would be the first to qualify. I am amazed that a man who has made a career out of studying and promoting revival would overlook and seemingly be totally unaware of the Number One Pre-requisite for True Revival and Fruitfulness, namely—"THE PURGING OR CLEANSING OF THE BODY POLITIC OR CHURCH." He should well know that any revival that comes separate or apart from true, thorough and bed-rock repentance is "PSEUDO REVIVAL". WILL HE DENY THE PROVEN FACT THAT THE "LATTER-RAIN, CHARISMATIC REVIVAL, SO-CALLED, IS REVIVAL COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM REPENTANCE, DOCTRINE OR HOLINESS?" I would ask our worthy Elder, "WAS TELEVISION EVIL IN THOSE YEARS TO WHICH YOU REFER? Has television since wrought reform and become wholesome fare for holiness-minded Pentecostal saints? Do you believe television is evil today? Elder, some of us took you seriously. We have kept our churches completely purged of television. Though we have not seen a dramatic increase running into the thousands, we have experienced steady, consistent, and solid growth. We have seen our membership double in a year, then double again—without sacrificing a single tenet of Doctrine or Holiness. ELDER, CAN YOU SAY THE SAME FOR YOUR CHURCH? I remember when the highest Board in the Organization threatened any man who would dare even mention the word TELEVISION" from the platform of ihe General Conference. They chose "OUR BROTHER" as the special night speaker Standing like a true hero, and that before thousands of people, including the very Board that had issued the decree, HE SPENT OVER AN HOUR ELOQUENTLY DENOUNCING TELEVISION AS ONE OF THE GREATEST EVILS EVER TO INVADE THE PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENT IN HER ENTIRE HISTORY. I know because I was the first person to wring his hand in gratitude when he stepped from the pulpit. He stood ten feet tall that night and the Glory of the Lord was everywhere. Never did a knight's armor gleam more brightly. Not because he defied the decrees of his Elders, but rather because he chose to obey God rather than man. I did not hear him say this, but I was told that he warned certain men, stating flatly, "I will personally bring charges against any of you that I hear of, who have televisions. "I recall all this with a sense of deep sadness. Permit me to voice a very pertinent and vital question: "Does not a church or a body of brethren of like precious Faith have a right to close ranks and purge itself from that which is evil or sinful? Does not Almighty God expect and even demand that they do? Is there a single example, instance or precedent where this was not the case in both the Old and New Testaments? Will He not hold men in positions of leadership and influence accountable if they do not keep the Body clean? An Old Testament prophet stated in substance, "CURSED BE THE MAN THAT HOLDS BACK HIS SWORD FROM BLOOD." Surely everyone has read the grim pronouncements Almighty God has made against the watchman who sees the enemy coming, yet refuses to sound the alarm. In the quotation we have rendered, the speaker deplores the issue and characterizes it as a period of HORRIBLE CARNALITY". He even speaks of men who backslid over the T. V. issue. I cannot accept any guilt over this, even though I probably wrote more than anyone else in the Pentecostal Movement condemning the evils of television. I can conceive of carnal, worldly and unspiritual men falling away, especially if they championed a God and the health and Welfare of the Movement. "BUT NOT LOVERS OF GOD AND TRUTH". Clear notes certain sounds and decisive action in purging the church of sin and evil only further strengthens the hands of Champions for Truth. The discouraged, disillusioned ond confused men in the ranks of the Pentecostal Movement today are those men who must sit helplessly by and watch the spiritual and moral decay of the Church and the degeneracy of decisive leadership. David asks in Psalms 11:3 — "IF THE FOUNDATIONS BE DESTROYED, WHAT CAN THE RIGHTEOUS DO". Perimt me to interrogate our worthy brother: Was it "HORRIBLE CARNALITY" when the Holy Ghost, through the mighty enablements of the Spirit, moved on Peter to expose Ananias and Sapphira and purge sin and iniquity from the early New Testament church? Many of the Charismatic-minded ministers of today would scoff at such a little thing as lying — "AS MERE NIT-PICKING. Our speaker and lecturer is right — "SOULS WERE LOST. God was relentless in His Judgment. These proven liars were not destroyed by Peter; THEY WERE DESTROYED BY THE HOLY GHOST." Permit me to say further: "Had there been any sympathizers in the camp, could there be any doubt but what they, too, would have been destroyed?" It is worthy of note that when sin and iniquity was removed from the church, mighty revival resulted. Several notable things immediately followed this drastic but necessary purging. Note, please — ACTS 5: (1) Great fear came upon all the church. (2) Mighty signs and wonders were wrought among the people. (3) Great unity in the church followed. (4) The True Ministry was magnified. (5) Then of profound significance — "TRUE MASS EVANGELISM FOLLOWED IN RAPID MANIFESTATION" — "AND BELIEVERS WERE THE MORE ADDED TO THE LORD, MULTITUDES OF BOTH MEN AND WOMEN." Again I would interrogate our worthy brother — "ELDER, WHY ARE YOU MEN TURNING ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY TO THE BOND WOMAN (HAGAR OR GIMMICKS) FOR SPIRITUAL REPRODUCTION AND REVIVAL? Fruitfulness is not initiated by casting the canopy of Sanction and Fellowship over everything that talks in tongues. Let us note God's irrevocable Spiritual Law — "FRUITFULNESS CAN COME ONLY BY PURGING OR CLEANSING." Permit me to quote St. John 15:2 — "EVERY BRANCH THAT BEARETH FRUIT, HE PURGETH IT THAT IT MAY BRING FORTH MORE FRUIT." We would voice the searching question, "HOW IS THE CHURCH PURGED OR CLEANSED, TO BRING IT INTO A STATE OF FRUITFULNESS OR REVIVAL"? Jesus answers our question in Verse 3: "NOW YE ARE CLEAN THROUGH THE WORD WHICH I HAVE SPOKEN." In recounting the purging of the church in Acts 5, one of the most notable results was that the TRUE MINISTRY WAS MAGNIFIED. That is not the case today in the Pentecostal Movement. It is never the case in a Nicolaitane-Laodicean atmosphere of the so-called Structured Society. The true five-fold ministries are being substituted, nullified and neutralized by Counterfeit Political Priesthoods, Church Boards, committees and an ever increasing avalanche of Lay Ministries. Instead of a free, unfettered, magnified, anointed and prophetic ministry capable of attacking the disease and corruption at its source, we have a weak, fettered, intimidated, fearful, apprehensive, effeminate and in most cases, hireling ministry that is utterly powerless in the face of sin and iniquity. Therefore, the church will remain unpurged; sin will abound; iniquity will become more entrenched; the Spiritual Springs more clogged — and a hireling, apathetic and spiritually disoriented ministry will reach more and more eagerly for the BOND WOMAN, or GIMMICKS for Reproduction and Revival. This they will do in sheer desperation. Need we wonder why the charismatic movement is appealing to so many Jesus Name preachers in the Pentecostal Movement. But I ask them — "Is Sarah too slow in conceiving? Are the Isaacs too meager and too backward? Are they too few and far between that you cannot trust the Word and promises of God to send TRUE REVIVAL within the Doctrinal and Holiness Framework of the Acts 2:38 message?" Elder, respectfully I challenge you — "PLEASE SHOW ME CLASSIC, AUTHENTIC, TRUE, APOSTOLIC-CERTIFIED AND HOLY GHOST SANCTIONED REVIVAL SEPARATE OR APART FROM THE ACTS 2:38 FRAMEWORK. Sir, you ore a wise man and a very capable Bible scholar; YOU KNOW THIS CANNOT BE DONE. Then why would you endanger yourself, your church, your family, the Pentecostal Movement for which we both have given our lives, and go down in history as one of the Pied-Pipers of Apostasy who helped poison the Spiritual Springs of the Pentecostal Movement and promote the Great Falling Away." Permit me to take you back to the Bible again in pursuit of our subject. Was it "HORRIBLE CARNALITY" on Paul's part when he relentlessly lashed the Corinthian Church for permitting a man to remain in their assembly who was living with his father's wife? Paul was uncompromising — NOTE: "AND YE ARE PUFFED UP, AND HAVE NOT RATHER MOURNED THAT HE THAT HATH DONE THIS DEED MIGHT BE TAKEN AWAY FROM AMONG YOU". (I Cor. 5) Verse 5 sets forth the pre-determined course that Paul would have them pursue — NOTE: "TO DELIVER SUCH AN ONE UNTO SATAN FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FLESH." Please note further, "THAT THE SPIRIT", (not the man's spirit) — "BUT THAT THE SPIRIT (the Spirit of the Church) MIGHT BE SAVED. Then Verse 6 — "YOUR GLORYING IS NOT GOOD. KNOW YE NOT THAT A LITTLE LEAVEN, LEAVENETH THE WHOLE LUMP?" "PURGE OUT THEREFORE THE OLD LEAVEN." I state flatly and without any fear whatsoever that time and events shall prove me wrong — "THERE IS TOO MUCH OLD LEAVEN IN THE GENERAL LUMP OF THE PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENT FOR ALMIGHTY GOD TO EVER SEND TRUE, AUTHENTIC AND GENERAL REVIVAL, without a thorough purging of the Movement. End-Time Revival in the terms and magnitude certain men are teaching it, is folly. That is why our super-promoters will turn away more and more from the Acts 2:38 message, and reach instead for the Bond Woman and Gimmicks and even embrace false concepts in their frenzied effort to promote revival without purging. And Ladies and Gentlemen their tortured and wrested typology is ridiculous. For those who have not received a love for the Truth; for those who have broken loose from their Doctrinal Moorings and arc drifting away from Truth; for those WHO ARE DETERMINED TO MAKE IT HAPPEN, in spite of Truth; SATAN MAY VERY WELL SEND THEM A REVIVAL; A TONGUE-TALKING, CHARISMATIC, ECUMENICAL REVIVAL DIVORCED FROM DOCTRINE OR HOLINESS, IN HIS DETERMINED AND CALCULATED EFFORT TO DECEIVE THE VERY ELECT, IF POSSIBLE. It is time that we took a long, hard look at II Timothy, Chapter 3. Paul is not speaking to the Church in his day. Paul is addressing Pentecost 1983. He warns — "THIS KNOW ALSO THAT IN THE LAST DAYS PERILOUS TIMES SHALL COME." Then Verse 8, and I quote: "NOW AS JANNES AND JAMBRES WITHSTOOD MOSES, SO DO THESE ALSO RESIST THE TRUTH. MEN OF CORRUPT MINDS; REPROBATE CONCERNING THE FAITH." The most deceptive peril of our day and the one Paul is warning us of, "ARE THE RAVENING WOLVES DRESSED IN SHEEPS CLOTHING THAT ARE COMING AMONG US WITH SUPERNATURAL SIGNS AND WONDERS, YET ARE THE ENEMIES OF TRUTH". I cannot stress too emphatically the fact—THAT JANNES AND JAMBRES WITHSTOOD MOSES BY THE SUPERNATURAL; THAT AS THEY RESISTED MOSES WITH SIGNS AND WONDERS, THESE CHARISMATIC DECEIVERS OF OUR DAY RESIST THE TRUTH, OR THE ACTS 2:38 NEW BIRTH-HOLINESS MESSAGE BY THE SUPERNATURAL. Every miracle that God performed through Aaron and Moses, Jannes and Jambres duplicated that miracle through the Power of Satan that worked in them. It shakes and deeply disturbs me when I realize that we have veteran ministers and even chief spokesmen in the Pentecostal Movement today that cannot discern the real from the duplicated; but they, apparently, stand eoger and ready to endorse the works of every modern day Jannes and Jambres os mighty end-time revival. But Paul unhesitatingly brands them as resisters of Truth; men of corrupt minds; reprobote concerning the Faith. They make no bones about it, "LEAVE YOUR OLD PENTECOSTAL SUITCASES OUTSIDE; WE DON'T WANT ANY OF THAT GARBAGE IN HERE." I would caution our esteemed Elder, from whose work we have quoted, "PLEASE, MY BROTHER, FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE THOUSANDS THAT HAVE HEARD YOU PREACH THE ACTS 2:38 MESSAGE SO FEARLESSLY AND COURAGELESSLY IN THE PAST; do not be so quick to place your stamp of approval on everything that talks in tongues or deals in signs and wonders. You could very well find yourself embracing a modern day Jannes and Jambres. Jesus warned of such people; They will come to him in that day and say, "LORD, LORD, HAVE WE NOT PROPHESIED IN THY NAME? AND IN THY NAME HAVE CAST OUT DEVILS? AND IN THY NAME DONE MANY WONDERFUL WORKS? THEN WILL I PROFESS UNTO THEM, I NEVER KNEW YOU. DEPART FROM ME, YE THAT WORK INIQUITY." Were I a certain high official, my face would be exceedingly red. I read his lengthy newspaper article on "THE GREAT END-TIME REVIVAL". — "THE BUCKETS OF HEAVEN ARE UPENDED", he bubbled; "WHOLE CITIES EXPLODING IN REVIVAL FIRE; THE HIPPIES; THE JESUS FREAKS; THE FLOWER CHILDREN; THE PRIESTS OF NOTRE DAME; THE COUNTER CULTURE; ALL RECEIVING THE HOLY GHOST BY THE THOUSANDS. THE GREAT END-TIME REVIVAL IS HERE." Well, his great End-Time Revival sadly fizzled. The priests in question never had any intention of leaving their Beads and the Virgin Mary. The hippies never left their dope, and sex, and rock music; the Jesus Freaks and Flower Children still droop around in sick degeneracy—and where does that leave our enthusiastic prognosticator? Let me make a prediction. Such fiascos of identification and discernment won't phase such men in the least. Before the moon changes they will be off on another hobby of sensationalism, as bubbly as ever. The same old endless monotonous story — "THESE GENTLEMEN STILL FEEL THAT REVIVAL CAN COME WITHOUT PURGING." Here is the tragic, and I shall add, hopeless state the general Pentecostal Movement finds itself in. It is almost totally bereft of the courageous, unfettered, selfless, spiritual and prophetic leadership necessary to purge the movement and bring true revival. This politically called, Nicolaitane, Babylonian Priesthood that rules the Pentecostal Movement with a rod of iron, would never tolerate such a move, especially when it came to the expelling of wild Ishmaels and half-breed Ashdodites. Only the Five-fold Ministry, working unfettered and unctionized by the Holy Ghost, would be capable for such a task. Tragically, the offices of the Five-fold Ministries have been usurped and superceded by the political offices of the Structured Society. End time Revival in the General Pentecostal Movement as predicted by our charismattc Fuzzy-heads is a fallacy; that which is presently being promoted as End-Time Revival is only a grim, ghastly and macabre caricature of True Revival. Simply, frankly, bluntly, and perhaps brutally, there is too much old leaven in the lump; too much sin and no general desire or burden to purge it; too much adultery among the ministry; too much fornication among the young people; too many queers, homosexuals and lesbians working their way like hellish termites into the Pentecostal woodwork; too many mod, carnal playboy preachers who like it loose and easy and have no intentions of ever challenging the sin that has taken over their churches; too many effeminate, sissy preachers who are afraid of their own shadows and live in pathological fear of District Superintendents and Sectional Presbyters. Too many politically elected Organizational officials to whom the unpardonable sin is rocking the boat; too many preachers to whom their retirement and a miserable little insurance policy means more than truth and principle; too many twice-married preachers taking over the highest podiums in the Movement; too many limber-wristed funny boys controlling much of the singing and music composition in the Movement; too many video screens, televisions and home movies complete with the latest in pornography; too many Family Life Centers, church ball teams, ping-pong, pool and in time, square dancing; too much Rock Gospel and weird, far out singing; too much foolish, silly, degenerate theater substituting for straight, relevant preaching and worship; too much irrelevant preaching where a ministry saturated with politics has learned the art of talking all around a subject but never saying anything; too much divorce and remarriage; too many super-promoters ready to sell everything, including the Acts 2:38 message, as well as the virtue and honor of the Church to make it happen; too many apologists who regret every positive and clear stand they have ever taken in the past and are ready to make apologies for them. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHEN A PEOPLE OR A MOVEMENT NO LONGER STANDS FOR SOMETHING, THEY WILL FALL FOR EVERYTHING. Our ELDER" speaks confidently and even enthusiastically of a "STRUCTURED REVIVAL WITHIN A STRUCTURED SOCIETY." Such mental ramblings are merely the figments of human reasoning; they certainly cannot claim roots in the spiritual, the scriptural or the Divine. "ELDER", I am amazed how quick you and your colleagues are, to bid on every Philistinian cart Satan puts up on the auction block. Sacred cows die hard; but die this one must. HERE IS A MOVEMENT THAT HAS TOTALLY SURRENDERED THEIR DESTINY TO A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR BABYLON-THE-GREAT-RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION — built, EVERY LAST STITCH, NAIL, BRICK, BOARD OR DAB OF MORTAR, WITHOUT ONE, SINGLE, SOLITARY, ISOLATED VERSE OR PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE TO SUSTAIN OR JUSTIFY ITS EXISTENCE; and ironically, by a ministry that professes undying loyalty and devotion to the Word of God. They profess more scriptural rigidity than the Campbellites; namely, "WE SPEAK ONLY WHERE THE BIBLE SPEAKS; WHERE THE BIBLE IS SILENT, WE ARE SILENT." But are they—and do they? Just who is kidding whom? The Political-Episcopal Religious Organization universally accepted by the Pentecostal Movement is no where mentioned in the Scriptures or even implied except as a mortal danger to be avoided. Historically, "THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS AN EX-OFFICIO MEMBER OR MEMBER BY VIRTUE OF AN OFFICE in any conference, synod or inter-church meeting until almost a hundred years after the death of the last Apostle. In other words, the only Organization the early New Testament Church knew or recognized was the Five-fold Ministry and Gifts of the Spirit. The only organic offices the early church knew or recognized were "Bishops" (or Pastors), and "Deacons" (helps for the Bishop). In my recent book, "NO CRYING VOICES", I presented over thirty thesis or propositions pointing out and scripturally challenging basic and fundamental errors in the Pentecostal Religious Organizations. I begged, pleoded, mocked, and some feel I even insulted the Pentecostal Ministry, including our worthy Elder, "TO GIVE ME JUST ONE SCRIPTURE TO JUSTIFY THEIR SYSTEM." Again I say, SACRED COWS DIE HARD. As to be expected, I was inundated with nasty letters and phone calls, BUT TO THIS DAY, NO MAN HAS EVEN ATTEMPTED TO ANSWER ME SCRIPTURALLY " I repeat — "NOBODY, INCLUDING OUR ESTEEMED ELDER AND PROMOTER OF THE STRUCTURED REVIVAL WITHIN A STRUCTURED SOCIETY, HAS PRODUCED A SINGLE SCRIPTURE JUSTIFYING THEIR SYSTEM." I was presented with many practical and business, and even thoroughly logical reasons why Religious Organization is good and proper. I confess, were I ignorant of the Word of God and of history, and were I colled upon to run or govern the Movement, I would run it exactly the same way Ma Bell or General Motors run their business. I can take my pen and my yellow legal pad and list for you in consecutive order fifteen good and logical and practical reasons why it was the wise and sensible thing for David to move the Ark-of-the-Covenant on a New Phillistinian Cart. There is only one hitch to this thoroughly humanistic approach — "ALMIGHTY GOD HAD SAID IN HIS WORD—WHEN YOU TRANSPORT THE ARK, SEE THAT IT IS CARRIED ON THE BARE SHOULDERS OF MY PRIEST." The Spirit that prevailed then, has been magnified a hundredfold in the Pentecostal Movement of our day; namely, "Anything and everything to tear down, nullify, neutralize, bypass, usurp or supercede the offices and work of the true priesthood; and that with Gimmicks, lay-ministries and substitutes. This politically-elected Nicolaitane Priesthood that would be responsible for promoting the Structured Revival, is nothing but a counterfeit or substitute priesthood as I have proven over and over. Ladies and Gentlemen, in Kentucky Coon-dog language, this Nicolaitane Priesthood (all politically elected organizational officials) is solidly treed. I have an excellent business friend who is fond of expressing this bit of homely philosophy—he tells me, "BROTHER BURR, YOU CANT GET ALL YOUR COONS UP ONE TREE." Regarding the Nicolaitane Priesthood, I hove proven him wrong. THE WORD OF GOD HAS EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM TREED. I find it vastly amusing to shine the spotlight of Bible truth up our hypothetical tree. The gleaming eyes and rumbling growls are something to remember. I have a scripture for our esteemed Elder, and a question. This also applies to every minister, official and lay member taking refuge under the shadow or within the branches of Religious Organization. Jesus said, (Matt. 15:13) — "EVERY PLANT WHICH MY HEAVENLY FATHER HATH NOT PLANTED, SHALL BE ROOTED UP." "ELDER", please answer me; How can true revival, which you call Structured Revival, come out of a Structured Society or System, without Divine Parentage or Scriptural Pedigree, and whose destiny has already been sealed? Religious Organization shall be rooted up because Almighty God did not plant it. I would like to conclude this Work by focusing the spotlight of inquiry on the last part of his quotation (NOTE) — UH, RIGHT NOW THE UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH IS, UH, WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO TURN AROUND TO FIND OUR PLACE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH." Elder, this opens up a brand new can of worms. I ask you, Sir, "Attempting to turn around from what? DO YOU MEAN A DOCTRINAL TURN-AROUND? OR DO YOU MEAN AN ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY TURN-AROUND? And what about all those many years the United Pentecostal Church has been in existence? Are you confessing that as an Organization you did not know your Place in the New Testament Church?" And to all the hundreds of ministers in the United Pentecostal Church — "IS THIS THE CONSENSUS OF THE GENERAL MINISTERIAL BODY? Or is this merely one man's opinion?" I am vitally interested in knowing. Something else — are there no longer any doctrinal hawks in the United Pentecostal Church — or have they all become charismatic doves? Because the New Testament nowhere mentions Mighty End-Time Revival just prior to the coming of the Lord This is a false concept. In fact the New Testament teaches exactly the opposite.- _A time of declension and decoy A falling away; A period of slumber and apostasy—when sin and iniquity will abound. The following is a series of pertinent scriptures relative to the end-time or the closing of the New Testament Church Age on the earth. I challenge the reader to read Mighty End-time Revival in any of them Please note: (1) Luke 18:3—‘'Nevertheless when the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (2) Note the Ten Virgins (Malt 25—they were all sleeping and slumbering. The wise and foolish. Half of them hod permitted their lamps to go completely cut. (3) 2 Thessa. 2:3—“Let no man deceive you by any means; For that day shall not come except there come a falling away first. (4) Matt. 24-12—'And because inequity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold (5) 2 Tim. 3—Tells us that the End-time shall be a time of great peril. Note verse 5—"Men shall have a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof" Romans 1:16 tells us that the Gospel is the Power of God unto salvation. Therefore in denying the Power they deny the Gospel. This will be a time when the truth will be resisted by supernatural signs and even miracles. Speaking with Tongues has become the canopy under which multitudes hide. (6) This will be a time when "Ecumenism" will dominate the thinking of the masses. (2) Instead of Mighty Revival this will be the era of Laodicea— Luke warmness and Laity Rule In many areas the Latter-Rain Charismatic Movement is o "Laity Rule Movement." (3) Even 'Philadelphia"—the Raptured Church, possessed only a little strength. Gentlemen—your word is out; We are writing". You've said it in; No use trying to deny it. You've said it in word and rang and ieimon Wr listened while you screamed in wild slotisn- — "We're excited; We're excited," Well—gentlemen of the Church-i-vTransit, we're not exalted; especially about a false concept: "Del wc are waiting for you to produce your great-end-time Revival Not a superficial display of charismatic razzle-dazzle, but a true, New Testament, Apostolic Pentecostal, Acts 2:38 New Birth — Holiness Revival Don't try to boot-leg any of that pseudo stuff off on us. We know the difference. We were born in the fire, and could never be satisfied with a lot of charismatic smoke. We got fed up to the gills with charismatic, pink-pant-suit, latter splatter over thirty years ago. Gentlemen—why arc you so long on promises and so short on delivery. Or perhaps I should phrase it another way. Why are you so slow, in producing true revival. Sin—you promised— we heard you promise V/c ore waiting. Poor old deluded darlings, if they are reluctant to accept the Word of God, I'll lend them my Smith's Bible Dictionary. The feasts-of-tabernacles, does not signify in any way, a harvest in progress as they teach. It commemorates rather, a harvest that has already ended The grain is in the bin; The hay is in the barn; The fodder is in the stock; The grapes are in the vat and the fruit in the cellar The harvest is pest and the summer is ended and all the fruits are safely severed from the earth and stored. Now what? will rest from our labors, end feast and celebrate on cibundon* harvest But no— according to their tortured, twisted and wrested typology—" i he Feast-of-TabernacIes signifies the mighty harvest or revival itself, in progress. Sirs—your word is out, and we are writing. flip reason why the charismatics must revert to questionable typology from the Old Testament to justify their Pseudo Revival.

By: Thomas Weisser Since attending Bible College I was very interested in something. It had been mused about and considered by many of our preachers. But no one had really seriously pursued it. I was in great consternation as I considered the problem. After Frank Ewart rediscovered the gospel message of Acts 2:38 and the oneness of the Godhead in 1914, the Oneness Pentecostal Movement had grown considerably. What disturbed me was the lack of evidence for people believing this before 1914 and all the many centuries after the birth of the Church. This gives great opportunity to our critics and leaves us on the defensive. In any endeavor the worst possible way to approach it is from the defensive position. The Bible has not changed significantly through the centuries. The seed has been there, but why is it so difficult to find someone preaching Acts 2:38? I really could not believe that God would withhold this wonderful life changing message from people hungry for truth. Working it over in my mind I realized a few things. First, I could not believe that there was a time in Church History when this message was not being preached somewhere. With this in mind I tried to rationalize for those who did but, apparently left no record, or their record was destroyed. I thought, maybe they weren't writers and in most cases simply used the Bible. It is true that censorship was a great preoccupation of Europe's intolerant Catholic influenced leaders. This could definitely account for much of the lack of historical data substantiating the existence of Acts 2:38 people. But that didn't satisfy me. Surely, some information had leaked out. Not really knowing where I'd be going or whether it would profit me I plunged in. It didn't take me long I find what I considered, a very good lead. During the English Revolution in the mid-17th Century censorship was nonexistent from 1640 to 1660. It was during this time that I hoped to find someone who rediscovered the wonderful message of Acts 2:38, and wrote about it. Little did I know that my novel attempts would lead to so many amazing discoveries among such unlikely groups. In my quest I happened upon a book written by a Murray Tolmie entitled The Triumph of the Saints. This book is about the rise of separatism in England (l6th and l7th centuries). I found Mr. Tolmie in Vancouver B. C. and phoned him hoping that he would be of some help. He suggested that I get a hold of Whitley's A Baptist Biography and what followed was eye straining viewing of endless microfilm rolls at the local library. After so much of this I became discouraged and decided to lay off these Early Baptists and pursue another avenue. A symposium in St. Louis was coming up and I was presenting a paper there, so it was easy to lay aside this seemingly fruitless endeavor. After my return from St. Louis I was drawn back inexplicably to these early English Baptists. I dug up my list from the Baptist bibliography and began again, ordering likely titles. I had developed the habit of going through all the works in a roll of microfilm after I got it. For this I am now very grateful. Many times the writing I ordered was a disappointment but I might run across something interesting in another work on the roll. It was this way when I ran across a most exciting discovery. Zipping through a roll of microfilm in which the now familiar disappointment had been perused I came across something sensational! Slowing down I sat dumbfounded as I began reading; "Because it is the Gospel faith, that Jesus commanded his disciples to preach after his resurrection unto all Nations; Luke 24:46....Because there was no way revealed, for the poor trembling Jews, that were pricked in their hearts at the preaching of Peter, for crucifying the Christ....When they cryed out, what shall we do? Until they yield obedience to the voice of the everlasting gospel; that the Holy Spirit speak to them, by the mouth of Peter; Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins; And ye shall receive the gift of the holy Spirit:" I read it again and again. I couldn't believe what I had run across by accident. Further discoveries followed and the following pages will uncover for you significant facts that, for the most part, have been hidden until now. Along with exposing cover-ups by historians you will find that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was commonly practiced. Early English Baptists and Baptism in Jesus' Name Francis Cornwell Mr. Francis Cornwell is the main character in the drama you are about to view through these pages. He was one of the most educated of the 17th Century Anabaptists having obtained a Master of Arts degree from Emanuel College. He left a comfortable position with the Church of England as vicar in a village called Marden in Kent (a county SE of London) after stirring up a hornet's nest. His writings are heavy with advocacy for 'dipping' in Jesus' name. When mentioning Mt. 28:19, he repeatedly brings our attention to Acts to see the meaning of this important Scripture. On page 5 of his Two Queries he writes: Until they yield obedience unto the Gospel Commandment: Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ; for the remission of sins, Act 2:38....Because there is no promise of salvation for any (whether they be males or females) but for them only, that believe in Jesus the Christ, Act. 4:10, 11, 12. For there is salvation in none other. He gives a little of his testimony in his Gospel Conversion: (This was directed 'To all the Churches of Jesus the Christ, coming out of Mystical Babylon, gathered or scattered, that follow the Lamb, the Lord Jesus wheresoever he goeth'). Now when the Lord opened the eyes of my understanding, and convicted me of all the abominations I had done in my spiritual captivity under Antichrist, especially, that I had crucified Jesus the Christ in his Members, being pricked in my heart, I trembling cried, what shall I do? The Spirit and the Bride, the Lamb’s wife, said; Repent, and be Baptized in the name of Jesus, &c. Then I gladly received the Word, was Baptized, and was added to the Church. Acts 2:38,39,40,41,42. We have some written record of the controversy between Mr. Cornwell and the English Clergy. A Robert Whittle published An Answer to Mr. Francis Cornwell's Positions & Inferences etc. in 1646. Included in this work is Mr. Cornwell's The New Testament ratified with the Blood of the Lord Jesus, is the Magna Charta of Believers in Jesus the Christ dipped; by which they are justified to be no Heretics. In this Cornwell repeatedly refers to baptism in Jesus' Name: we which believe in Jesus Christ, must repent and be dipped in the name of Jesus Christ: the love of Christ our King constrained us to arise and be dipped in the name of Jesus Christ; as we find 3,000 at one time gladly received his word and were dipped, Act 2:41. Mr. Cornwell directly addresses Mr. Whittle saying: Moreover, M. Whittle, you and your brethren deny Jesus Christ to be your Anointed King, in that you yield not obedience to his Gospel Commandment; namely, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Spirit, Act. 2:38. (Seeing they are the first Gospel Commandment with promises,) and for your rebellion against the Crown and Dignity of King Jesus, and your disobedience in not obeying the Gospel of the Lord Jesus; you can expect no other but to be punished with everlasting perdition, 2 Thess. 6:7,8,9. Unless the good Lord persuade you to change your mind, and be dipped in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, which are very grievous before the Lord. Mr. Whittle answers; "we acknowledge but one baptism, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". We will learn more of Mr. Cornwell later. Smoke in the Temple In 1645 a rather interesting work was put forth by John Saltmarsh who calls himself a 'Preacher of the Gospel at Brasteed in Kent'. In it he describes many religious groups that had arisen in England. The most revolutionary aspect of this work is that Mr. Saltmarsh calls for religious toleration and pluralism in England. The concept of religious liberty that we so cherish in the United States was advocated in this work. In Smoke in the Temple Mr. Saltmarsh has a subheading entitled 'Anabaptism So called; What it is, or what they hold.' On page 16 we read: That the Baptism of Jesus Christ by water, was only in the Name of Jesus Christ, as appears in all places where such a baptism was practiced, as in Act. 2:38. Act. 10:48. Act. 19:5. Act. 8:16. Rom. 6:3. All of which is a Baptism only in the Name of Jesus Christ... That the form by which they baptize, viz. I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is a form of mans devising, a tradition of man, a mere consequence drawn from supposition and probability, and not a form left by Christ. Mercurius Politicus In 1659 leading Baptist non-conformists, Kiffen, Moyer, etc. wrote a short message in Mercurius Politicus entitled: 'The humble and hearty address of sundry churches of persons baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Confessions of Faith The Early English Baptists were roughly divided among two types. The Particular who followed Calvinistic principles and believed in the Predestination of a particular few to be the elect. And the General Baptists who believed in general redemption or being among the elect. In the l7th Century many Confessions appeared from the non-conformists (those not conforming to the national church) in England. A few of these included provision for baptism in Jesus' Name. Especially important is the fact that the General Baptist confessions allowed for baptism in Jesus' Name (Francis Cornwell was a General Baptist). A Particular Baptist Confession first published in 1656 entitled A Confession of the Faith Several Churches of Christ in the County of Somerset, and of some Churches in the Counties near adjacent says the following about baptism: XXIV THAT it is the duty of every man and woman, that have repented from dead works, and have faith towards God, to be baptized (Acts 2:38; 8:12,37,38), that is, dipped or buried under the water (Rom. 6:3,4; Col. 2:12), in the name of our Lord Jesus (Acts 8;16), or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The True Gospel Faith, 1654, or what Whitley calls the earliest General Baptist Confession does not mention Trinitarian baptism at all. Only baptism in Jesus' Name is mentioned. Lumpkin in his Baptist Confessions of Faith does a poor job of giving us a facsimile of Article XI. He neglects to quote Scriptures cited and cites the wrong Scripture twice(in his work he lists Acts 10:43 and 2:33--in the original it is 10:48 and 2:38). Here is what it says in the original: XI That they that believe the things so preached ought to be dipped in water, Acts 10:47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized (which in the English is dipped) which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? Acts10:48. He commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the L. Jesus, Acts 2:38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 2:41. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized, Acts 8:12. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women. Later the General Baptists in 1660 published A Brief Confession. It says the following about baptism: That the right and only way of gathering Churches (according to Christ's appointment, Mat. 28:19,20.) is first to teach, or preach the Gospel, Mark 16:16. to the Sons and Daughters of men; and then to Baptize (that is in English to Dip) in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, or in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; such only of them as profess "repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ," Acts 2:38. Acts 8: 12. Acts 18:8.15 In another part of this same confession qualifications for the ministry are outlined. It says this about those they considered unqualified; all such who come not first to repent of their sins, believe on the Lord Jesus, and so 'Baptized' in his name for the remission of Sins, but are only brought up in the Schools of humane learning, to the attaining humane arts, and variety of languages, with many vain curiosities of speech, I Cor. 1:19,21. 2:1,4,5. seeking rather the gain of large revenues, than the gain of souls to God such we utterly deny, being such as have need rather to be taught themselves, than fit to teach others, Rom. 2:21. Clearly, baptism in Jesus' Name was practiced by many of the l7th Century English Baptists of both the Particular and General persuasion. William Wall (1647-1728) in his work The History of Infant Baptism says this about the General Baptists. "One sort of them do count it indifferent whether they baptize with these words; In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; or with these; In the name of the Lord Jesus. And do in their public confession allow either of the forms. And I have heard that some of them do affectedly choose the latter." Later he says; "Those that baptize only in the name of the Lord Jesus plead the examples of the apostles, Acts 8:16; item 19:5." John Lawrence Mosheim (1694-1755) says this about the General Baptists in his An Ecclesiastical History; "They dip only once, and not three times, as is practiced elsewhere, the candidates for baptism, and consider it as a matter of indifference, whether that sacrament be administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or in the name of Christ alone." The Godhead Among these early Baptists many became dissatisfied with the idea of Three Persons in God. Baillie in his work Anabaptism (1646) writes; "The Anabaptists in Somersetshire denied the Trinity of Persons in the Deity, and affirm that there is but one Person in the Godhead, for if there be three Persons, there must needs be three Gods, and that Athanasius in his Creed doth blaspheme." Around the same time Thomas Edwaras published his Gangraena. He said that there were those in England who believed the following: That in the Unity of the Godhead there is not a Trinity of Persons, but the Doctrine of the Trinity believed and professed in the Church of God, is a Popish tradition and a Doctrine of Rome. There are not three distinct Persons in the Divine Essence, but only three Offices, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not three Persons, but Offices. There is but one Person in the Divine nature. The confessions that appeared in the 17th Century give us a good clue as to a group's concepts on the Godhead. If they were Trinitarian they usually expressed this explicitly in their Confession. All those I mention in the previously do not make an explicit stand for Trinitarianism. This may mean a lot or not much depending on how you look at it. In my research I came across a very interesting cover-up that should mean a lot to any honest historian. Richard Knight, a pastor of a General Baptist Church in Rhode Island (l9th Century), wrote a history of the General Baptists. In it he goes to great lengths to paint the General Baptist movement in a Trinitarian light. Either Mr. Knight was hopelessly ignorant of the true contents of the Confession of 1660, or he is, what is commonly referred to in the Bible as a liar! Mr. Knight writes the following: The confession of 1660, speaks plainly, "that there is one Holy Spirit, the precious gift of God, freely given to such as obey him, that thereby they may be thoroughly sanctified and made able, without which they are altogether unable to abide steadfast in the faith. There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. We believe that there is one Holy Spirit, the third person subsisting in the Sacred Trinity, one with the Father and Son, co-equal, co-eternal and co-essential with the Father and Son, to whom with the Father and Son, three persons and but one eternal and Almighty God, be, by all the hosts of saints and angels ascribed eternal glory and hallelujahs, Amen. Concerning the Holy Spirit, we believe, suitable to the scriptures that speak thereof, that the Holy Spirit is of God, and is God, of the divine essence, the enlightener and convincer, converter, sanctifier, strengthener and comforter of his people in and by the means appointed for that end, namely: the word of truth and doctrine of the gospel. I've not been able to find the above in any reproductions of the Confession of 1660. This is what it really says: VII. That there is one holy Spirit, the precious gift of God, freely given to such as obey him, Ephes. 4:4. Acts 5:32. that thereby they may be thoroughly sanctified, and made able (without which they are altogether unable) to abide steadfast in the faith, and to honor the Father, and his Son Christ, the Author and finisher of their faith; I Cor. 6:11. There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, the holy Spirit, and these three are one; which Spirit of promise such have not yet received, (though they speak much of him) that are so far out of Love, Peace, Longsuffering, Gentleness, Goodness, Meekness, and Temperance, (the fruits of the Spirit, Gal. 5:22,23.) as that they breath out much cruelty, and great envy against the Liberties, and peaceful living of such, as are not of their judgment, though holy as to their conversations. The truth of the matter is that the General Baptists, as a whole, were never strongly Trinitarian. There were Trinitarians among them but they never seemed to gain a majority. Torbet says the following about the General Baptists; "There was among them, however, some confusion with respect to the Trinitarian concept of God...By 1750 they had adopted quite generally a form of Unitarian teaching that explained deity as one person in three manifestations, rather than three persons in one God." [note; "The term 'Unitarian' first emerges in 1682, and appears in the title of the Brief History (1687). It was considered in a broad sense to cover all who, with whatever differences, held the uni-personality of the Divine Being. fr. Ency. Brit. 11th ed.] Watts tells us this about these General Baptists; "In 1697 the General Baptist Assembly resolved that if members debated the Trinity, they must do so 'in Scripture words and terms and in no other terms,' and the Assembly held to that position consistently throughout the following century." In 1678 an opposing confession to the Confession of 1660 was published. "It was issued, not by the General Assembly (leaders), but by fifty-five Messengers, Elders and Brethren. They were chiefly from the counties of Bucks, Hereford, Bedford, and Oxford. They titled it the Orthodox Creed. The Catholic Encyclopedia says this about it: The most important document of the General Baptists was the Orthodox Creed of 1678. Explicitly affirming acceptance of the Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, this document set forth the theological views of the General Baptists in detail. To say that the Orthodox Creed was 'the most important document of the General Baptists' is really stretching it. Especially when you consider the prevailing tendency among the General Baptists to use only Scriptural terms to define the Godhead. Taylor says in speaking of the Orthodox Creed; "It does not, however, appear, that it was ever generally approved." Clearly, the Orthodox Creed with its strong trinitarianism was not widely accepted by the General Baptists. The writer of the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia would have been more accurate had he said the Confession of 1660 was the most important document of the General Baptists. It has no unscriptural language in regards to the Godhead. Salter's Hall Among non-conformists (those groups operating outside of the national church, i.e. Church of England) in the early l8th Century there was a desire to unify themselves on the subject of the Godhead. In hopes of an agreement a meeting was held at Salter's Hall in London, Feb. 19,24, 1719. The main question considered by the delegates was whether or not to subscribe to extra-biblical statements regarding the Godhead. Most of the General Baptists present did not subscribe. Crosby tells us; "In this assembly, when some Baptist ministers pleaded against subscription to human forms, they were reproached with the names of laymen, and Anabaptist teachers; and told, that they had no business there." Michael Watts in his work The Dissenters says; "The London ministers met at Salter's Hall on 19 and 24 February 1719 and on a crucial division it was resolved by 57 votes to 53 'that no human compositions, or interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity, should be made a part of those articles of advice." He continues; "Meanwhile, in London, the controversy continued, and at a further meeting at Salter's Hall on 3 March the defeated minority subscribed their names to a Trinitarian declaration which led hence forward to the two sides being known as Subscribers and Non-subscribers." He concludes by saying: Of the seventy-eight London Dissenting ministers who are known to have been subscribers at Salter's Hall, thirty were Presbyterians, twenty-eight Congregationalists, fourteen Particular Baptists, one General Baptist, and five of unknown affiliation. Of the seventy-three Non-subscribers there were forty-seven Presbyterians, nine Congregationalists, fourteen General Baptists, two Particular Baptists, and one of uncertain affiliation. In other words, the majority of Presbyterian and General Baptist ministers took their stand on the sufficiency of Scripture, the majority of Congregationalists and Particular Baptists insisted on subscription to a Trinitarian creed. Francis Cornwell Francis Cornwell is the biggest anomaly of all the 17th Century English Baptist leaders. Here is a man who was one of the most educated Baptist converts. He wrote extensively and eloquently in defense of Biblical doctrines. Yet he is almost totally ignored by Baptist historians. His impact on the General Baptist movement in the l7th Century was very significant yet very little credit is given to him. I wonder why? Crosby, in his The History of the English Baptists gives us the most information: He was trained up at Cambridge, and was sometime student of Emanuel college, and commenced master of arts in that university. Francis Cornwell, M.A. I have given some account of him in Vol. I, p. 344. and have since received further information, viz. That he was a minister of Marden in Kent; and when under imprisonment in King Charles I's time for Nonconformity to wearing the surplice, to kneeling at the sacrament, the cross in baptism, and other ceremonies then imposed, he had for his companion Mr. Wilson of Ottham. They were together in Maidstone Goal, where amongst the visitors that came to see them, there was a woman that had some scruples of mind, whether the baptism of infants could be proved from scripture. Mr. Cornwell endeavored by the best scripture-arguments he could, to resolve the woman's doubts; but found he could not do it so well to her satisfaction, and his own, as he could have wished. The woman being gone, he had some conference with Mr. Wilson, his fellow prisoner; who assured him, that he never understood, that infants baptism could be proved from scripture, but had its authority from human tradition; it being handed down from primitive times, as a practice generally received in the church. Mr. Cornwell taking the scriptures to be the only rule of faith, and considering that on this principle only, all the protestant churches vindicated their separation from the church of Rome, against all her impositions brought in by pretended primitive antiquity, tho' not to be found in scripture. This principle of making the scriptures the only rule of faith, engaged him to make more diligent search: and finding that he could not to his own satisfaction prove the authority of infants baptism from the scripture; but that in all ages it had its dependence on the decrees, canons, and councils of the church, as many other corruptions had; he resolved to relinquish the doctrine of infants baptism, and concluded, that believers only, which made profession of their faith and repentance, were the proper subjects of baptism. AFTER the death of King Charles I. Oliver Cromwell gave liberty to all to worship God according to their own consciences. Mr. Cornwell being then at liberty, and minister again of the parish-church at Marden, and having yet concealed his sentiments, was made choice of to preach the visitation-sermon at Crambrook. Having been baptized by Mr. William Jeffery, of Seven-Oaks, his friends concluded this a proper time to declare publicly his sentiments; which he did, from Mark vii. 7. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. After the sermon was ended, the clergy were for disputing the point with Mr. Cornwell but; Mr. Jeffery being present, he referred them to him. They soon found Mr. Jeffery too hard for them in disputation, which caused Mr. Blackwood, to desire them to cease at that time; for he had taken the sermon as preached, in short-hand, and would return an answer in print, which he hoped might be to the satisfaction of them all. But in the issue, as I have before related, Vol. I. p. 347. Mr. Blackwood became a proselyte, and was baptized by the said Mr. Jeffery. Mr. Cornwell while vicar of the Church of England in Marden became convinced of believers' baptism. We have uncovered the following story: There was at the time of the Commonwealth a vicar by the name of Cornwell. The rectory of Staplehurst was filled by a Calvinistic Baptist and the ministers met at Cranbrook once a fortnight. One day the Calvinistic minister gave an address against infant baptism, and it came about that Mr. Cornwell, vicar of Marden, promised to answer his reverend brother at the next meeting. When the ministers again assembled Mr. Cornwell stated that he had examined the question and he found infant baptism was contrary to the custom of the Church, and, in order to show his conviction, he had broken to pieces the Marden font. Another practice that was, at first, rejected by General Baptists was the laying on of hands. The practice of laying on of hands, apparently for the reception of the Holy Ghost, was later widely accepted by the General Baptists. Our Mr. Cornwell had a great part in the introduction of this practice among the General Baptists. Now we will examine individual writings of Mr. Cornwell. -Two Queries Worthy of Serious Consideration, concerning the Gospel Faith of the LORD JESUS the CHRIST once given unto the saints, Matt. 16:16, I John 5:1 (Feb. 1645 fr. Orpington in Kent.) This work was directed to the ministers of the Church of England. The two queries directed to the English ministry are: 1. What is the everlasting Gospel; that Jesus the Christ commanded his Disciples to preach to all Nations beginning at Jerusalem? 2. Whether they preach now the everlasting Gospel in the same manner to them, that enquire after it. As Peter did to the trembling Jews, Act. 2:38. In this work Mr. Cornwell identifies himself as 'a loyal Covenanter for a pure Reformation in England and Ireland, according to the Word of God'. He expresses very plainly the Gospel message that would bring a true Reformation: 5. Because it is the Gospel faith, that Jesus commanded his Disciples to preach after his resurrection unto all Nations: Luke 24:46. Thus it behoveth the Christ to suffer, and to rise again the third day. 47. And that repentance; and remission of sins, should be preached in his name amongst all Nations beginning at Jerusalem 48: And ye are witnesses of these things. 6. Because there was no way revealed, for the poor trembling Jews, that were pricked in their hearts at the Preaching of Peter, for crucifying the Christ Acts 2:36. to save themselves from that froward generation (who had killed the Lord Jesus and their own Prophets) upon whom the wrath of God was coming to the uttermost: I Thess. 2: 14,15,16. When they cried out, what shall we do? until they yield obedience to the voice of the everlasting Gospel; that the holy Spirit speak to them, by the mouth of Peter; Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus the Christ for the remission of sins; And ye shall receive the gift of the holy Spirit: Over and over in this short work Mr. Cornwell refers to Acts 2:38 as the Everlasting Gospel. Must not the Gospel minister (to whom is committed the word of reconciliation; 2 Cor. 5:18.) preach unto them the everlasting Gospel; As Peter, did to the inquiring Jews; Act. 2:38? Until they yield obedience unto the Gospel Commandment: Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ; for the remission of sins. Act 2:38. Because it is written; He that saith I know him (that is Jesus the Christ) and keepeth not his Commandment is a liar; and there is no truth in him, I John 2:4. He mentions the keys of the kingdom of Mt. 16:19 on page one. Over and over he reiterates that a true Gospel Minister must confess that Jesus is the Christ as Peter did in Matthew. Its possible he received a Oneness enlightenment as modern Oneness adherents claim. A modern Oneness Pentecostal could hand this out, if reprinted, as a tract explaining his basic beliefs on the Gospel message. -The New Testament ratified with the blood of the Lord Jesus, is the Magna Charta of believers in Jesus Christ dipped; by which they are justified to be no Heretics. This is a work primarily directed to the Church of England minister Robert Whittle of East-Malling in Kent. Mr. Cornwell very cleverly uses the Magna Charta which represented a major step in English history towards rule by law to illustrate his concept of the Gospel message. Essentially, what he was saying, is that we need to follow the basic message of the New Testament without human traditions. His concept of the basic gospel message is plain to see: Moreover, M. Whittle, you and your brethren deny Jesus Christ to be your Anointed King, in that you yield not to his Gospel-Commandment; namely, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Spirit, Act. 2:38. (Seeing they are the first Gospel Commandment with promises,) and for your rebellion against the Crown and Dignity of King Jesus, and your disobedience in not obeying the Gospel of the Lord Jesus; you can expect no other but to be punished with everlasting perdition, 2 Thess. 6:7,8,9. unless the good Lord persuade you to change your mind, and be dipped in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, which are very grievous before the Lord. Mr. Whittle responds; "you fly upon us for denying Christ to be our anointed King, and so for open rebellion against him; and all because we will not be dipped; we acknowledge but one Baptism, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with which we have been already baptized in our Infancy." Mr. Cornwell pleads with the English ministry to accept the words of the King and Prophet Jesus Christ so that they may enter into the Spiritual Kingdom of Jesus: Namely, by repentance from dead works, confession of faith in Jesus Christ, and baptism; which are the three first principles of the Doctrine of Christ, which all the members of the Churches of Judea, which were in Christ, took up and practiced before they were added to the spiritual house in the breaking of bread and prayer, Heb. 6:1, Act 2:41. So that you trembling, cry out, What shall we doe? The holy Spirit, (by Peter that speaketh) will tell you: Repent, and be dipped every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Spirit: Then so many of you as shall gladly receive his word, shall be dipped, and shall be added to the Congregation of believers in Jesus the Christ, to continue in the doctrine we have received from the Apostles, and in Saints fellow-ship (that keep the Commandment of God, and the faith of Jesus, Rev. 14:12, and in breaking of bread and prayer, Act 2:41,42.) and have a right to all the Promises, Privileges, and Inheritance, that Jesus Christ, according to his New Testament, hath purchased for you that obey his Gospel. Heb. 5:8. He ends his short work with this: Yours, who is adjudged an Heretic by you; but because he refuseth to keep the Traditions of the Elders; but will rather observe the Commandment of Christ, (as the Pharisees of old upbraided Christ’s own Disciples, Matt. 15:2. yet prayeth, that God would open your understandings, that you might understand the New Testament, Christ hath ratified with his own blood, that ye might not sin against his mercies, and his members; lest you slay your own souls’. -Twelve Reasons laid down against prescribed and stinted (restricted) Forms of Prayers or Praises. The little work paints the picture of lively worship and praise. Clearly, the Churches that Mr. Cornwell identified with were not dead and formalistic. He says; "I cannot worship God in a stinted (restricted) form of worship, in prayer, and praise," and; 'then, that death of Christ is of force, to put an end to mans Ceremonial Worship:" He concludes his discourse with the following: Therefore I say to you (who blame us for not frequenting devised forms of Worship in prayer and praises) as Shadrack, Meshach, and Abednego did to King Nebuchadnezzar, We are not careful to answer you in this matter; Our God whom wee serve is able to deliver us out of your hand; But if he will not, be it known to you, we will not serve your gods; nor worship our God in that devised way that man set up, Dan. 3:16, 17, 18. If one set form of spiritual Worship in prayer and praises had been needful, Christ would have left one: But the Prophets, Christ, the Apostles, never prayed nor praised God by any set form of Worship invented by man; but by the powerful work of the holy Spirit, Rom. 8:26. Gal. 4:6. A set form of Worship prescribed in prayer or praises, cannot in prayer express the several necessities of Gods people, for the more grace they have, the more they seen their own infirmities, corruptions, and sins. Neither can it in praises express the manifold experiences that the Saints daily observe of Gods merciful dealing with them: Therefore a set form of prayer and praise, it is altogether unuseful; I Cor. 14:15, 16. -A Description of the Spiritual Temple: or the Spouse Prepared for the Lamb The LORD JESUS. The primary message of this work is a distinction between the true Church and the false. He puts forth the question; "What Congregations deny that Jesus is the Christ?" and answers; "Even all such as build upon the hay and stubble of mans inventions, and not upon the precious stone, Jesus the Christ, in whom only salvation is found, Act. 4:12." He then lists those who build on the hay. First, those who build on the Pope. Second, those who build on the decrees of Church Councils. Third, those who build on another man's faith. These are built upon the sand he says, and not upon the rock, Jesus. Then he continues to describe the true Bride of Christ. First; "she is a loyal Spouse, that hath no head, no husband, no Lord, no Law giver, in things appertaining to the conscience, but royal King Jesus.' Secondly, his true bride recognized Christ's offices of Prophet, Priest and King. Thirdly, she has a pure worship not tainted with the 'inventions of man.' He describes the National Churches of Europe and their actions towards non-conformists. "By which Decree, the Nations in name and title have been Christianized, (though in the power they have denied it) and have killed many a precious Saint, under the brand of Heretics, for opposing it: whereby, the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication, Revel. 17:2. During apostolic times he describes the early Christians as coming out of the National Church of the Jews. He describes the early converts as feeling guilt for crucifying the Christ and saying; "Men and brethren, what shall we doe?" He answers; "Must not the Reply bee that voice that the Holy Spirit spake by the mouth of Peter, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." He gives the same answer (Acts 2:38). He goes right into the Ephesian disciples of Acts 19 says: We have an instance of twelve Disciples found at Ephesus, baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and Paul laid his hands on them, and they spake with new tongues, and Prophesied, as Joel the Prophet foretold, Joel 2:28. I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, &c. Again, the Holy Ghost baptism is mentioned. Mr. Cornwell doesn't come out and say that he spoke in tongues but he writes as though it is a familiar thing with him. Secondly, the Holy Spirit was not to bee given in his full measure until Christ was glorified. John 7:39, compared with Acts 2:33. But to the Faith and Baptism the Apostles preached after the death, and resurrection, and ascension of Christ into glory, there was a promise of giving the gifts of the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:38. Repent, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit: as the Prophet Joel foretold, Joel 2:28, and the twelve at Ephesus received, Acts 19:6. He quotes Acts 19:6; "And Paul laid his hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." Later, he describes the laying on of hands in Acts 8:14-17 and says: So that by the examination of these texts of holy Scripture, it appeareth to me, that these twelve that were formerly baptized by John, and then afterwards by Paul were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; and then the Lord according to his own free promise, Acts 2:38. Gave them the gifts of his holy Spirit, by his ordinance of Imposition of hands; that the earth might bee filled with his glory, and his Church replenished with gifts meet for the ministry, Ephes. 4:11,12. The rest of this book is given to a call for religious liberty. Especially as it applies to the rejection of 'Roman traditions.' Cornwell possessed an ingenious ability to bring together Bible truths with events poignantly felt by the 17th Century British subject. His clever comparison of the New Testament with the Magna Charta gave the average Englishman a clear object lesson. Just as the Magna Charta offered rule by law and freedom from arbitrary punishment so the New Testament offered the message of salvation and freedom from punishment, "for you that obey his (Jesus') Gospel." Also, throughout his works he claimed that his critics had denied Jesus Christ to be their King. He grants that they claim Him as their Priest to intercede but reject Him as their Prophet and King. The term King and his unmitigated power was very real to the 17th Century Englishman. The English Revolution was fought primarily to lesson the power of the King and following ages lessened it more in Britain until today the monarch is merely a figurehead with no real power. Nevertheless, Cornwell drives the point home that Jesus is a King who cannot be deposed or deprived of His power. Therefore, a man is wise to obey the gospel message of Acts 2:38 because it is the decree of an absolute ruler. Those who will not obey cannot be admitted into His everlasting kingdom. We don't have proof positive that he was Oneness in his theological beliefs concerning God. One the other hand, we have no strong indication that he was Trinitarian. He speaks disparagingly concerning the acts of Church Councils where Trinitarianism was formulated. He repeatedly refers to I Jn. 2:23 which says, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father." In his introductory remarks in A Description of the Spiritual Temple he brings our attention to 'two sorts of men'. The first are those who believe Jesus is the Christ (I Jn. 5:1); and the other are those who deny that Jesus is the Christ. Now, remember, he is saying that the Church of England ministers holding to Trinitarianism deny Jesus to be the Christ. Then he says; "And when I thought to understand the difference, it was too hard for me, until I went into the Sanctuary of God; where the Father of glory, of his good pleasure, revealed to me (the most unworthy of all his servants) the truth of that; which (I conceive) is the root of all our Controversies, and gave me to understand the meaning of the Scriptures, I John 5:1. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, viz. the eternal King. Prophet, Priest of the Church of the New Testament, ratified with his blood....none could understand that Mystery: but they only to whom the Father of heaven revealed it, Matt. 11:24. Hence, when Jesus demanded of his Disciples, Whom doe men say that I the Son of man am? Peter answereth; thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God: Jesus answered; Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee; but my Father in heaven. And thou art Peter, and upon this rock (Jesus the Christ, whom thou hast confessed) I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, Mat. 16:16-18."

The war I’m in as a freedom fighter will not stop; it will continue against Satan, demonic influences, and false teachings that oppose the true Bride of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do not wage war on persons, but I stand against doctrines and systems of denominationalism and organizational-ism that deny the Deity of Lord Jesus Christ That he is the Almighty God in Christ and lead people away from repentance and the new birth of water and spirit . There is one God and his name is Jesus , one Savior, and one plan of redemption: Acts 2:38 — repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and receive the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. We cannot unite with false apostate Catholic dogmas and doctrines, or her children in Protestantism. About 45,000 denominations have adopted same-sex marriages, transgender, homosexual, and bisexual relationships, which are abominations. The belief that there are many paths leading to heaven is false doctrine; there is only one plan of salvation preached on the day of Pentecost, which is Acts 2:38, John 3:3-8, and Mark 16:16-17. We can only be one with those truly born of water and the Spirit (John 3:3–8). We must contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3–4) and uphold the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:38; 2:41–42). I will proclaim this truth and contend against error and false doctrines. We will love the lost and reach for the least, but we will never compromise with denominations or organizations that oppose the apostles' doctrine, for this I fight for until I die or the Lord Jesus Christ returns. I am an Apostolic Pentecostal witness in Jesus’ name, a child of God. — Elder Keith Joel Walker

The true Apostolic Pentecostal witness is made up of those who have repented, been baptized in Jesus’ Name for the remission of sins, and received the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire with the evidence of speaking in tongues (Acts 2:38). The Jesus’ Name Bride is the true church of the living God—those who are Oneness, Jesus-only—who have the true light of the Gospel, holiness within and without, and separation from the world. This is the message of the hour. We do not believe in denominationalism or organizationalism. We believe the Bride is the body and the kingdom of God. You must be born again of water and the Spirit; then—and only then—are you in the kingdom of God (John 3:3–8; Mark 16:16–17; Acts 2:38–39). Each local assembly must have a pastor and a church set in order according to Apostolic Pentecostal alignment, with the Apostles’ Doctrine taught. We also believe the fivefold ministry is for today and that the nine gifts of the Spirit should be in operation. We believe in deacons in the local church to serve the pastor and the people under the leadership of the pastor, who is the head of the local church. We do not believe that deacon boards should control the pastor or the local church. Here Am I send Me to preach the Apostolic Pentecostal Witness of the true light of the Lord Jesus Christ according to Acts 2:38 and Deut. 6:4 Elder Keith Joel Walker This booklet is for WHAPC in Tuttle, Oklahoma. Written by Elder Keith Joel Walker

With the Actual Quotation of the Original Text of Matthew 28:19 Biblical and Historical Proof by Eddie Jones You have a right to know the truth about water baptism. What does the Bible say? What does history say? Do not take mere theories and ideas of men; learn the truth about this important subject. The following information is based on Biblical and historical proof that cannot be denied. IS WATER BAPTISM ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION? Jesus commanded, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:15,16). This command of Christ is merely an extension of His own ministry through His disciples. "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples" (John 4:1,2). The words cited above show that making disciples and baptizing them went together. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of WATER and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God" (John 3:5). Paul said, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us (How?) by the WASHING of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost"(Titus 3:5). On the day of Pentecost, Peter preached, "Repent, and be BAPTIZED everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS ..." (Acts 2:38). To the Gentiles Peter said, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized ...? And he COMMANDED THEM TO BE BAPTIZED ..." (Acts 10:47,48). "In the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by WATER. The like figure whereunto even BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US" (I Peter 3:20,21). Baptism occupied a place of great importance in the Christian community of the first century and was regarded as essential to the new birth and to membership in the Kingdom of God (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1982 Edition, Vol. 1, p. 798). Water baptism is an act of obedience to the command of Christ, necessary for the remission of sins, and essential to the new birth. It is therefore definitely essential to salvation. WHAT IS THE CORRECT MODE FOR WATER BAPTISM? The word baptize is derived from the Greek word "baptizo" which means to dip, immerse, plunge or sink (Greek-English Lexicon). A careful study of the New Testament Church will prove that immersion was the original mode used for water baptism. Paul said, "We are BURIED with Him by baptism" (Rom. 6:4). When Jesus was baptized by John in Jordan River, He came straightway up out of the water (Mark 1:9,10). When Philip baptized the eunuch, both went down into the water and then came up out of it (Acts 8:36-39). The "Early Christians" practiced immersion (submerging a person in water) as the method of baptism (World Book Encyclopedia, 1987 Edition, Vol. B, p. 71,72). The original mode of baptism was by immersion of the entire body in water, but a wide accepted method since the 2nd century has been baptism by affusion (pouring water on the head employed by the Roman Catholic Church) (Encyclopedia International, 1982 Edition, Vol. 2, p. 378). It is evident that Baptism in the early Church was by immersion. The Didache (Christian writings around the second and third centuries) and Cyprian (Bishop of Carthage) are generally cited as the earliest evidence for the allowance of affusion instead of immersion. Baptism by sprinkling is admitted by the present discipline of the Roman Catholic Church (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1977 Edition, Vol. 2, p. 56,65). Nowhere will you find that the New Testament Church baptized by sprinkling or pouring. They baptized by immersion of the entire body in water. WHAT IS THE CORRECT FORMULA FOR WATER BAPTISM? "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19). Confusion has been left in the minds of many as to whether or not it is valid to use the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost for the baptismal formula and for the basis of the Trinity doctrine. A careful study of the original text, taken from ancient manuscripts and from the earliest historical writings, should dispel all doubt concerning the true baptismal formula. Note the following textual criticism: Elsewhere in the New Testament the triune formula is not used. Some scholars thus doubt the accuracy of the quotation in Matthew (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1987 Edition, Vol. 1, p. 877). Matthew 28:19 has been disputed on textual grounds. There is grave doubt whether they (the traditional words Father, Son and Holy Ghost) may be regarded as the actual words of Jesus (The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1980 Edition, Vol. 1, p. 35). All ancient manuscripts, which contain the original words of Jesus found in Matthew 28:19, were either lost or destroyed. We have no complete manuscript older than the year 400 (Hibbert Journal, F. C. Conybeare, 1902 Bound Edit., p. 108). In all still existing MSS (manuscripts which contain Matthew 28:19) the text is found in the traditional (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) form (Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics, Vol. 2, p. 380). In the only codices (manuscripts) which would be likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin MS., the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew (Hibbert Journal, Conybeare, 1902, p. 108). To settle the question about the baptismal formula, we must turn to the earliest quotations of the original text. The noted Greek scholar Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 270-340), who lived in the greatest Christian library of his time, had access to much older MSS than currently exist, and also exegesis of Origen, of Clement, of Alexandria, of Pantaenus and of many other ancient works (Hibbert Journal, Conybeare, 1902, p. 104). Eusebius quoted from Matthew 28:19 many times in his writings, in which he clearly revealed that Jesus commissioned the apostles to use a singular name---"His Name." The following is an actual quotation taken from the ancient manuscripts of the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you" (Demonstratio Evangelica, by Eusebius, A.D. 300-336, col. 240, p. 136: English --- The Proof Of The Gospel, Translated by W. J. Ferrar, 1981 Edition, p. 152,159,179). In "The Proof Of The Gospel" Eusebius emphasized, "He (Jesus) did not bid them (Apostles) simply and indefinitely to make disciples of all nations, but with the necessary addition of 'IN MY NAME' " (p. 157). Any other form of text he had never heard, and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nicaea. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age he used the common (traditional) reading (Hibbert Journal, Conybeare, 1902, p. 105). This of course reveals that he was persuaded to replace the original text with the traditional wording. Other authors who had access to the original text also refer to the use of a singular name in the commission of Christ. The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the 3rd century dwelt at length on the power of the Name of Jesus invoked upon a man by baptism (De Rebaptismate 6,7: Dictionary Of The Bible, William Smith, Vol. I, p. 352). In Justin Martyr's writings between A.D. 130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as an echo of Matthew 28:19 by various scholars: "God hath not yet inflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the Name of His Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illumined by the Name of this Christ" (Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho 39, p. 258: Hibbert Journal, Conybeare, 1902, p. 106). This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19 (The Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, Vol. 2, p. 380). In Origen's works, as preserved in Greek, the first part of the verse (Matthew 28:19) is used three times, but his quotation always stops short at the words "the nations." That in itself suggests that this text has been censored, and that the words which followed "in My Name" struck out (Hibbert Journal, 1902, p. 105). In the 3rd century baptism in the Name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid. Ursinus, an African monk also asserted that baptism into the Name of Christ alone was valid (Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, Vol. 3, p. 365,366). Dr. Swete, professor at Cambridge, wrote in his book on the Apostles creed (London, 1894) that the triple formula forms the framework of the so-called Apostles' creed. He pointed out that the baptismal creed is seen to rest on the baptismal words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Hibbert Journal, 1902, p. 102). Matthew 28:19 is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view of the institution of baptism by Christ. The objection made to the historical criticism is that the references to baptism in the Acts point to the earliest form as baptism "in the Name of the Lord" (The Encyclopedia Of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 2, p. 380). In the oldest sources it is stated that baptism takes place "in the Name of Jesus" (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1937 Edition, Vol. 3, p. 82). For centuries the trinitarian formula for water baptism has been primarily based on the traditional wording of Matthew 28:19. With all the Scriptural and historical evidence now available, there remains absolutely no solid foundation to support the triune name baptism. The traditional wording of Matthew 28:19 cannot be used to support the trinitarian formula without clashing with Scriptural and historical evidence. It can only be used in reference to three manifestations of one God and not three persons with a triune name. Which ever text you choose to use: the original or traditional; a singular name is required. Notice that Jesus said, "NAME" (singular). Father, Son and Holy Ghost are only titles or offices in which the one true God has manifested Himself --- This is not His proper Name! To repeat the titles and refuse to state the Name is failure to fulfill the commission of Christ. Therefore, to obey the commission, the NAME must be used. What is the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Name of Father --- Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's Name" (John 5:43). Name of Son --- "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His Name JESUS" (Matt. 1:21). (Also Luke 1:31.) Name of Holy Ghost --- Jesus said, "The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in MY NAME, He shall teach you all things" (John 14:26). Emphatically the NAME IS JESUS! Zechariah prophesied, "... In that day (day of Salvation) shall there be ONE LORD, and HIS NAME ONE" (Zec. 14:9). "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name: that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow ... and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord . . ." (Phi. 2:9-11). Paul declared the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ of whom the whole family in heaven and in earth is named (Eph. 3:14,15). A trinitarian name-mysticism in Matthew 28:19 is quite out of the question. The Greek words "eis to onoma" (in the name) seems rather to have been a technical term in Hellenistic commerce "to the account." In both cases the use of the phrase is understandable, since the account bears the name of the one who owns it, and in baptism the Name of Jesus is pronounced (Acts 22:16) (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Kittel, Vol. 1, p. 539,540). Luke also records the "Great Commission" of Christ, which agrees with the original text of Matthew 28:19. Then Jesus opened the understanding of the disciples to the Scriptures, and said, "... That repentance and REMISSION OF SINS should be preached IN HIS NAMEamong all nations beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:45-47). In obedience to the commission of Christ, Peter stood with the other apostles in Jerusalem and said, "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). To question the words of Peter is to doubt the divine wisdom of God, for Jesus gave to Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:13-19). Certainly the apostles were authorities on the correct formula for water baptism. (Also see Eph. 2:20.) When Philip preached Christ in Samaria, they that believed were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16). To the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius in Caesarea, Peter said, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the Lord (R.V., Weymouth, Vulgate-'Name of Jesus Christ')" (Acts 10:47, 48). According to Paul's testimony, he was baptized, washing away his sins, calling on the Name of the Lord (R.V. --- "His Name") (Acts 22:16). The believers in the church at Rome were baptized into Jesus Christ. Paul said, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism ..." (Rom. 6:3,4). To the church at Corinth Paul asked the question, "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul" (I Cor. 1:12-15)? This indicated that Jesus was crucified and they were baptized in His Name. The believers in the churches of Galatia were baptized into Christ. Paul said, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27). Certain disciples at Ephesus were REBAPTIZED in the Name of the Lord Jesus, when they heard the preaching of the apostle Paul (Acts 19:4, 5). The believers in the church of Colosse were buried with Christ in baptism. Paul said, "Ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with Him in baptism ..." (Col. 2:11,12). In agreement with the Scripture, history further proves that water baptism in the Name of Jesus was universally practiced by the New Testament Church for many years after Christ, and was changed by the Roman Catholic Church with the development of the Trinity. Examine the following additional historical proofs: The original form of words was "into the Name of Jesus Christ" or "the Lord Jesus." Baptism into the Trinity was a later development (Dictionary of the Bible by James Hastings, Thirteenth Edition, Vol. 1, p. 241: Revised Edition, Vol. 1, p. 88). The early church always baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity, afterward they were baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Canney Encyclopedia, p. 53). The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.). He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1977 Edition, Vol. 13, p. 1012). The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. The term persons (plural) is not applied in Scripture to the Trinity (Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 Edition, Vol. 27, p. 69). Belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. (World Book Encyclopedia, 1987 Edition, Vol. T. p. 363). (For Nicene Creed see Encyclopedia Americana, 1983 Edition, Vol. 20, p. 310.) The triune and trinity formula was not used from the beginning, and up until the third century, baptism in the Name of Christ only was wide-spread . . . (Baptismal formula changed by the Roman Catholic Church). Now the formula of Rome is "I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Britannica Encyclopedia, Eleventh Edition, Vol. 3, p. 365,366). The Trinity doctrine. The Catholic Faith is this: We worship one in trinity, but there is one person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost. The Glory equal --- the Majesty coeternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took over the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination (New International Encyclopedia, 1916 Edition, Vol. 22, p. 476,477). The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament (Encyclopedia International, 1982 Edition, Vol. 18, p. 226). No record of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts or the Epistles of the Apostles (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 396). Is this not sufficient proof? Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, will you find that the New Testament Church baptized using the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Honest hearts, receive the truth! It is of utmost importance that water baptism be applied in the Name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is NONE OTHER NAME under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). '' Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For IN HIM DWELLETH ALLthe fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are COMPLETE IN HIM, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are ... BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead" (Col. 2:8-12). Ye are WASHED, ye are sanctified, ye are justified IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS, and by the Spirit of our God (I Cor. 6:11). "Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, DO ALL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS"(Col. 3:17). There is only ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, AND ONE BAPTISM (Eph. 4:5). "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

By Peter F. Connell, 2013 In my recent reading of the book of Ezekiel, a passage struck me profoundly, highlighting the immense responsibility that falls upon pastors. It serves as a sobering reminder of what God expects from those who shepherd His flock. The Lord’s anger towards negligent shepherds reveals critical attributes that should never characterize a pastor’s heart or ministry. The Attributes of Negligent Shepherds In Ezekiel 34, God expresses His displeasure with shepherds who fail to fulfill their duties. The following points summarize the attributes of these vile shepherds: 1.Self-Serving: They fed themselves but neglected the needs of the flock (Ezekiel 34:2). 2.Neglect of the Weak: They did not strengthen the diseased or heal the sick (Ezekiel 34:4). 3.Failure to Bind Up the Broken: They did not care for the broken-hearted or those in distress (Ezekiel 34:4). 4.Ignoring the Lost: They failed to bring back those who were driven away or seek the lost (Ezekiel 34:4). 5.Cruel Leadership: They ruled with cruelty and force, leading the sheep astray (Ezekiel 34:4). 6.Scattering the Flock: They allowed the sheep to be scattered, leaving them vulnerable (Ezekiel 34:5). 7.Lack of Care: They did not search for the lost sheep, resulting in their wandering (Ezekiel 34:6). These attributes starkly contrast the nature of God, who is depicted throughout Scripture as a loving and compassionate shepherd. The Nature of God as a Shepherd God’s character is revealed in His actions and intentions toward His people: •Seeking the Lost: “For the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10). •Healing the Broken: “He came to bind up the broken-hearted” (Luke 10:34). •Providing for the Flock: “He will feed His flock” (Jeremiah 3:13; Isaiah 40:11; Acts 20:28; I Peter 5:2). •Restoring the Wayward: “He will bring back those who are driven away” (Matthew 18:13-14). •Leading Gently: “He will gently lead those that are with young” (Isaiah 40:11; I Peter 5:2-4). A Call to Accountability Ezekiel 34:10-16 presents a stark warning to negligent shepherds. God declares His intention to hold them accountable for their failures: •Divine Judgment: “I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand” (Ezekiel 34:10). •Restoration of the Flock: “I will deliver my flock from their mouth” (Ezekiel 34:10). •God as the True Shepherd: “I will search my sheep and seek them out” (Ezekiel 34:11). In this passage, God emphasizes His commitment to care for His people, demonstrating that He will not allow His flock to remain in the hands of unfaithful shepherds. Conclusion As pastors, we are called to reflect the heart of God in our ministry. The attributes of a good shepherd—compassion, care, and a commitment to the well-being of the flock—must be at the forefront of our service. Let us heed the lessons from Ezekiel and strive to fulfill our responsibilities with diligence and love, ensuring that we do not fall into the patterns that anger the Lord. Lord, help us, as pastors, to get it right.

By Martyn Ballestero Repeating, But Not Obeying! There’s a difference between repeating a command, and obeying it. If the drill sergeant gave an order and the soldier simply repeated it back to him, something uncomfortable will surely happen to the soldier to improve his comprehension. If a parent gave their child a command to ‘Eat your veggies,’ or ‘Pick up your clothes,’ and the child just looked at the parent, smiled and repeated the command back to them and didn’t obey. Things might get ugly. What if the math teacher said, “Turn to page 73 in you textbook.” And all the students said, “Turn to page 73 in you textbooks.” And then they just sat there and did nothing else? Imagine the pastor saying, “You may be seated.” And the crowd answered him back, “You may be seated.” And they all just stood there and looked at the preacher and never thought that something might wrong with their response.     ▪    This type of thinking is not really far-fetched all.     ▪    This kind of twisted response happens around the world.     ▪    This lack of understanding is resident in most churches in America.     ▪    Repeating and not obeying, places the souls in jeopardy every day. Jesus looked at His disciples and gave them instructions for evangelism and baptism. He said: Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: That’s what He said. So, on the day of Pentecost, Peter didn’t repeat the command, he obeyed the command. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Philip obeyed the command. He didn’t just repeat it. Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) At the household of Cornelius, Peter made sure the command was obeyed, not just repeated. Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. Even the Apostle Paul understood the difference between repeating and obeying. Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. If, when the preacher baptized you he said, “I now baptize you In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” he did not obey the command. He just repeated it, because he didn’t say what the name was. To be obedient to the command of Jesus, you must be baptized in the NAME (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. That NAME, is Jesus.     ▪    Only those baptized in Jesus name have obeyed Matthew 28:19.     ▪    All others just repeated the command without obeying it. What did your preacher do? Did he obey, or did he just repeat? You’ve got make sure!

By: James L. Kilgore Introduction As we delve into the significance of holiness and its relation to Pentecostal standards, it is crucial to understand that living for God encompasses much more than emotional expressions or initial spiritual experiences. The journey of faith is profound and requires a solid foundation built on the Word of God. In the face of life’s challenges and the impending return of our Master, we must grasp the importance of these sacred truths. Holiness and Its Importance Living for God is more than a shout or speaking in tongues; it involves a deep commitment to His Word. In Matthew 7:26-27, Jesus warns us that those built on a shallow experience will not withstand the storms of life. We need a balance between emotional experiences and the teachings of Scripture. The first five chapters of John emphasize the necessity of both Spirit and truth. Without this balance, we risk becoming either overly formal or fanatical. A standard, as defined, is an established rule or measure set by authority. In the Garden of Eden, God set boundaries with the forbidden fruit, and when Israel entered Canaan, they were reminded daily of their commitment to God through the boundaries surrounding them. Just as a plumb line ensures that walls are built straight, we must establish our lives on the solid foundation of God’s Word. The Significance of Boundaries Israel was surrounded by various geographical features that held spiritual significance. The desert represented barrenness; Egypt symbolized the world; the sea represented people; and the mountains signified experience. Each boundary served as a reminder of the importance of maintaining holiness and separation from the influences of the world. •Desert (East): Represents drought and barrenness. Moving our standards toward the desert would mean embracing a lifeless, stagnant spirituality. •Egypt (South): Symbolizes the world and its allurements. If we compromise our standards to accommodate worldly influences, we risk losing our standing with God. •Sea (West): Represents people. We must not compromise truth to attract more individuals to our congregations. Our standards must remain firm. •Mountains (North): Represent trials and experiences. We need these challenges to grow in faith and reliance on God. A smooth life devoid of struggles is not what Jesus promised. The Call for Separation Separation is a biblical principle taught throughout both the Old and New Testaments. Jeremiah 13:11, Deuteronomy 22:9-11, and Leviticus 11:7-10 illustrate God’s call for His people to remain distinct. In the Old Testament, circumcision, dietary restrictions, and prohibitions against mixing materials were all marks of separation. In the New Testament, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 emphasizes the need for God’s people to maintain this separation. We are warned against being unequally yoked with unbelievers, whether in business or personal relationships. This call to separation is a reminder that we are a “called-out assembly,” distinct from the world. Holiness and Jewelry The New Testament speaks directly about adornment. In 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3, women are instructed to adorn themselves in modest apparel, avoiding jewelry and extravagant displays. The context of these verses indicates that outward adornment should not define a woman’s worth or identity. While wedding rings and jewelry may be culturally accepted, it is essential to examine their origins and implications. Jewelry is often associated with the world and can lead to a spirit of rebellion against God’s standards. The story of Gideon in Judges 8:24 highlights how jewelry was often linked with those who did not follow God’s ways. The spirit of Ishmael, representing the flesh and rebellion, is tied to the desire for worldly adornment. Galatians 4:22-26 contrasts the children of the bondwoman with those of the free woman, illustrating that true freedom comes from obedience to God’s standards. The Spirit of Babylon The spirit of Babylon is characterized by rebellion and idolatry, as seen in Revelation 17. This spirit has infiltrated many religious practices, promoting a love for adornment and worldly influences. As Pentecostals, we must resist this spirit and adhere to the standards set forth by Scripture. Our commitment to holiness must be unwavering. The original sin of rebellion, exemplified by Lucifer and Ishmael, serves as a warning. We cannot allow the allure of the world to compromise our faith. Living a Holy Life Holiness encompasses all aspects of life, including our homes and relationships. Older women are called to teach younger women to love their families and maintain their homes. The biblical mandate for women to be keepers of their homes is essential for nurturing a godly environment. Young men are also encouraged to demonstrate sobriety and integrity. They should strive to be examples of good works, adhering to sound doctrine and maintaining a pattern of righteousness. Conclusion As we embrace holiness and the standards set by God, we must be diligent in our walk with Him. We are called to adorn the doctrine of God in all things, reflecting His truth in our lives. Let us remain committed to the ancient landmarks of faith, resisting the influences of the world and the spirit of rebellion. In doing so, we can stand firm in our faith and be a light to those around us, drawing others to the truth of God’s Word. Let us strive to be a holy people, separated unto God, living out our faith with sincerity and joy, and ready for the return of our Lord.

Sermon By: Elder Gary Martin “CALLED BY HIS NAME” Genesis 5:2 Sermon Preaching Booklet Text: “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” (Genesis 5:2)   I. GOD ALONE CREATED HUMANITY • One God. One Creator. One Authority. • Isaiah 44:24 – God created all things alone. • Genesis 5:2 refutes the idea of multiple creators. • “He created them,” singular, confirming Oneness truth. Application: We must acknowledge God alone as our Creator and walk under His authority.   II. GENDER IS GOD’S DESIGN • “Male and female created he them.” • God designed gender distinctions, not society. • Matthew 19:4 – Jesus reaffirmed creation order. • Men and women reflect God’s image uniquely and distinctly. Application: Uphold biblical gender identity and honor God’s design in your family and life.   III. GOD’S BLESSING IS UPON HIS CREATION • “And blessed them.” • Genesis 1:28 – The blessing includes fruitfulness, dominion, and spiritual authority. • God desires His people to walk in spiritual and natural blessing. Application: Pray blessings over your family, your ministry, and walk in God’s promises.   IV. GOD CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM • “And called their name Adam.” • Unity in marriage and humanity. • Adam and Eve shared the same name, representing unity in creation. • Ephesians 5:30-32 – The Church and Christ are united as one body. Application: God calls us to unity in the Church and in our homes.   V. THE ONENESS OF GOD IN CREATION • Genesis 5:2 confirms the Oneness doctrine: God alone created and named. • Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 42:8 – One God, one Name. • Jesus is God manifest in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Application: Stand firm in the revelation of One God and His Name, Jesus.   VI. ARE YOU LIVING IN THE NAME? • Baptism in Jesus’ Name is the New Testament covenant sign. • Acts 4:12, Acts 2:38 – Salvation is only in Jesus’ Name. • Galatians 3:27 – Baptism places us in Christ, bearing His Name. Application: Examine if you are truly living under His Name and authority.       CONCLUSION: Genesis 5:2 is not just a genealogical note; it is a declaration: • God created you. • God blessed you. • God named you. Now, the God who called them “Adam” is calling you to bear His Name, Jesus. Micah 4:5: “Let us walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.”   PRAYER POINTS • Lord, help me walk under Your design and blessing. • Lord, help me uphold Your truth in a confused world. • Lord, help me walk faithfully in the Name of Jesus.

Written by Bishop S. C. Johnson If you haven’t believed it, obeyed it, and received it according as it is written here you are false. If you are a preacher and haven’t obeyed and believed this you are a false prophet and a hypocrite. If you are a member and haven’t believe and obeyed this you are a hypocrite. If you haven’t obeyed Acts 2:38, by repenting and being baptized in jesus name you are false. If you haven’t received the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues according to Acts 2:4 you are false. If you don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the Almighty God according to Rev. 1:8, Isaiah 9:6 you are false and an Idol worshipper. If you call yourself a Christian and reject the new birth that consists of water and spirit as in John 3rd chapter, 5th verse, you are false and a hypocrite, If you tell the people to bow their heads and accept Christ right where you are and don’t tell them like Peter told them on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38, you are false. You may preach and convert the world in your way but if you don’t bring converts according to the Apostles’ Doctrine as found in Acts 19:5, Acts 8:16, Acts10:48, Acts 2:38, you are false. If you tell the people that one goes to heaven as soon as he dies which is contrary to John 3:13 you are false. If you tell the people that Jesus was crucified on Friday and rose early Sunday morning which only made him two nights in the tomb, you are false. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so was the Son of man three days and three nights in the heart of the ear. Read Matt. 12:40. If you said, bread and wine wasn’t used in communion, you are false. Read Genesis 14:18. If you teach of preach that one should abstain from certain meats, you are false and you don’t know the truth. 1 Timothy 4:3,4,5. If you believe that one can put away their husband or wife and be married to another while the first companion lives, you are false and don’t know the truth. Mark 10:11-12. If you believe that the saints can dress like the world and wear gold or pearls and go to beauty parlors or straighten their hair, you are false and don’t know the truth. 1 Tim. 2:9-10, 1 peter 3:1- 5.If you teach any one to remember the Sabbath day and to keep it Holy, you are false and don’t know the truth. Col. 2:16. If you teach against foot washing, you are false. Read John 13:5-17. If you say that you are a believer and don’t have to get the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues, you are false and never knew the truth. Read Mark 16:17. If you say that nobody can live Holy in this world, you are false. Read Eph. 1:3-4. If you teach there are three distinct persons in the God head, you are false and don’t know the truth. Read Eph. 4:5. If you say there is more than one faith and more than one way to be saved, you are false and don’t know the truth. Read again the 4th Chapter of Eph. And the 5th verse. I’m ready to answer all criticism and prove to the world by the scripture that these things are written here can not be condemned.

By Keith Joel Walker I’ve walked through shadows, felt the weight, Of burdens heavy, hearts that ache. But time, my friend, is a gentle guide, Through storms and trials, where hope can hide. The wounds were deep, like scars on stone, Yet in the silence, I found my own. The tempest raged, it took my light, But dawn has broken, I’ve won the fight. The rain has washed away the pain, And in its wake, I’ve learned to gain. A rainbow arches through the trees, A promise whispered on the breeze. My dreams, once scattered like leaves in flight, Now dance in colors, vibrant and bright. The waves that crashed, they’ve ebbed away, Leaving behind a brand new day. I’m over it now, the past behind, With every heartbeat, I’ve redefined. Joy and peace, reclaimed anew, In every moment, I’ll see it through. So here I stand, beneath the sky, With open arms, I spread them wide. For I’ve found strength in letting go,And in that freedom, I’ve come to know— I’m over it now, with eyes that see, The beauty that blooms, the life in me. Through every storm, I’ve learned to be, A seeker of rainbows, wild and free.

Texts to Read: Matt. 16:17-19 Eph. 2:19-22 and Acts 2:41-47. By reading the foregoing scriptural references you will see what the apostles taught and practiced was to be The foundation of the New Testament Church and that heaven was behind them one hundred percent. You will also note that it was what the apostles taught. The church that caused it to prosper and grow so rapidly and to gain favor with God and man. We could deal with many things they taught but in this article we choose to deal with the jewelry issue. The Jewelry subject was dealt with by two of lee most prominent apostles Peter and Paul. See I Pet. 3:1-5 and I Tim. 2:7-10. This subject is discussed more in the Bible than the hair question and in no uncertain teens. To ignore it we have to disregard more than the required amount of Scriptures to establish any doctrine which is “In the mouth of TWO or THREE witnesses every word shall be establishes.” The Jewelry controversy is no new issue. It was strongly advocated and taught when I first came info the Pentecostal ranks in 1921. Thank God it did not begin there! When Jacob decided to serve God with his entire household and set his face to go to Bethel the house of God he commanded everyone of them to put away their strange gods. They did so and stripped themselves of “ALL THEIR EARRINGS which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem” (Gen 35:1-7). Later on when Aaron made the golden calf from the golden earrings which the women boys and girls wore (Ex. 32:14) God plagued the people for such (verse 35) and then commanded them to strip off all their ornaments (Ex. 33:5) “And when the people heard these evil tidings (of verse 30) they MOURNED (and some church folk today do a lot of mourning grumbling or complaining when they think they may have to part with those dear wedding bands golden cuff buttons and flashy tie clasps secret society rings and pins etc.): and NO MAN did put on his ornaments.” This is exactly how it should be with Pentecostal believers today. God does not want His holy people decked with jewelry LIKE THE WORLD (Tit 2:11-14 with 1 Tim. 2:7-9) AND THE DEVIL (Ex 28:11-15). There was a day when jewelry was a test of fellowship in the Methodist Church and the Methodists of those days had the power of God manifested in their meetings and worship. Here is what one of their retired ministers Dr. Robert P. Shuler has to say about their church of today and in the past: “We doubt if any organization outside of organized labor itself is better tuned to the social and political processes of these times than the Methodist Church … IT IS EASY to join The Methodist Church today … (some) years ago it was VERY DIFFICULT. Then all types and character of worldliness were barred. You could not dance, play cards WEAR JEWELRY engage in levity. You had to live it as well as profess it.” This alone should be enough to wake up both the ministry and laity of our Pentecostal ranks and cause us to flee the wrath to come, and all this apostasy of these last days. Jewelry, snooty mustache neatly folded and colorful handkerchiefs in the lapel pockets of men’s coals “stilted- heel-shoes” worn by the lady folk and many other things are identifying our ministry and laity with the fashions and customs of this ungodly ant sin-loving world. We need to forsake such anti all other ungodliness or we are going to sink into perdition and be exposed to the wrath of Almighty God (Rom. 1:18) along with all other reprobated Christianity ant a corrupted world. We need to cleave to our former convictions concerning the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and not turn back to the beggarly elements of this world–such as the wearing of jewelry anti ungodly clothes Of any sort, women bobbing (cutting) their hair and using rouge; also painting of fingernails and having TV shows in the home, etc. Jewelry An Open Door To Many Evils 1. An Open Door To Idolatry (1 John 5:21). Excessive love and veneration for anything becomes idolatry of the heart. We are taught by the Holy Scriptures to set our affections upon things which are heavenly and not upon those things which are earthly (Col. 3:2). God accused Israel of setting up idols in their hearts and putting the stumbling block of their iniquities before their face (Ezk. 14:3). He refused to be inquired of by such people. If we are not hearing from God as we should, might it not be for the same cause? First John 5:21 has this to say concerning idolatry: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols,” and how could anyone obey this admonition and wear jewelry? Don’t tell me people’s affections do not get set upon such things as jewelry. Some folk have been known to go so far as giving up fellowship with God’s people before they would part with their jewelry. When people have gone that far in staying with such things, their affections are surely set upon them. They also have given up fellowship with God when they have forfeited their fellowship with His people (Matt. 25:40). Brethren, the fellowship of God and His people is worth more than the costliest of jewels, diamonds, pearls, etc. 2. An Open Door To Pride And Haughtiness. If you understand the meaning of one being proud and haughty, you should readily see that jewelry is an open door to such–for it will certainly prompt self-esteem and a feeling of self importance, just as sure as you wear it. Hear the wise man, “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit (that likes to make a show of self and parade its attiring and jewelry–which always goes) before a fall.” God hates such things and abhors people who are so obsessed (Prov. 6:15-17). We are admonished by the apostle Paul, to “abstain from ALL APPEARANCE of evil,” and we certainly had better take heed and quit wearing any kind of jewelry. 3. An Open Door To Worldliness. The most ungodly and worldly minded folk in the world are always decked with some kind of jewelry-even if they have to buy it on credit. Christians are supposed to be Christlike folk and are exhorted to “love NOT The world, neither The things That are in the world.” The Bible further tells us why we should not love the things of the world and lists some of the consequences in 1 John 2:15-17, Luke 8:14 and II Tim. 4:10. It was AFTER Demas had developed a burning and agitating love for the things of this present evil world That he forsook such a goodly man as the apostle Paul. You had better watch this wearing of jewelry or you will forsake God and His people yea, backslide and be lost (P~9:17). 4. An Open Door To Waste And Poverty. Many people have spent their last dime on jewelry, and, worse than that, they have sold or mortgaged something they needed just to purchase such ungodly things. The Bible warns God’s people against doing such things. In Isaiah 55:2-3 we read, “Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfieth not? … incline your ear, and come unto Me: hear and your soul shall live.” Are we going to ignore such a plain and definite warning as this and spend our money for jewelry that will profit no one, but rather damn and doom our souls? God forbid! 5. An Open Door To Rebellion And Stubbornness. Rebellion and stubbornness arc declared to be equal to the sin of witchcraft and idolatry (I Sam. 15:23). One who has worn jewelry long enough to get attached to it with heart veneration, usually becomes rebellious and very stubborn when reproved about it. Such characteristics will spoil church folk for any worthwhile usefulness in the church and mar one for heaven as it did poor King Saul. Once a stubborn and rebellious spirit is developed by the wearing of jewelry it will spread to other things. 6. An Open Door To Compromising And Corruption. There was a day among us when jewelry was frowned upon by most everyone; but today we may not be far behind the modem Methodists about whom Dr. Shuler informs us. A COMPROMISING SPIRIT IS THE STARTER WHICH CRANKS THE MOTOR OF CORRUPTION. Jesus prophesied that the last days would be as con-ups as they were in the days of Noah (Matt. 24:37). God is still calling for men and women both laity and ministry who will stand up for Him against evil doers and the workers of iniquity (Psa 94:16 with Heb. 13:89). Are we going to be like the apostle Paul and declare the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:2627) and not keep back anything that is profitable unto our church folk of this our day (Acts 20:20)? God required the prophets to “lift up a standard for the people” of their day (Isa 62:10; Jer. 50:2 and 51:27) and He expects the same of us today (Heb. 13:8 and Mall 3:67). 7. An Open Door To Losing Favor With God Nothing could be worse than losing God’s favor. I low can we afford to let such happen? We must realize that no one can retain God’s favor and at the same time be doing things that He does not approve. Who among us could honestly believe that The Lord is pleased with His children spending money for that which is not bread and letting men and women die lost who have never heard The gospel of Their salvation preached one time–while they buy jewelry for their ears necks fingers clothes hair etc. and diamonds and jewels for their watch bands and other things? We live in days when we need the Lord on our side and those who live whole-heartily for God and leave off the wearing of jewelry are sure to please Him. B. An Open Door To Failure And Doom. Any person who rebels against God’s biddings in the least is going to end like King Saul–finding that God has departed from him and answers his prayers no more. Poor Saul finally committed suicide (I Sam. 28:15-19 and 31:16). There is such a thing as folk committing spiritual suicide–by willfully doing things that cause them to apostatize. See Heb. 10:26-29. We Pentecostals had better duplicate Jacob’s actions and bury our jewelry under some tree or do like some have done in our day–cast them into some river. At any rate act rid of them before they doom us. The quickest way out may be too slow! 9. An Open Door To Identifications Crisis. Jewelry is an open door to being identified with the HARLOT church of Revelation (17:1-6 and 18:1-24) that was DOOMED for destruction in one hour’s time (Rev. 18:17). We notice also that she was decked with gold and precious stones and pearls (Key. 17:4). If you want to be numbered with “The Harlot Church just stay with your jewelry; but before you make the final decision read about her judgment and of those who partake of her delicacies (Key. 17:6-11 and 18:1-24). This old world is shaping up for that time of trouble such as man has never seen or experienced, or will ever experience again. See Dan. 12:1 and Matt. 24:21-22. God’s Word is something we can depend upon (Matt. 24:35 and Psa. 1 19:89), and anything contrary to it is a delusion and is soul-damning. The opinions of men, be they ministers or laymen, are not going to avail us anything when we come before the Great Judge on that final day. Therefore, when we read: “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel … NOT with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array,” we should accept it at face value and do what it says–if we want to make it to the “golden shores.” I have not written this article to personally condemn anyone who is wearing jewelry. You are going to stand or fall before God and His Word. My desire is to help you see the evils of God’s people spending money for such things and to help you see that God would be more pleased with you if you would increase your consecration in this respect and in any other way you might be in fault. I wish I could persuade everyone of you, for your own good, to discard your jewelry and get in harmony with God’s Word. Some of our good ministers today are being ostracized and classified as false prophets and teachers simply because they teach and preach against the wearing of jewelry and all kind of ungodly clothing, etc. The folk who are guilty of such actions should read Psa. 105:15; Zec 2:8 and take heed to what God says in these two references. People are playing with eternal fire when they lay their hands or tongues upon God’s people, be they laymen or ministers. They had better refrain from such lest God should become so angry with them until He tear them to pieces (Psa. 50:22). I also have a conviction that we ministers need to be foremost in being EXAMPLES of complete consecration and obedience to God in the ridding ourselves of all jewelry and everything else that is ungodly, worldly, and not pleasing to our Lord. Paul exhorted Timothy to “be THOU an example of the believers”–and that is what we all should be. If we ministers wear jewelry, flashy and ungodly clothes, etc., how are we to expect the laymen to make such consecrations? We, the under- shepherds, are duty bound to lead His sheep in the right paths of His Holy Word. Amen!

Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16:19: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. We believe and teach the plan of salvation as preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost found in Acts 2:38. The Photo above shows two keys but there are three (3) keys that are speaking of in Acts 2:38 1)   Repent 2)   Baptism in the NAME Of JESUS 3)   Receive The Gift Of The HOLY GHOST (With evidence of speaking in other tongues) The #2 Key once you have been baptized in the name of Jesus (His Blood) it can never be removed. The # 1 key we can lose in Rev 2:4-5 ** We can lose the key of Repent, if we do we have to go back and repent and do our first work over, we cannot repent unless God gives us the knowledge to do so, Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 2 Cor 7:9-10 (KJV)   ** Nevertheless, I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. Rev 2:4-5 (KJV) Key #3 is a gift we can step out of the Power of the Holy Ghost, as my pastor said, we can speak in tongues all the way to Hell, it is the Power of the Holy Ghost that keeps us in the Grace of God and NOT the speaking in tongues in Acts 1:8 it says we shall receive power after the Holy Ghost has come unto us, that power is to live a Holy Life, the Tongues is just the Evidence that we have received the Gift. It is the Power of God that keeps us. The Baptizing in Tiles as the Trinity believes has no keeping power, which is why so many that say they are a “Christian” keep doing the same old Sins as they did before they were baptized. With man, it is impossible but with God, all things are possible. The word of God says, “If you Love Me keep my commandments” if we say we love him and do not keep his commandments we are “Liars”. So we MUST have all three keys to enter the kingdom of Heaven, Born of the Water and of the Spirit and believe on him as the Scriptures has said, He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 7:38-39 (KJV). So just as we need a key to start our Cars or open a lock on our door we need the KEYS to unlock the Spirit and the Kingdom of Heaven. Remember Matthew 7:21 Not everyone that says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven! As a song we sang in Church "I'm a Royal child adopted in a Royal family, I'm a Royal child kept by the Power of God!"

Written by Elder Keith Joel Walker The Trinitarian doctrine is a demonic, devilish, pagan doctrine. The Catholic doctrine and its daughter, the Protestant church, want you to baptize in the false Trinity doctrine. It says “name,” not “names.” There is no Trinity in Matthew 28:19; it refers to a singular name, and that name is Jesus. Baptizing in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is also invalid. Without the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no blood, no salvation, and no power or authority in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Jesus’ name baptism is the only saving name (Acts 2:38; Acts 4:12) that connects you to the blood covenant. The singular name of the Father is Jesus; the name of the Son is Jesus; the name of the Holy Ghost is Jesus. There is only one God, and His name is Jesus. God is not a Trinity of three different distinct divine persons that are separated; that would be three different gods. There is one God, and His name is Jesus.

Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins is a beautiful event. Contrary to modern false doctrines, water baptism is not a work of man. It's all about Jesus! You must be baptized in Jesus Name to be saved (John 1:12; Acts 4:32). Old Testament mikveh convert water baptism sets the entire foundation for New Testament water baptism. Under the Old Testament, Gentiles became proselyites by passing through the mikveh baptism waters of separation. These Gentiles came by faith to God. We are Biblical in our baptism doctrine and if a person has not died to the flesh they are not qualified to be buried in the waters of baptismal sanctification. Who is born of God?  Those who are born again of water and Spirit (John 3:3-5; Mark 16:16; 1Peter 3:21)? It is those who have come forth from their water grave in their resurrection, and have received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues as the Spirit-life of their new Temple. And there are three that bear witness in earth: the Spirit, and thewater, and the blood: and these three agree in one(1John 5:8). They agree in ONE SALVATION PLAN! They must all  be in a person's salvation or they are NOT SAVED!

In April, 1913, at a "worldwide" Pentecostal camp meeting being conducted at Arroyo Seco, near Los Angeles, a new "revelation" (not an uncommon thing in those days) received considerable emphasis. The main speaker at the camp meeting was Mrs. Mary Woodworth-Etter, but the speaker who unwittingly triggered the eruption was R.E. McAlister. At a baptismal service held near the main camp meeting tent, Brother McAlister casually observed that "the apostles invariably baptized their converts once in the name of Jesus Christ," and that the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were never used in Christian baptism." When they heard this, "a shudder swept the preachers on the platform," one preacher even stepping over to whisper to Brother McAlister to refrain from emphasizing that doctrine or it would "associate the camp with a Dr. Sykes who so baptized." Reaction to this announcement was varied. One earnest preacher in particular, though, was deeply moved by the significance of the "name of Jesus." John G. Scheppe spent much of the night in prayer. In the early light of morning he "was given a glimpse of the power of the name of Jesus." He jumped to his feet, ran through the camp grounds, startling early risers, and awakening those still asleep. Scheepe shouted his "new revelation" of the power in the name of Jesus. His enthusiasm caused many to spend the day searching their Bibles regarding "the name of Jesus." The enthusiasm created at Arroyo Seco gained such momentum that is soon affected many Pentecostal churches up and down the West Coast. At Long beach a large company of people were rebaptized in the new formula being advocated., "in the name of Jesus only." This rebaptism with the new formula was felt to be the gateway to new blessing. Attention was focused on the use of "THE NAME" invoked by the apostles in the book of Acts in connection with the performance of miracles, exorcism of evil spirits, and, partucularly, water baptism. Yhis emphasis led rapidly to the virtual denial of the Trinity, a type of Modal Monarchianism being espoused. Following the identification of the Holy Spirit with Jesus, the next step was the declaration of some that unless one had received the baptism in the Holy Spirit, accompanied by speaking with tongues, he was not truly saved. This species of "Pentecostal Unitarianism" gained great strength chiefly through its promulgation by Frank J. Ewart, prominent West Coast Pentecostal leader who was present at the Arroyo Seco camp meeting. Ewart, originally from Australia, lately from Canada, and most recently from Portland, Oregon, had developed a reputation as a fearless Baptist preacher. In 1908 he accepted the Pentecostal message in Portland. His outspoken preaching of Pentecost led to his expulsion from the Baptist communion. Ewart joined William H. Durham in Los Angeles, serving as his assistant in the important mission at Sevength and Los Angeles Streets. When Pastor Durham died, Ewart fell heir to the pastorate, and by the time of the "Jesus Only" issue he was recognized as one of the leading Pentecostals in the West.

Written By Elder Keith Joel Walker Remember what I said: whether anyone wants to believe it or not, it’s the truth as I see it. I believe the chief obstacle enemy to the Gospel in the United States is the roughly 45,000 denominational bodies. It’s not the Hells Angels, gangs, or bike clubs. The world awaits the manifestation of the sons and daughters of God; creation itself groans for the Lord Jesus Christ. Salvation, deliverance, and healing—the new‑birth message of water and Spirit described in Acts 2:38 and John 3:3–8—are often obscured by man‑made denominational systems. I believe you will live long enough to come to the revelation that these institutional, man‑made denominations are a primary enemies to the truth-bible truth of Acts 2:38 the plan of redemption.

Acts 2:38 (KJV): “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Apostolic-Pentecostal Affirmation (Jesus’ Name, Acts 2:38) • The Bridegroom is the Lord Jesus Christ — the Almighty God in flesh who came, who lives, and who shall come again. • The Bride is the Apostolic Pentecostal Jesus Name Church of the Living God birthed on the day of pentecost Acts2.1-4-38-42 — the called-out ones set apart to Him. • The Body is comprised of those who have repented, been baptized in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins, and who have received the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Those who have the true revelation of the oneness of God Jesus is the Almighty God In Christ . • Acts 2:38 is our pattern and promise: repent; be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins; and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. • The sign of sonship is speaking in tongues; the seal is the baptism in the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues and Water baptism in Jesus’ name is also a seal and an outward putting on of the Lord Jesus Christ. • To “put on the Lord Jesus Christ” is to receive the birthright blessing of the Spirit speaking in tongues and water baptism in Jesus Name is — Christ in you, the hope of glory. The mantle of the Lord is passed to those who walk in the fullness of His Spirit and obedience. If you hear Christ’s call today: repent of your sins; confess Lord Jesus Christ; be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and ask for baptism in the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Jesus, in your name of Jesus Christ, fill those who have repented and been baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire with the evidence of speaking in tongues; let them speak with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance, seal them with Your Spirit, and clothe them with the mantle of The Lord Jesus Christ through the new birth of water and spirit according to Acts 2:38 Amen. Written By Elder Keith Joel Walker

Brethren, the oracles of God are not dead words to be shelved and admired; they are living, burning truths from the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ that speak, purify, and prevail. As the apostle declared, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). Our message is not mere rhetoric or tradition — it is the revelation of Jesus Christ given to the Bride to restore the kingdom, to call sinners to repentance, and to sanctify a people separated unto God. Repentance is the threshold of the oracles. Acts 2:38 is the apostolic key: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Repentance is more than sorrow — it is a turning, a decisive reorientation of heart and life toward the one Name above every name. Only when the sinner lays down the old man and embraces the new can the oracles find a dwelling place. Baptism in Jesus’ Name is the apostolic sealing of that repentance. The Name of Jesus is the Name of God revealed to the New Testament church — the Name in which sins are remitted, authority is exercised, and deliverance is wrought. To be baptized in Jesus’ Name is to be enrolled into the Bride, to be called out of the world and placed under the covering and authority of our Lord. The baptism with the Holy Ghost and Fire is the empowering of the oracles in the believer. This baptism is accompanied by the initial physical evidence of speaking with other tongues (Acts 2:4; Acts 10:44–46; Acts 19:6). Tongues are the sign of Sonship , the Spirit is the power, and with them the gifts and fruit of God come alive: prophecy, healing, discernment, wisdom — the nine gifts in operation and the fivefold ministry equipping the Bride for effective warfare and holy living. Holiness and separation are not optional addenda to the oracles; they are the outflow. The Bride is called to be pure within and without — set apart from the world’s dress, manners, and spirit. Holiness is a corporate and individual testimony that magnifies the Name of Jesus and preserves the church’s witness. Separation is love for truth expressed by distance from falsehood. Order in the local assembly is an apostolic Pentecostal principle. Each congregation is to be set in order, under the leadership of a pastor who shepherds and safeguards the flock, supported by deacons who serve under that leadership. We reject organizationalism that elevates committees or boards above apostolic Pentecostal Authority. The kingdom is the Bride, the Body, the House — formed and governed by the doctrine of the apostles, with the fivefold ministry operating to build up the saints. Worship is the atmosphere in which the oracles move. Like Esther, who prepared a feast and created an atmosphere into which the King entered, our worship invites the King and ushers in divine strategy and reversal. Our praise changes courts, breaks plans of the adversary, and positions the Bride to receive the kingly response. When we worship in Spirit and truth, demonic devices must reckon with the environment we have created by faith. Hear the exhortation: examine your heart. Have you truly repented? Have you been baptized in Jesus’ Name? Have you received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of tongues? Are you walking in holiness and separation? Are you committed to the local assembly, submitted to godly order, and serving the kingdom with the gifts God has given you? If you stand in need of restoration, come now. The oracles of God are still active; the Name of Jesus still saves; the Spirit still falls. Come to the altar of repentance, be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and seek the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire. Let us arise as the Bride, clothed in righteousness, filled with power, and ready to manifest the oracles of the living God to a dying world. May the Lord Jesus Christ — the Name above every name — be exalted in our midst. May the oracles of God burn within our hearts and bring revival and holy separation to our assemblies. Here am I; send me. Written by Elder Keith Joel Walker

By Peter F. Connell Introduction The Great Shema, articulated in Deuteronomy 6:4, is a foundational declaration in both Jewish and Apostolic theology. It begins with the imperative “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” This passage is not only a cornerstone of Jewish faith but also a critical aspect of Apostolic understanding of God. While Apostolics affirm the oneness of God, there is a deeper essence within the Shema that merits exploration, especially in light of traditional Jewish scholarship. The Shema: A Declaration of Oneness The Shema, in its Hebrew form, reads: “Shema, Yisroel: Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad.” This declaration has been recited by Jewish cantors twice daily for millennia. The emphasis on the word “echad,” meaning “one,” is profound. In Jewish tradition, the repetition of “echad” during its recitation highlights the importance of God’s indivisible nature. The Trinitarian Argument Some trinitarians argue that the use of “echad” instead of “yachid”—which means “single” or “only”—suggests a plurality within the Godhead. They assert that if God intended to convey an indivisible unity, He would have chosen “yachid.” However, this argument overlooks the consistent usage of “echad” in Scripture to signify oneness in various contexts, such as in Genesis 1:9 and Exodus 9:6, where it refers to singular entities or concepts. Understanding “Elohim” The term “Elohim,” while plural in form, is used with singular verbs throughout the Old Testament, indicating a singular divine nature. Traditional Jewish scholarship clarifies that “Elohim” denotes the fullness of God’s might and is not inherently indicative of plurality. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs articulate that the singular verb accompanying “Elohim” precludes the notion of a plural deity. The Essence of Oneness The Shema emphasizes that the LORD is not merely the only God but that His very essence is oneness. The phrase “the LORD is One” signifies that His unity is a fundamental attribute. This understanding transcends a mere declaration of monotheism; it affirms the indivisibility and immutability of God’s nature. Jewish Commentary on the Shema Jewish scholars have long recognized the Shema as a declaration of the unity of God. It serves as the foundation for all other Jewish beliefs. The Shema excludes polytheism, paganism, dualism, and trinitarianism, which some argue compromises the unity of God. Dr. J.H. Hertz notes that the Shema reveals God’s being as One, contrasting with the notion of a God comprised of multiple personalities. The Revelation of God’s Nature God’s essential oneness is not only revealed through Scripture but also through creation. Romans 1:20 states that God’s eternal power and divine nature are evident in the things He has made. The harmony and balance observed in creation reflect a singular divine mind, reinforcing the idea that God is one and indivisible. Conclusion The Great Shema encapsulates a profound theological truth that extends beyond the mere assertion of monotheism. It asserts that God’s very nature is oneness, a concept deeply rooted in Jewish thought and essential for understanding the nature of God in Apostolic faith. As we reflect on this declaration, we are reminded of the unity and indivisibility of the God we serve: “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is One!”

L.T. Strong’s testimony, “Pentecostal Pioneers,” provides a personal account of his spiritual journey and the challenges he faced as a preacher in the early days of the Pentecostal movement. His narrative is rich with themes of redemption, perseverance, and faith, making it a compelling reflection on the transformative power of God’s love and grace. Summary of Key Themes: 1.Transformation and Redemption: Strong begins by recounting his early life filled with sin and despair. His encounter with the gospel, particularly the message of Acts 2:38 and Joel 2:27-28, marks a turning point. He emphasizes the importance of repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus, highlighting how these acts led to his spiritual awakening and the infilling of the Holy Ghost. 2.Commitment to Ministry: At a young age, Strong felt a calling to preach. His commitment to evangelism is evident as he describes traveling on foot, often facing hardships, to share the gospel. His dedication to witnessing in difficult environments, such as honky-tonks and prisons, illustrates his passion for reaching the lost. 3.Perseverance in Adversity: Strong faced significant opposition, including physical threats and societal pushback. Despite these challenges, he remained steadfast in his faith, believing that he was on the Lord’s side. His unwavering conviction and reliance on God’s presence provided him with strength to continue his ministry. 4.Family and Legacy: Strong reflects on his marriage to Belva Willis and their shared commitment to the gospel. He mentions their children and the impact of his ministry on young men who have since taken up the mantle of preaching. This focus on family and mentorship underscores the importance of legacy in the Pentecostal movement. 5.Faith in Healing: Strong shares a personal health crisis when he was diagnosed with cancer. The power of prayer and the support of the church community played a crucial role in his healing. His testimony serves as a reminder of God’s faithfulness and the miraculous nature of divine healing. 6.Endurance and Hope: As he nears the end of his life, Strong expresses a desire to remain faithful to his calling. He draws parallels with biblical figures who persevered in their faith despite challenges. His hope for eternal reward and the urgency of completing his God-given mission resonate throughout his account. 7.Encouragement to Others: Strong concludes with a heartfelt plea to his readers not to forsake their spiritual inheritance. He emphasizes the value of faith and the eternal rewards that await believers, encouraging others to remain steadfast in their journey. Conclusion: L.T. Strong’s narrative is a powerful testament to the life-changing impact of faith and the Pentecostal experience. His story reflects the struggles and triumphs of early Pentecostal pioneers, highlighting themes of redemption, perseverance, and the importance of community and prayer. Through his experiences, Strong inspires others to remain faithful and to cherish their spiritual heritage, reinforcing the belief that a relationship with God can transform lives and bring hope even in the face of adversity.

By: J. T. Pugh Introduction In Romans 1:3-4, Paul contrasts two elements of Christ’s personage: His lineage according to the flesh and His declaration as the Son of God according to the spirit of holiness. This distinction reveals the profound nature of Christ’s identity and the essence of holiness that is foundational to our faith. Understanding this duality is crucial as we navigate our spiritual journey and strive for a deeper connection with God. The Law of the Flesh vs. The Law of the Spirit The phrase “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” emphasizes Christ’s human lineage, a natural consequence of earthly ancestry. However, the declaration of His sonship as “the Son of God with power” introduces a higher law—the law of the Spirit. This declaration is not merely a matter of lineage; it is rooted in the spirit of holiness. Because Christ was holy, death could not hold Him, nor could corruption touch Him. His offering was “without spot unto God,” affirming that His sonship was initiated and declared in harmony with the spirit of holiness. The Spirit of Holiness and the True Intent of the Law It is essential to recognize that laws, both divine and civil, are not merely rules to be followed; they embody a spirit and purpose. Jurists often highlight the difference between the letter of the law and its original intent. God’s commandments were never meant to be legalistic; rather, they were designed to foster a genuine relationship with Him. As David expressed in Psalm 51, God desires truth in the inward parts, a clean heart, and a right spirit. The essence of holiness is not found in mere external compliance, but in the sincerity of our hearts. The Heart of Holiness Abraham rejoiced at the promise of Christ, while David understood that true godliness is a matter of the heart. The carnal man focuses on what he must do to fulfill obligations, while the spiritual man seeks to understand what he may do to please God. This distinction is crucial in our pursuit of holiness. A true understanding of holiness leads to a life of sincere devotion rather than mere rule-following. The Spirit of Holiness Enables Us to See Christ as He Is To align ourselves with the spirit of holiness is to harmonize our lives with the sanctified glory of Christ. His teachings on worldly honor, money, and holy living challenge us to reevaluate our priorities. The spirit of holiness grants us the ability to see life through the lens of eternity, recognizing that the things of this world are temporary. The story of a dying showwoman illustrates this truth. In her final hours, she longed for something to hold onto, realizing the emptiness of her former life. Similarly, a woman diagnosed with cancer found her way back to Christ, recognizing His love and concern for her. These experiences highlight how the spirit of holiness can draw us closer to God and help us value our relationship with Him above all else. The Firm Spirit of Holiness David’s prayer in Psalm 51 reflects his desire for a steadfast spirit. A “right spirit” indicates a firm and constant spirit, one that does not waver in the face of challenges. The three Hebrew children exemplified this unwavering spirit when they refused to bow to the king’s command. True holiness cannot compromise with sin; it stands firm against all that opposes God’s purity. The early Christians demonstrated this steadfastness even in the face of persecution. Their prayers were filled with boldness, seeking the courage to proclaim God’s Word without fear. This spirit of holiness is not weak; it is resolute and unwavering in its commitment to God’s standards. The Willing Spirit of Holiness David also prayed, “Uphold me with thy free spirit.” This plea signifies a willingness to obey God’s commandments without coercion. The spirit of holiness liberates us from selfish desires and empowers us to live in accordance with God’s will. It compels us to seek truth in our inward parts, aligning our actions with the heart of God. Paul’s exhortation to the Philippians emphasizes the importance of sincerity and integrity. The word “sincere” means “without wax,” indicating a purity that is not masked by superficial appearances. God desires authenticity in our lives, where our outward actions reflect an inward commitment to holiness. The Calvary Spirit of Holiness The spirit of holiness is ultimately rooted in the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. It is through His grace that we are called to live lives of holiness. The recognition of the price paid for our salvation should compel us to respond with gratitude and devotion. It is not merely about adhering to rules; it is about embracing the transformative power of Christ’s love. When we grasp the significance of Calvary, our understanding of holiness deepens. It is not about what we must do; rather, it is about what we are willing to give in response to the grace we have received. Our lives should reflect the profound gratitude we owe to our Savior. Conclusion The spirit of holiness calls us to a higher standard, one that transcends mere rule-following and invites us into a deeper relationship with God. It is a spirit that is firm, willing, and rooted in the sacrifice of Christ. As we seek to embody this spirit in our lives, we must remain vigilant against the influences of the world and the temptations of carnality. Let us strive to live according to the spirit of holiness, allowing it to guide our actions, shape our hearts, and draw us closer to Christ. In doing so, we will reflect His glory and fulfill our calling as His people, set apart for His purposes and His glory.

Sermon By: Elder Gary Martin God’s Design, Identity, and Blessing in Creation I. Introduction • Context of Genesis 5 • Importance of reviewing original creation amid genealogical records II. Phrase-by-Phrase Exposition A. “Male and female created he them”
B. “And blessed them”
C. “And called their name Adam” III. Theological Implications 1. God’s Sovereignty and Oneness 2. Biblical Gender Distinctions 3. The Blessing of Fruitfulness 4. The Unity Principle in Marriage 5. God’s Name on His People IV. Apostolic Oneness Doctrinal Insights • Singular Creator, singular action • Creation foreshadows Christ and the Church • The authority of the Name (Jesus) V. Practical Application • Uphold biblical gender roles • Walk in the blessing of fruitfulness spiritually and naturally • Embrace the identity and unity of the Church in Jesus’ Name       Commentary on Genesis 5:2 Verse: “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” (Genesis 5:2) A. Contextual Placement • Genesis 5 is the generational record from Adam to Noah, emphasizing human mortality post-fall. • Genesis 5:1-2 reiterates Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 2:7, focusing on God’s original intention in creation before sin corrupted humanity. B. Key Phrases 1. “Male and female created he them” • Gender is God’s design (Matthew 19:4). • God did not create Adam and Eve as one androgynous being but distinctly male and female, emphasizing biblical gender roles. • Oneness insight: God’s image was reflected in both genders, yet authority structure was maintained with Adam as head (1 Corinthians 11:8-9). 2. “And blessed them” • The blessing included fruitfulness, dominion, and provision (Genesis 1:28). • Blessing was corporate (male and female together) showing unity in purpose. • Sin did not remove God’s original purpose for fruitfulness (Genesis 9:1). 3. “And called their name Adam” • In Hebrew, “Adam” (אָדָם) means “man” or “mankind.” • “Their name Adam” signifies: o Unity of identity within humanity. o Eve shared Adam’s identity (Genesis 2:23, “she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man”). o Marriage’s oneness principle: “They shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24). Oneness Apostolic Implications: • God Himself, as Spirit, created mankind in His own image (Genesis 1:27; John 4:24). • The oneness in marriage foreshadows the unity between Christ (God manifested in flesh) and His Church (Ephesians 5:30-32). • This verse refutes the idea of “two persons” in creation; God alone created, blessed, and named. • The blessing and naming reflect God’s sovereign authority, pointing forward to the Name above every name (Jesus) being placed upon the Church (Acts 4:12). Refuting Trinitarian Misreadings: • Some Trinitarians argue Genesis 1:26 (“Let us”) implies multiple creators, but Genesis 5:2 says “He created them,” affirming singular action. • The plurality of majesty in 1:26 becomes singular in 5:2, harmonizing with Isaiah 44:24: “I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.” C. Theological Themes 1. God’s Sovereignty in Creation – God alone is Creator and Namer. 2. Male and Female in God’s Image – Both genders reflect God’s attributes (authority, nurturing, creativity). 3. Unity of Humanity – One race, one humanity, all traced back to Adam. 4. Foundation for Family and Marriage – God established gender, identity, and blessing at creation. 5. Oneness in Name – As God called them “Adam,” God calls His Church by His Name (Jesus) (Acts 15:14).   Preaching Points for Ministerial Use 🩸 1. God Alone Creates and Names. • Emphasize God’s sovereignty and oneness. 🩸 2. Gender and Family are God’s Design, Not Optional Preferences. • Call the church to uphold biblical standards. 🩸 3. God’s Blessing is for Fruitfulness and Dominion. • Preach fruitfulness spiritually and physically. 🩸 4. We Bear His Name. • Connect Genesis 5:2 to Acts 2:38, Acts 4:12, and Ephesians 3:15. 🩸 5. The Unity of Marriage Foreshadows the Unity of Christ and His Church. • Call for unity within the Body of Christ. Bible Study: Genesis 5:2 – God’s Design in Creation Scripture:
“Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” (Genesis 5:2)   Key Points: God Alone Created Humanity.
Male and Female were Created Distinctly and Purposefully.
God’s Blessing Includes Fruitfulness and Dominion.
“Adam” signifies unity and shared identity in humanity.
This verse upholds Oneness: One Creator, One God, One Name.   Discussion Notes: • We are created in God’s image to reflect Him. • Biblical gender identity is God’s design, not culture’s. • God blesses both male and female, showing equal value and unified purpose. • “Adam” as a shared name points to marriage unity and humanity’s singular origin. • The Church bears the Name of Jesus, as humanity bore the name Adam.   Reflection: • Are we living under the blessing God originally intended for His creation? • Are we upholding biblical gender and family structures? • Are we walking in unity with others in the Body of Christ, recognizing we are called by His Name?   5 Questions for Bible Class 1. What does the phrase “male and female created he them” teach us about God’s design for gender? 2. What was included in God’s blessing upon Adam and Eve, and does it still apply today? 3. Why did God call both Adam and Eve by the name “Adam,” and what does this signify? 4. How does Genesis 5:2 reinforce the Oneness of God and refute a Trinitarian interpretation of creation? 5. How does the principle of bearing God’s Name in Genesis 5:2 connect to the Apostolic identity of bearing the Name of Jesus today?

In as much as many have called my attention to the thief (who was crucified at the time Jesus was crucified) stating he was saved without water, therefore one can be saved today without water: I would like to enlighten you on this subject. The water and Spirit was not preached for the people to receive in the time of the thief, because the time had not come for it to be preached. It was preached in due time. Jesus preached water and Spirit but the time to receive the water and Spirit had not come. The thief was saved according to his faith. He believed Jesus was able to save him, therefore he said to the other male-factor, " ... We receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." (Luke 23:41-42) He believed that Jesus was able to save him so he was saved by his faith like they were saved in the Old Testament dispensation, because the church had not yet started. Before the water and Spirit was administered, the people were saved by faith like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others that did not have water and Spirit. Since the church started on the Day of Pentecost, all men everywhere are commanded to obtain the New Birth as was preached by Jesus in John 3:5. "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Everyone must be baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ and receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance or be lost. No other way will save you.

Jesus Christ is Father, Son and Holy Ghost and beside Him there is no other God. The Scriptures given below will prove Jesus Christ is God Almighty. [Note: New Testament verses were put in red for quick search] •GENESIS 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 •I CORINTHIANS 10:4 – Jesus was the Rock.
 •PSALM 18:31 - And the Rock was God.
 •II CORINTHIANS 11:2 - Jesus was the One Husband.
 •JEREMIAH 31:32 - And the One Husband was God.
 •MATTHEW 23:8 - Jesus was the One Master.
 •MALACHI 1:6 - And the Master was God.
 •JOHN 10:14 - Jesus was the One Shepherd,
 •ISAIAH 40:11 - And the Shepherd was God.
 •ACTS 4:12 - Jesus was the One Saviour.
 •ISAIAH 45:21 - And the One Saviour was God.
 •LUKE 1:68 – Jesus was the One Redeemer.
 •ISAIAH 41:14 – And the One Redeemer was God.
 •REVELATION 19:13 – Jesus was the Word of God.
 •JOHN 1:1 – The Word was God.
 •REVELATION 19:16 – Jesus was the Lord of Lords.
 •DEUTERONOMY 10:17 – And the Lord of Lords was God.
 •1 CORINTHIANS 2:8 – Jesus was the Lord of Glory.
 •ZECHARIAH 14:9 – Jesus is the Lord all over the whole earth. (One Name)
 •ACTS 4:12 – There is no other Name given among men whereby you must be saved.
 •PHILIPPIANS 2:10 – Every knee must bow to Jesus.
 •ISAIAH 45:23 – Every knee must bow to God.
 •JOHN 1:3,10 – Jesus was the One Creator.
 •HEBREWS 3:3,4 – And the One Creator was God.
 •COLOSSIANS 1:18 – Jesus is the One head.
 •1 CHRONICLES 29:11 – And the One Head was God.
 •JOHN 1:49 - Jesus was the King of Israel.
 •ISAIAH 44:6 - And the King of Israel was God.
 •JOHN 8:58 - Jesus was the Great I Am.
 •EXODUS 3:14 - And the I Am was God.
 •JOHN 8:24 - Jesus was the I Am He.
 • DEUTERONOMY 32:39 - And the I Am He was God.
 •ISAIAH 9:6 – •For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.
 •If Jesus Christ is not God, then we must say that He is not good •(MATTHEW 19:17 & JOHN 10:11)
 •If Jesus Christ is not God, He is not the Lord, for the Lord is the true God. (JEREMIAH 10:10) • • •Questions •

 1. If Jesus Christ is not God, when shall God come? - ISAIAH 35:4,5,6 2. If Jesus Christ is not God, who did the work of God? - MATTHEW 11:5 3. If Jesus Christ is not God, when did God visit and redeem His people? - LUKE 1:68 4. If Jesus Christ is not God, when was God who made the world in the world? - JOHN 1:10 5. If God and the Holy Ghost are two separate persons, which one is the Father of Jesus? (For the scriptures say, God is His Father, and also the Holy Ghost is His Father. Did He have two fathers?) - MATTHEW 1:20 & LUKE 1:35 6. If Jesus Christ is not God, when will Isaiah's prophecy be fulfilled? - ISAIAH 7:14 7. If Jesus Christ is not God, when was God with us? - MATTHEW 1:23 8. If Jesus Christ is not God, why did He tell Philip: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father?" - JOHN 14:9 9. If Jesus Christ is not God, why did Thomas call Him, "My Lord and my God?" - JOHN 20:28 10. If Jesus Christ is not God, when did God lay down His life? - I JOHN 3:16 & St. JOHN 3:16 11. If Jesus Christ is not God, why did Jesus say to the devil when the devil tempted Him, "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God?" - MATTHEW 4:7 12. If Jesus Christ is not God, who should we worship, Jesus or God? (Remember, We can only worship one.) - MATTHEW 4:10 13. If Jesus Christ is not God, who was Paul looking for to appear, Jesus or God? - TITUS 2:13 14. If Jesus Christ is not God, then who stretched forth the Heavens alone and spreadeth abroad the earth? - ISAIAH 44:24 15. If Jesus Christ is not God, then who is written about in Luke 2:11? (ISAIAH 44:24) 16. If Jesus Christ is not God, why did He say to John, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty?” - REVELATION 1:8 17. If Jesus Christ is not God, then who purchased the church with His own blood? – ACTS 20:28 18. If Jesus Christ is not God, then tell us, when was God manifested in the flesh? – 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 19. If Jesus Christ is not God, when was God believed on in the world? – 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 20. If Jesus Christ is not God, when did God preach to the gentiles? – 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 21. If Jesus Christ is not God, when was God received up into glory? – 1 TIMOTHY 3:16 A warning to everyone who reads this pamphlet : Remember the words of Jesus spoken to the unbelieving Jews when they would not believe that He was God that should come (ISAIAH 35:4): “If ye believe not that I am he (God that should come) ye shall die in your sins.” - JOHN 8:24 So dear reader, if you do not believe that Jesus is God, you shall die in your sins.

In a time long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, most mainline Christian denominations rejected the ornamental use of jewelry. With a few notable exceptions, most denominations have abandoned that stance and completely reversed course. It is of particular interest that the United Methodist Church, despite its current endorsement and promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism within its congregations and clergy, previously held a doctrinal position against the use of jewelry. I mention the languid liberalization of the United Methodist Church because of a statement buried in a CNN article gleefully celebrating the UMC’s embrace of the LGBTQ. It quotes the lesbian co-pastor of a United Methodist Church in Atlanta, near my church, named Anjie Woodworth, as saying, “This change in our church law is so huge because it means folks can choose to show up as who they really are and still choose to serve God.”[i] Reading that comment caused me to flashback to countless statements I’ve read and heard over the years from people who have been “set free” from the “bondage” of anti-jewelry doctrines. They usually say things strikingly, like the Anjie Woodworth quote: “I’m finally free to be me and just love God.” Well-meaning and less-than-well-meaning religious people have used refrains like that since Eve ate the apple (or whatever it was). As I write this, I feel an overwhelming sadness at the realization that unless America experiences a revival of epic proportion and a deep renewing of biblical adherence, the vast majority of Christian denominations will shun the few “radical extremists” who dare uphold “archaic” biblical truths regarding marriage, sexuality, and gender. Those “judgmental neanderthals” will be regarded by the enlightened as weird and probably dangerous. Despite popular opinion or shunning, sincere Christians must resist the drift towards sin. D.A. Carson sums human nature up better than I can: People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; we drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; we drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated. For Those Who Don’t Know Many sincere Christians have never heard of or considered this topic. Perhaps you’re reading this to understand better a lifestyle you already practice. Regardless of your motives for reading, I humbly implore you to examine the Scriptures presented prayerfully. One thing is certain, it’s always easier to loosen our standards than to tighten them. That’s because our flesh prefers the path of least resistance. If you dare to read with a sincere heart, you will see this is not a “man-made doctrine.” Instead, it is a straightforward command from Scripture to the Church. Ultimately Judged by the Word of God The Apostle Paul’s injunction to “study to show thyself approved” and to “rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15 (https://ref.ly/2%20Tim%202.15;kjv1900?t=biblia))” rings urgently. All our actions will be laid bare before Jesus, and we will be judged according to the Word of God (John 12:48 (https://ref.ly/John%2012.48;kjv1900?t=biblia)). Often, people say, “Only God can judge me.” While Christians have a right and a God-given mandate to call sinful actions sinful or unwise actions unwise, ultimately, God is the final judge (Luke 17:3 (https://ref.ly/Luke%2017.3;kjv1900?t=biblia), Galatians 6:1 (https://ref.ly/Gal%206.1;kjv1900?t=biblia), Hebrews 3:13 (https://ref.ly/Heb%203.13;kjv1900?t=biblia), Hebrews 4:13 (https://ref.ly/Heb%204.13;kjv1900?t=biblia)). That reality should weigh heavily on our minds as we “work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12-13 (https://ref.ly/Phil%202.12-13;kjv1900?t=biblia)).” And while it might tempt you to think of some biblical commands as more critical than others, that mindset is hazardous. Consider the words of Jesus: …Heaven and earth will disappear before the smallest letter disappears from the Law. Not even the smallest mark of a pen will disappear from the Law until everything is completed. Do not ignore even one of the least important commands. And do not teach others to ignore them… (Matthew 5:18-19 (https://ref.ly/Matt%205.18-19;kjv1900?t=biblia)).[ii] The Grievous Sin of Pride No one can genuinely claim to know the why behind every command God gives the Church. Three things are true: God knows and loves us better than we know and love ourselves (Psalm 139:1-4 (https://ref.ly/Ps%20139.1-4;kjv1900?t=biblia)). God always wants what is best for us (Jeremiah 29:11 (https://ref.ly/Jer%2029.11;kjv1900?t=biblia)). We cannot fully understand God’s holiness or righteous judgments (Romans 11:33-36 (https://ref.ly/Rom%2011.33-36;kjv1900?t=biblia)). However, beneath every action God calls sin, there is a deeper root beneath that sin. Lurking beneath murder are deeper sins like hatred, envy, or greed. Lust skulks just below the evils of fornication and adultery. Yet, pride is possibly the most pervasive, pernicious, and perilous root sin imaginable. Psalm 10:4-5 (https://ref.ly/Ps%2010.4-5;kjv1900?t=biblia) says: The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. His ways are always grievous; thy judgments are far above out of his sight… God’s Grim View of Pride The Bible uses some of the most damning language possible to describe God’s grim view of pride. We are told that God “resists proud people but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6 (https://ref.ly/James%204.6;kjv1900?t=biblia), 1 Peter 5:6 (https://ref.ly/1%20Pet%205.6;kjv1900?t=biblia)). “Resist” comes from the Greek word antitassō, which means “to rage in battle against.”[iii] A more literal reading is that God actively battles against the proud. The Bible says God hates pride and arrogance (Proverbs 6:16-19 (https://ref.ly/Prov%206.16-19;kjv1900?t=biblia), Proverbs 8:13 (https://ref.ly/Prov%208.13;kjv1900?t=biblia)). Interestingly, the word śānētranslated as “hates” is the Hebrew antonym of the verb āhab, meaning “to love.”[iv] God’s abhorrence of pride is clearly stated in the Scripture, and it is anything but passive. What Impresses God? In Isaiah 66:1-2 (https://ref.ly/Isa%2066.1-2;kjv1900?t=biblia), God declares. “The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” Then God says, and I’m paraphrasing, “Humanity can’t build a structure exceptional enough to impress me.” No building, artistry, or man-made wonder could ever impress the God who created everything. This oratorical setup wasn’t idle boasting; God was setting the stage before revealing the type of person who impresses the Maker of the Universe. The blueprint for impressing God is laid out in verse two: “But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor (meaning humble, not financially impoverished) and of a contrite (repentant) spirit, and trembleth at my word. Without question, pride destroys our relationship with God, and humility invites Divine favor. Therefore, issues involving pride are of paramount importance to sincere believers. God Links Jewelry and Pride An honest reader of the Word can’t ignore links between jewelry and pride in the Old Testament. Consider what God says to the rebellious, idolatry-filled nation of Judah in Isaiah 3:16-21 (https://ref.ly/Isa%203.16-21;kjv1900?t=biblia): The Lord says, “The women of Zion are proud. They walk with their heads high [Proudly holding their heads high so that others can see the jewelry around their necks][v] and flirt with their eyes. They skip along, and the jewelry on their ankles jingle. 17 So the Lord will afflict the foreheads of Zion’s women with skin diseases; the Lord will make the front of their heads bald. 18 At that time, the Lord will remove their beautiful ankle jewelry, neck ornaments, crescent-shaped ornaments, 19 earrings, bracelets, veils, 20 headdresses, ankle ornaments, sashes, sachets, amulets, 21 rings, nose rings.”[vi] Of course, a person can exude pride in countless ways. However, the prideful arrogance of backslidden Judah was displayed predominately and prominently through jewelry. Their outward adornment perfectly represented Zion’s lofty, godless attitude. The very nature of jewelry is to direct attention to the wearer and make a statement. Zion reveled in their accouterments, and God was disgusted by them. Jewelry, Pride & Lucifer’s Fall Ezekiel 28:13-17 (https://ref.ly/Ezek%2028.13-17;kjv1900?t=biblia) is a fascinating example of a prophetic double reference. Though the context is an oracle against the king of Tyre, it contains a dual reference to Lucifer.[vii]The prophet excoriates the king of Tyre’s prideful fall from God’s grace by paralleling it to Lucifer’s fall from Heaven. This text reveals God created Lucifer’s heavenly garments with a cornucopia of “precious stones and gold (Ezekiel 28:13 (https://ref.ly/Ezek%2028.13;kjv1900?t=biblia)).” Lucifer enjoyed the privilege of walking upon the “holy mountain of God” amid “stones of fire (Ezekiel 28:14 (https://ref.ly/Ezek%2028.14;kjv1900?t=biblia)).” Until the awful day God discovered “iniquity” in him (Ezekiel 28:15 (https://ref.ly/Ezek%2028.15;kjv1900?t=biblia)). A simplistic yet helpful definition of “iniquity” (or sin) is “self-will”. When self-will deviates from God’s will and is acted upon, it becomes iniquity. The exact underlying nature and cause of Lucifer’s iniquity is revealed in Ezekiel 28:17 (https://ref.ly/Ezek%2028.17;kjv1900?t=biblia): Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Yopiy, the Hebrew word translated as “beauty,” refers to the shining attraction or sparkle of jewels or precious stones.[viii] Taken in context, it becomes clear the king of Tyre and Lucifer were dazzled, enticed, and corrupted by their sparkling attire. As if to drive the point home, the text expounds on the origin of malignant sin, “thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness (Ezekiel 28:17 (https://ref.ly/Ezek%2028.17;kjv1900?t=biblia)).” That word “brightness” is uncommon in modern English. It comes from the Hebrew word yipʿāh, a feminine noun denoting brightness and splendor. It’s sometimes used to describe the glamour and glitter of a city or nation’s splendor or reputation. Such splendor often leads to pride and corruption.[ix] A Simple Word of Caution Lucifer’s magnificence was undeniable, and he was fully aware of it, ultimately leading to his downfall. Pride played a significant role in transforming the once-highest angel into the lowest devil. To avoid succumbing to this dangerous trait, we must make every effort to steer clear of pride. If Lucifer’s adorned jewels contributed to his eventual arrogance, then it is essential for us as mere mortals to resist the allure of embellishment. Just as the highest angel became consumed by his own splendor, we should be vigilant against the insidious sin of pride and anything that might contribute to its onset. Insights Into the Mind of God While jewelry is not explicitly forbidden in the Old Testament, several passages give insight into the mind of God regarding their use. In Genesis, the Book of Beginnings, Jacob committed to serve God along with his entire family (Genesis 35:1-7 (https://ref.ly/Gen%2035.1-7;kjv1900?t=biblia)). God commanded Jacob to go to Bethel to build an altar (Genesis 35:1 (https://ref.ly/Gen%2035.1;kjv1900?t=biblia)). Obediently, he prepared to travel. He commanded his family to “put away their strange gods” and purify themselves (Genesis 35:2 (https://ref.ly/Gen%2035.2;kjv1900?t=biblia)). They did so. In their efforts to approach God reverently, they gave Jacob all the “earrings which were in their ears (Genesis 35:4 (https://ref.ly/Gen%2035.4;kjv1900?t=biblia)).” So, Jacob buried their idols and earrings under an oak tree before going to Bethel (Genesis 35:4 (https://ref.ly/Gen%2035.4;kjv1900?t=biblia)).    As was often the case when Old Testament people’s hearts were sincere, their actions were intuitive rather than a response to an explicit command from God. They had no Bible, prophet, temple, church, or preacher, just a genuine desire to please God and approach Him with reverence and humility. Their undiluted yearning to please the Lord inspired them to remove their jewelry. Could it be they recognized their earrings were an outward expression of pride? I think so. Their instinctive removal of precious adornment starkly contrasts Lucifer’s opposite reaction when tempted by pride. Some may consider this passage insignificant, but it gains significance when we acknowledge that God instructed Jacob’s descendants to perform the same action in Exodus 33:2-6 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2033.2-6;kjv1900?t=biblia). These Be Thy Gods Even casual observers of Christianity know the story of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments and the Golden Calf debacle. Yet, most miss a significant subplot weaving through the narrative. While Moses was away on the mountain, the people grew restless and wondered if he would return (Exodus 32:1 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2032.1;kjv1900?t=biblia)). So, Aaron inexplicably did something dreadful. He instructed the people to bring all their golden earrings to him, and they did (Exodus 32:2-3 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2032.2-3;kjv1900?t=biblia)). Doubtless, those golden earrings were from the spoils taken while leaving Egypt (Exodus 12:35-36 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2012.35-36;kjv1900?t=biblia)), which God intended for them to use in the construction of the Tabernacle (Exodus 35:22 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2035.22;kjv1900?t=biblia)).[x] Aaron fashioned the earrings into a golden calf and made a strange declaration, “These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt (Exodus 32:4 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2032.4;kjv1900?t=biblia)).” Now the question needs to be answered: Why would Aaron say, “these be thy gods” when there was only one golden calf? In the past, common conjecture has been that this calf worship was derived from Egypt, but that view is now generally abandoned. The Egyptians worshiped the living animal, not an image.[xi] And, although calf worship became an issue later, there is no evidence it was ever known or practiced among pre-settled Hebrews. Convoluting the question more, it seems Aaron, originally or as an afterthought, intended the golden calf to represent the Lord (Exodus 32:5 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2032.5;kjv1900?t=biblia)). Or, perhaps, to represent the Lord in the eyes of the foolish people demanding representation in the absence of Moses. Aaron’s declaration regarding the golden calf appears more condescending, exasperated, and angry than a declaration of conviction or actual belief. Therefore, I am convinced Aaron explicitly referred to the people’s golden earrings used to create the golden calf when he said, “These be thy gods (Exodus 32:4 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2032.4;kjv1900?t=biblia)).” At the very least, his declaration contained a double meaning. Aaron effectively said, “I have fashioned an idol from your idols.” Not to beat a dead horse, or in this case, a dead calf, but the text provides further evidence to bolster my assertion that Aaron’s statement was an allusion to the golden earrings. Despite crafting the calf, Aaron was never punished for it. That’s astonishing, considering that God commanded the Levites to execute approximately three thousand men and sent a plague among the people because of their idolatry (Exodus 32:27-28 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2032.27-28;kjv1900?t=biblia), Exodus 32:35 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2032.35;kjv1900?t=biblia)). After Moses tore down the calf, he asked Aaron, “What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them (Exodus 32:21 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2032.21;kjv1900?t=biblia))?” Aaron’s response was ludicrous. He passed the blame to the people, saying, “Thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief (Exodus 32:22 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2032.22;kjv1900?t=biblia)).” God was deeply angry with Aaron’s actions (Deuteronomy 9:20 (https://ref.ly/Deut%209.20;kjv1900?t=biblia)). However, Aaron’s sin was that of weakness in resisting the evil will of the people rather than idolatry in his own heart. As an aside, it’s easy for godly leaders to fall into the sin of submitting to the will of the people rather than the will of God. Every godly yet imperfect pastor knows the weariness that accompanies resisting the fleshly leanings of their congregation. Many, like Aaron, give in. Even as I write, I am exhausted by the battle, tired of the mischief. Sometimes, I feel like just letting people have their golden calf. Maybe they can have it and still worship God. After all, that’s what most “Christians” are doing these days. They seem happy with their parties, drinking, dancing, and playing. But no. I value the presence of God too much to give in to the pressure. I’m not alone. Countless better leaders than I shoulder the responsibility of godly leadership without submitting to the will of carnal majorities.   This Exodus narrative contains two more relevant things regarding the connection between earrings and idolatry. First, it’s thought-provoking that Moses ground the golden calf (previously earrings) into powder and made the children of Israel drink it (Exodus 32:20 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2032.20;kjv1900?t=biblia)). Making them ingest and excrete the symbols and source of their rebellion. Second, when God said He would no longer travel amongst the Israelites, they mourned and took off their jewelry (Exodus 33:3-4 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2033.3-4;kjv1900?t=biblia)). Apparently, many of them did so instinctively, much like Jacob and his family, when they desired to please God. However, God still told Moses to command the people to “Put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee (Exodus 32:5 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2032.5;kjv1900?t=biblia)).” Obediently, the Israelites stripped themselves of more than just earrings, but all their ornaments (Exodus 33:6 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2033.6;kjv1900?t=biblia)). This was more than just a ceremonial symbol of mourning. God required the complete removal of objects representing their prideful, rebellious hearts, which they had used to build an idol. The idols on their bodies became an idol with an altar, and God said, “Get it all off.” For those who might scoff at this idea, imagine the average church in America requiring its congregation to remove their jewelry for a single day in humility before God. Very few would willingly participate. Now ask yourself, “Why is it so difficult to separate people from their adornments?” Which Came First, the Chicken or the Egg? The relationship between jewelry and pride is a chicken or egg conundrum. It’s challenging to determine which came first. Does pride lead to wearing jewelry, or does wearing jewelry lead to pride? I think that’s because it’s different from person to person. Indeed, for many people, wearing jewelry is an outward expression of pride. Only a deeply deceived person could deny that fact. On the other hand, some wear jewelry because that’s what culture expects and demands. Those people often hardly notice its subtle impact on their spirit and demeanor. Regardless, the pride problem is ever persistent and deeply connected to jewelry. A word of caution to sincere preachers and believers who rightfully abstain from wearing jewelry. Be careful not to assume a person is wearing jewelry because they are prideful. They might be. However, it’s also likely that wearing jewelry will open the door to pride if it has not done so already. This might seem like an unnecessary distinction, but it’s crucial because assigning core motives to a person incorrectly is deeply offensive. If we assume a sincere person is acting insincerely, we lose credibility and, thereby, lose our ability to influence them. A Pagan Distinction At least two hundred years after the golden calf events, Gideon gained a miraculous victory over the Ishmaelites (Judges 7:1-25 (https://ref.ly/Judg%207.1-25;kjv1900?t=biblia)). After the war, grateful Israelites asked Gideon to be their ruler (Judges 8:22 (https://ref.ly/Judg%208.22;kjv1900?t=biblia)). He declined. Still, he had a request, “Let me make a request of you: every one of you give me the earrings from his spoil… (Judges 8:23-24 (https://ref.ly/Judg%208.23-24;kjv1900?t=biblia)).”[xii] Then the text gives a vital piece of information, “The Midianites had gold earrings because they were Ishmaelites (Judges 8:24 (https://ref.ly/Judg%208.24;kjv1900?t=biblia)).”[xiii] In the days of Gideon, wearing earrings had become the distinction of pagans. The implication is clear, and the reader is expected to take it for granted: Israelites did not commonly wear jewelry typical of neighboring pagans. Older commentaries astutely traced this Israelite taboo on ornaments to the sin at Sinai.[xiv] Shortly, we will examine how the New Testament affirms the prohibition of ornamentation.   As in Exodus 32 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2032;kjv1900?t=biblia), where earrings were used to make the golden calf, Gideon used these earrings to manufacture an idol in the form of an ephod, a garment worn by the priests and used to determine God’s will (Judges 8:27 (https://ref.ly/Judg%208.27;kjv1900?t=biblia)). The amount of gold suggests that the garment included an idolatrous image. Gideon intended to glorify himself, founding his own cult, much like the Canaanite kings. The result was spiritually disastrous, ensnaring all of Israel in prostituting themselves.[xv] This is another tragic example of how easily jewelry morphs into an idolatrous object of pride. However, when jewelry is given to the Lord, it becomes a pleasing sacrifice (Exodus 35:22 (https://ref.ly/Exod%2035.22;kjv1900?t=biblia)). The Elephant in the Room In the Old Testament, Rebecca, Esther, and other religious women wore gold and other ornamentations. Critics of holiness are quick to point this out. While the New Testament was written, harlots and wicked individuals chiefly wore ornamentation.[xvi]The New Testament carefully forbids ornamentation, but God did not explicitly prohibit it in the Old Testament. And though popular dogma views the Church era as a time of Divine permissiveness, in reality, Jesus and the Apostles tightened many Old Testament standards. For example, Jesus tightened regulations concerning divorce and remarriage and ended the tolerance of polygamy (Matthew 5:31-32 (https://ref.ly/Matt%205.31-32;kjv1900?t=biblia)). Also, Jesus equated lust with adultery and linked anger to murder and hellfire (Matthew 5:21-30 (https://ref.ly/Matt%205.21-30;kjv1900?t=biblia)). Similarly, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter, under Divine inspiration, tightened the standards regarding ornamentation. This tightening of moral standards shouldn’t be surprising. Jesus warned, “To whom much is given, much will be required (Luke 12:48 (https://ref.ly/Luke%2012.48;kjv1900?t=biblia)).” The New Testament Church has received the most incredible gift possible: The Holy Ghost. We have daily access to God. We have been given a name that is above every other name—the name of Jesus (Philippians 2:9 (https://ref.ly/Phil%202.9;kjv1900?t=biblia)). There is deliverance, salvation, healing, and authority in the name of Jesus. We have been given much, and much is required of us. Two Apostolic Commands – Paul Both Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter, the Apostle to the Jews, give authoritative Apostolic admonitions against jewelry. They are very similar, a harmony that is even more striking since there was probably no collusion between the authors.[xvii] We find Paul’s command in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 (https://ref.ly/1%20Tim%202.9-10;kjv1900?t=biblia). People ordinarily justify ignoring Paul’s sanction against ornamentation by claiming his statements were only intended as “advice” for how to dress for church. Not everyday life. Therefore, we need to back up to 1 Timothy 2:8 (https://ref.ly/1%20Tim%202.8;kjv1900?t=biblia). In this instance, the most accurate English translation is the New English Translation: So I want the men in every place to pray, lifting holy hands without anger or dispute.[xviii] Paul made a general statement about worship and prayer that is not confined to church services or places of worship. Though his comments certainly apply to church etiquette, these are sweeping, opening remarks. The English Standard Version accurately renders 1 Timothy 2:8 (https://ref.ly/1%20Tim%202.8;kjv1900?t=biblia) as “In every place, the men should pray.” Notice the New Living Translation’s sloppy interpretation: In every place of worship, I want men to pray. The translators have incorrectly inserted their assumptions into the text. Paul commanded men to lift their hands and pray everywhere. Now we can examine 1 Timothy 2:9 (https://ref.ly/1%20Tim%202.9;kjv1900?t=biblia), which is a discourse on holiness: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array. First, women are to “dress modestly.” This compact translation of “adorn themselves in modest apparel” represents the thought correctly.[xix] The Greek word for “decency” is aideos. The translation “shamefacedness” is obsolete in modern English. Paul is not urging women to go around looking ashamed of themselves, with faces averted or veiled. Instead, the Greek word signifies a modesty that shrinks from overstepping the limits of womanly reserve. This should apply to both dress and deportment.[xx] Next, Paul demands “sobriety” — “self-restraint” or “sober-mindedness”: The well-balanced state of mind arising from habitual self-restraint.[xxi] These first three Pauline principles aren’t intended to address the nuances of female fashion except to ban clothing and demeanor that’s sexually suggestive, sensual, or revealing. The text zooms in, mentioning “broided hair.” “Broided” simply means “braided”[xxii]or “interwoven.” Taken in context, it’s clear that braided hair isn’t the intended issue; rather, weaving “gold” into hair is forbidden. Paul bars the use of “gold” and “pearls” as items of adornment. However, assuming this is an exhaustive list of banned jewelry would be incorrect. That would be legalism, following a list to the letter while ignoring the spirit of the law (2 Corinthians 3:6 (https://ref.ly/2%20Cor%203.6;kjv1900?t=biblia)). Paul uses “gold” and “pearls” as examples of jewelry that should not be used for accessorizing the body, hair, or clothing. For example, substituting gold with another precious metal like silver breaks the spirit of the text. Paul emphasized gold and pearls because they were the most coveted items in that culture. Pearls were three times more valuable than gold. Women used them to adorn their hair as rings and earrings or decorate their garments and sandals.[xxiii] Last, Paul condemns wearing “costly array” or exorbitantly expensive clothing. The best garments could cost as much as seven thousand denarii. For those of inferior quality for commoners and slaves, the cost would be between eight hundred and five hundred denarii (the average wage of the working man was one denarius a day).[xxiv]A denarius would be the equivalent of about fifty dollars in today’s money.[xxv] Which is a fact worth knowing when determining if something is indeed a “costly array.” In that time, a wealthy person’s garment could cost three hundred and fifty thousand dollars in today’s money. 1 Timothy 2:10 (https://ref.ly/1%20Tim%202.10;kjv1900?t=biblia) closes out Paul’s instruction on outward holiness: But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. That is, it is not appropriate for women who profess to be the followers of the Savior to seek to be distinguished by personal, external decorations. If they are Christians, they have seen the vanity of these things and have fixed their hearts on more substantial realities. They are professed followers of Him “who went about doing good (Acts 10:38 (https://ref.ly/Acts%2010.38;kjv1900?t=biblia)),” and performing good works especially becomes them.[xxvi] Two Apostolic Commands – Peter The Apostle Peter’s Apostolic instructions regarding accessorizing the body are found in 1 Peter 3:3 (https://ref.ly/1%20Pet%203.3;kjv1900?t=biblia): Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel. Literally, “To whom let there belong (as their peculiar ornament) not the outward adornment of “plaiting” — weaving or braiding hairs with precious materials. The “wearing of gold” — literally, “putting round,” namely, the head, or the arm, as a bracelet, the finger, as rings. “Apparel” — showy and costly.[xxvii]   Like Paul, Peter gives a godly alternative to such decorations: But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price (1 Peter 3:4 (https://ref.ly/1%20Pet%203.4;kjv1900?t=biblia)). In other words, the inward spirit should not be tarnished by outward vanity. “Meek” is best understood as meaning “gentle,” and “quiet” as “peaceable.”[xxviii] These things are invaluable to God. Notice the wording “that which is not corruptible” in 1 Peter 3:4 (https://ref.ly/1%20Pet%203.4;kjv1900?t=biblia). A pure inward heart is not transitory nor tainted with corruption, as are all earthly adornments. The Apostle intended to compare the beautiful yet corruptible elements of the world to a godly spirit. Corruptible elements often have a corrupting effect on a person’s heart. The bottom line is that wearing ornamental jewelry violates the principle of avoiding personal ornamentation. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, both the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter addressed this aspect of adornment. The Mother of Harlots Without trying to decode what “Mystery Babylon (Revelation 17:5 (https://ref.ly/Rev%2017.5;kjv1900?t=biblia))” is or delving into prophetic symbolism, I’ll make a generally accepted statement regarding the “great whore” mentioned in Revelation 17:1-6 (https://ref.ly/Rev%2017.1-6;kjv1900?t=biblia). The “great whore” represents an ungodly, end-times religious system. In the famous vision, John saw: A woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 17:3 (https://ref.ly/Rev%2017.3;kjv1900?t=biblia)). What makes this passage relevant to the jewelry topic is found in the following verse: And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication (Revelation 17:4 (https://ref.ly/Rev%2017.4;kjv1900?t=biblia)). On her forehead was a name written, “Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth (Revelation 17:5 (https://ref.ly/Rev%2017.5;kjv1900?t=biblia)).” John saw she was drunk from drinking the blood of the saints, and with “the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Revelation 17:6 (https://ref.ly/Rev%2017.6;kjv1900?t=biblia)).” I could wax eloquent about prophetic implications. However, I’ll avoid speculation and stick to observable facts. God portrayed the compromised, prostituted, blasphemous, drunken, abominable end-time religious system as being “decked with gold and precious stones and pearls.” These are the exact items forbidden by the Apostles. Now, that doesn’t seem like a coincidence! This passage alone should pause the wholesale acceptance of jewelry within the Church. From the preceding passages in the Old and New Testaments, we learn that our appearance and dress should display humility, modesty, and moderation. We should not wear ornamental jewelry or costly, extravagant clothing. For example, earrings, necklaces, and bracelets are exclusively ornamental, while a watch is primarily functional rather than ornamental. However, even a watch could become ostentatious and vain. Eustace Becomes a Dragon In C.S. Lewis’s epic Narnian story, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, an obnoxious boy named Eustace temporarily turns into a dragon. Before becoming a dragon, Eustace was a thoroughly selfish and bratty child. One day, he stumbled upon a vast treasure in a cave. In awe, he slipped a golden armband above his elbow near his shoulder and eventually fell asleep. He awoke with throbbing pain in his arm. Eventually, Eustace realized he’d become a dragon, and the beastly golden band was excruciatingly tight on his dragon arm. He desperately wanted to take it off, but it was stuck. In Lewis’s classic tale, the golden armband and the boy’s transformation into a dragon are imaginative allegories of how a person’s inward beastliness can become outwardly dragonish. Eustice was the personification of pride, selfishness, and greed. Lewis insightfully symbolized those traits with the arm ring and the dragon. Ultimately, Eustace couldn’t become human again or take the painful band off his arm without help from the regal lion, Aslan. For the uninitiated, Aslan represents Jesus in the Narnia adventures. Once Eustace learned his lesson and regretted his dragon ways, Aslan transformed him by clawing away his dragon skin and sending him to bathe in a well. With his leathery dragon exterior removed and freshly cleansed by healing waters, Eustace no longer wanted the gold band. He changed from the inside out. Here’s my favorite excerpt from that chapter: The Lord Octesian’s arm ring had a curious fate. Eustace did not want it and offered it to Caspian, and Caspian offered it to Lucy. She did not care about having it. “Very well, then, catch as catch can,” said Caspian and flung it up in the air. This was when they were all standing looking at the inscription. Up went the ring, flashing in the sunlight, and caught and hung, as neatly as a well-thrown quoit, on a little projection on the rock. No one could climb up to get it from below, and no one could climb down to get it from above. And there, for all I know, it is hanging still and may hang till that world ends.[xxix] The Destruction of the Ring C.S. Lewis was close friends with J.R. Tolkien, famed author of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. In Tolkien’s epics, twenty rings forged from mithril, gold, and jewels represent the corrupting nature of evil. Eventually, the rings destroy everyone who wears them. One remaining ring and one sincere Hobbit named Frodo become the centerpiece of the tale. Frodo is called upon to undertake a journey to destroy the ring. Throughout the arduous journey, he resisted wearing the ring. Over time, however, he succumbs to the enticement of the ring. Slowly, he changes from the picture of goodness and innocence to that of selfishness and pride. The only hope for goodness to prevail was for the ring to be cast into fire. Here’s one of my favorite quotes, “Now, at this last, we must take a hard road, a road unforeseen. There lies our hope, if hope it be. To walk into peril—to Mordor. We must send the Ring to the Fire.”[xxx] These two literary geniuses aptly chose jewelry to represent pride, among other things. Notably, they did so from different directions. Lewis used the arm ring as an outward display of inward corruption. Conversely, Tolkien used the rings to represent how external factors can corrupt us. In both cases, the rings became a symbol of bondage that needed to be cast away. I doubt either Lewis or Tolkien considered jewelry off-limits for Christians. Yet, they cleverly captured the essence of what Christians should do with jewelry—cast it away along with its corrupting associations. Addressing Common Objections Didn’t God command Moses to tell women to take silver and gold jewelry and put it on their daughters in Exodus 3:22 (https://ref.ly/Exod%203.22;kjv1900?t=biblia)? First, as previously stated, God did not expressly forbid jewelry in the Old Testament. However, a close examination of the verse reveals that God did not tell women to put jewelry on their daughters. Second, the King James Version renders Exodus 3:22 (https://ref.ly/Exod%203.22;kjv1900?t=biblia), “Jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and ye shall put them upon your sons and daughters.” In context, we see it was “raiment” that the Hebrew mothers put on their daughters and sons, too. “Raiment” from the Hebrew semaloth, often translated as “clothing,” doesn’t refer to festive or regal garments but daily apparel.[xxxi] Remember, the Hebrews had been slaves for 430 years. They lived under harsh, oppressive conditions and needed clothing for the wilderness journey. Second, although several dynamic equivalent translations insert the word jewelry (and the King James Version is imprecise, “jewels”), the Hebrew word is keli. It is a masculine noun indicating an article, a vessel, an instrument, or a jewel. It has a broad, inclusive sense and indicates useful objects of all kinds.[xxxii] The best English translation of Exodus 3:22 (https://ref.ly/Exod%203.22;kjv1900?t=biblia), in terms of adherence to the literal text, is the New English Translation, which says, “Every woman will ask her neighbor… for items of silver and gold and for clothing. You will put these articles on your sons and daughters…”[xxxiii] The plundered gold and silver vessels contained more than just jewelry. Doesn’t God love jewelry? He speaks of it as a good thing in several Scriptures. Why would God do this if jewelry is evil? This answer might surprise you, but I believe God likes jewelry. He created Lucifer with a jewel-studded garment, and the High Priest wore a breastplate inlaid with precious stones in the Old Testament. God created precious stones and metals. Even a quick study of the materials used in Heaven’s construction reveals God must really like exquisite ornamentation. However, God does not like what jewelry does to us. The specific passage people typically reference when asking this question is Ezekiel 16:8-14 (https://ref.ly/Ezek%2016.8-14;kjv1900?t=biblia). It’s a symbolic passage about Israel’s unfaithfulness to God. This parable describes the Lord taking Israel as His bride. Among many other incredible items, Ezekiel 16:11-13 (https://ref.ly/Ezek%2016.11-13;kjv1900?t=biblia) declares, “I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver…” The wording was carefully used to conjure an image of ancient royalty. God planned to take Israel beyond betrothal and make her His queen (as He does the New Testament Church).[xxxiv] Nothing mentioned in this text is intended as fashion advice from God to His people. The actual point of this parable is revealed in Ezekiel 16:14-17 (https://ref.ly/Ezek%2016.14-17;kjv1900?t=biblia): And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God. But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was. And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so. Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them. They took the gifts the Lord gave them and turned them into idolatry. In God’s eyes, they prostituted themselves in their prideful iniquity. Why do Peter and Paul only address women’s jewelry, not men’s? Is it ok for men to wear jewelry? It’s important to remember that the Apostles wrote the epistles for real churches with actual issues. It’s only reasonable to extrapolate that the injunctions against jewelry are the same for men and women. Just as Paul’s instructions directed at men to lift holy hands in prayer and praise also apply to women. However, in the immediate social context, the temptation to use jewelry was primarily a female issue.[xxxv] A reality that remains generally true today. In Conclusion Until now, I’ve resisted offering anecdotal reasons to reject the ornamental use of jewelry. My opinions and experiences are irrelevant compared to the authority of God’s Word. However, in conclusion, I’d like to leave you with a few sincere personal opinions and experiences. Many years ago, I was gifted an expensive watch. At least, it seemed expensive to me then, but I thought Taco Bell was fine dining in those days (I still kinda do). Anyway, over time, I noticed a subtle change in my demeanor. I ensured my sleeves didn’t cover it so people could see it. I started propping my arm up so it would be visible. Wearing it made me feel, I don’t know… superior… unique… cool… important. Or, at least, I thought it helped people perceive me as those things. No one ever advised me to get rid of that watch. I didn’t hear a convicting sermon or read an article like this. But one day, while in prayer, the Lord very clearly convicted my heart. He told me in no uncertain terms that I needed to get rid of that watch. Also, I was told watches of any kind were off-limits for me. The allure of a status symbol was too great for me to handle. Now, arguably, watches have a function beyond ornamentation. Although many use watches as a loophole to accessorize in a way that borderlines disobedience to the biblical ideal. I consider my refusal to wear watches a personal conviction. One that I would not impose on others. But that experience did teach me a valuable lesson about the insidious nature of vanity and showiness. I’ve heard what many of you are thinking: “Hats, gloves, ties, shoes, and clothing can all be worn in a showy, conceited, prideful, ostentatious manner too.” That’s absolutely true, and I believe every Christian should be mindful of that when buying and wearing attire. We should examine our motives in everything we do, say, and wear. And nothing in Scripture mandates that Christians dress drably or drearily. However, jewelry has no redeeming or functioning value except to adorn, make a statement, project an image, or symbolize status. In my opinion, wedding bands serve a reasonable and even necessary function in our culture. However, I think precious metals, diamonds, and pearls can and should be rejected. Many wedding bands made with alternative materials can be purchased for reasonable prices. Like watches, many Christians justify wearing a piece of wildly gaudy expensive jewelry because it is a wedding ring. That concerns me. But I digress. Those already trapped in the vice grip of vanity will struggle to even consider the series of questions I’m about to pose, but I ask that you think about it as dispassionately as possible. What good and noble purpose does jewelry serve? Why are people so passionate about jewelry? Why would giving it up create such strong emotions? What motives are buried in our hearts when wearing jewelry? What feelings does wearing jewelry plant in our hearts? How much jewelry is too much jewelry, and why? What image are we trying to project when wearing jewelry? What image do we unintentionally project when wearing jewelry? If God told us audibly to give up jewelry, would we do it? Could we quit wearing jewelry for a month? If not, why? I’m painfully aware that modern Christendom doesn’t think God cares about anything we wear or don’t wear, which is weird because the Bible has a lot to say about our outward appearance. I also know people want the “why” for every biblical command. I’m sure the Israelites wanted good reasons why they couldn’t eat bacon or shrimp. I would wrestle with that, too. God doesn’t have to answer to us or give explanations. Sometimes, He does, and sometimes, He doesn’t. There are a great many mysteries I plan to ask God about in Heaven. I’ve laid out several reasons to reject wearing jewelry from Scripture. Even if we had no explanation, obedience would still be required. I’ll leave you with a final bit of educated speculation that goes beyond the issue of pride. I believe the Golden Calf at Sanai stripped humanity of its privileges regarding jewelry. I believe that God desires for the Church to be free of pride, and He has removed the stumbling block of jewelry from our list of dangerous privileges. I’ve seen churches transformed from humble places of righteousness into gnarly pits of pride. I’ve seen modest Chrisitnas transition from modesty into “spiritualized” arrogance. Jewelry always plays a role in those changes. I’ll close with this quick story (and I could tell many such stories) that solidified my position on the jewelry issue. Many years ago, a friend of mine really liked gold stuff. He knew it was wrong but bought a giant gold pinky ring anyway. He wore it for a long time and convinced himself that God didn’t care about his ring. One day, the Lord nudged his heart in prayer and told him that the ring had to go. He didn’t listen. When he got out of bed the following day, he was shocked to see dark, black, inky blotches radiating from the ring to his shoulder. The ink-like stain moved rapidly towards his neck. He tore the ring from his finger, and immediately, the stain disappeared. He hasn’t put gold on his body since that day.

Why what we put on may be more important than we think. By Duane Litfin The so-called "worship wars" of recent years may have produced a winner. Many congregations remain divided between traditional and contemporary styles, but in most places the contemporary appears to have gained the upper hand. What's more, our worship services have become increasingly relaxed and informal affairs. You can see it in what we wear. Church for today's worshipers is not a dress-up event. Whatever is clean and comfortable seems sufficient. Christian students in particular have been taught by their seniors — or has it been the reverse?— that when it comes to church, attire doesn't much matter. They understand there is nothing particularly spiritual about a dress or a coat and tie. God is scarcely impressed by such things. "People look at the outward appearance," we are reminded, "but the LORD looks at the heart" (1 Sam. 16:7). I do not intend to wade into the broader debate over worship styles; that's a different discussion. In any case, I'm content with either traditional or contemporary if they're done well. But I do wish to raise a question about this last notion: namely, that when it comes to public worship, our clothing doesn't matter. This common assumption, it seems to me, deserves more scrutiny than it typically receives. Over the last several generations, American attire in general has lurched dramatically toward the informal. A feature that quickly dates an old photograph, for instance, is the men wearing fedoras; most today wouldn't know where to find one. Those who are old enough can remember when travelers got spiffed up to board an airplane. Today's travelers think nothing of flying in duds they might wear to the gym. Or consider the rise of the term "business casual." In most parts of the country, though not all, even the corporate setting has grown less formal. These changes are part of a broad shift toward the convenient and comfortable. It's a shift we see on display every week in our worship services. In many churches casual wear is de rigueur. It's easy to imagine how one might look over-dressed there, but less easy, short of immodesty, to imagine being under-dressed. Jeans or shorts, tee shirts or tank tops, flip-flops or sandals: these draw scarcely any attention, while full dresses or a suit and tie appear strangely out of place. Relaxed, even rumpled informality is in; suiting up in our "Sunday best" is out. The question I want to raise here is, What should we make of this shift in worship attire? Many seem convinced it's a good thing, because, again, it's the heart that counts. Yet precisely for this reason—because it's the heart that counts—I want to suggest that what we wear in our public worship may matter more than we think. To grasp this connection, let us draw on some helpful insights from the field of communication. Verbal and Nonverbal Verbal behavior refers to all those ways we use language to communicate: speaking, writing, sign language, etc. Nonverbal behavior focuses on all those ways we communicate without words: facial expression, gesture, posture, eye behavior, vocal inflection ("paralanguage"), our use of space ("proxemics"), or touch behavior. Some experts estimate that in our everyday relationships only a small percentage of what we communicate is conveyed via verbal channels. The rest is conveyed nonverbally. Of special interest here is that avenue of nonverbal communication we will call physical appearance and dress. Here are seven observations drawn from the literature on this aspect of our human interaction: 1. The wearing of clothing is exclusively a human characteristic. We share many attributes with other creatures, but the inclination to clothe ourselves is not one of them. Those who know the account of Adam and Eve will understand why this is so. There is a moral and even spiritual dimension to human clothing. 2. Our clothes serve a variety of practical, social, and cultural functions. Protection and modesty spring first to mind, but our clothes do far more. We sometimes dress to conceal or deceive. More often our clothes serve to reveal. We use clothing for decoration, for sexual attraction, for self-expression and self-assertion. By our attire we display our gender, our religion, our occupation, our social position, or causes with which we identify (e.g., sports jerseys). Our apparel may express our group membership or our role in society (e.g., company or police uniforms). Many dress to impress, while others choose the reverse: they express their rejection by intentionally flouting accepted clothing norms. 3. Our clothing is one of our most elemental forms of communication. Long before our voice is heard, our clothes are transmitting multiple messages. From our attire, others immediately read not only such things as our sex, age, national identity, socio-economic status, and social position, but also our mood, our attitudes, our personality, our interests, and our values. 4. We constantly make judgments about one another on the basis of clothing. Common wisdom has it that you can't judge a book by its cover. But this is only partly true; we regularly read one another's covering. What's more, we're better at it than we think. Research suggests that if you stand someone before an audience of strangers and ask them to draw inferences merely on the basis of what they see, the audience's inferences will tend toward consensus, and those inferences will tend to be more or less accurate. Why should this be? We spend our lives making judgments based on appearance and then testing those judgments in our subsequent relationships. In this way, we become rather adept at the process. Judgments based on appearance are scarcely infallible, of course, and we are wise to hold them tentatively. But it's almost impossible to avoid making them in the first place. 5. Because our clothing is one of the fundamental ways we communicate with others, what we wear is never a purely personal matter. Our attire exerts a social influence on those around us. One famous study, for example, discovered that unwitting subjects were significantly more willing to jaywalk when following individuals wearing "high status" clothing than when following individuals wearing "low status" clothing. What we wear can shape patterns of communication around us, depending on what messages people are picking up. Consider, for example, the varied cues we send by the way we dress: "I want people to notice me." "I'm very confident." "I want to hide." "I care only about comfort." "I want to look seductive." "I repudiate you and your expectations." 6. How we dress not only affects others; it also affects us. This dynamic is often circular: how we feel influences the clothes we put on, and the clothes we put on in turn shape how we feel. Changes of clothes can generate a change of mood; the soldier feels different in his uniform than he does in street clothes. In some settings our choice of attire can make or break us. If we like the way we look for a job interview, for instance, it will tend to strengthen our confidence. We feel better about our chances, as reflected in improved posture, more fluent speech, more dynamic gestures. On the other hand, inappropriate dress can sap our confidence. We have all experienced the uncomfortable effects of feeling under-dressed in a particular social setting. 7. Much of the social meaning of our clothing is contextual. The appropriateness of our dress is often dictated by the situation. Dress that would send a given message in one setting might send a very different message in another. Picture, for example, a young woman dressed in hiking boots, sweatshirt, and shorts. Around a campfire the message might be, merely, "I'm ready for the trail." Choosing that same outfit for her aunt's funeral would say something rather different. Regional variations and issues of local dress loom large. Times change, values change, situations change; what was proper ten years ago may not be proper today, or vice versa. All of the above is why we should not conclude too quickly that because God looks on the heart, what we wear to church doesn't matter. Our internal and external states cannot be so easily disentangled. The fact is, when it comes to how we clothe ourselves, our external appearance is often an expression of our internal state. Thus our worship attire may matter more than we think. The Meaning of Worship What is worship, after all? It's the act of acknowledging and praising God as God; indeed, as our God. It is the adoring response of grateful creatures to their Maker. In worship we come before God with awe and reverence, focusing on him in loving contemplation, celebrating him for who he is and what he has done. We willingly bow before him in surrender, delighting in the privilege of extolling his worthiness. In worship we join our small voices with the celestial choirs in a grand chorus magnifying the Creator and declaring his excellencies: his purity, his power, his beauty, his grace, his mercy, his love. From the beginning, God has called his people to public worship. It's everywhere in the Bible, and with good reason: our corporate worship pleases God. What's more, we need it as well. Everyone who has ever built a campfire knows how quickly lone embers cool and die. But gather those embers and they create a furnace effect that burns hot. Corporate worship is designed to generate that furnace effect in God's people. Those around us warm our spirits, encourage our faith, and hold us up when we're faltering. As Martin Luther famously put it, "At home, in my own house, there is no warmth or vigor in me, but in the church when the multitude is gathered together, a fire is kindled in my heart and it breaks its way through." "Do not neglect the gathering of yourselves together," says the writer to the Hebrews (10:25). We come to faith as individuals, but Christ places us instantly into his body, and we require that body for the purposes of worship. There are aspects of worship we cannot fulfill alone. The Lord's Table, for example, belongs to the community; celebrate it when you "come together," says the apostle (1 Cor. 11:18, 33). So also baptism, corporate prayer, the public reading of Scripture, the teaching of Scripture, the corporate confession of sin: all these and more are designed for corporate worship. Worship Pointers So what sort of clothing might befit such an exalted occasion? Observers in the gallery of the United States Supreme Court are forbidden to wear hats. Out of respect for the importance of what's taking place there, the Court's firm rule for visitors is, "Inappropriate clothing may not be worn." If this is so for a merely human institution, what might be suitable attire for God-honoring worship? Readers will be relieved that I have no dress code to propose. Yet the Scriptures do suggest a few pointers. And each of them is concerned, ultimately, with the heart. The first is derived from God's instructions regarding holiness. The core idea of holiness in both the Old and New Testaments is "set-apartness." Whether it be food, days, vestments, utensils, places, offerings, or God's people themselves, to be holy is to be peculiar, dedicated to the Lord. To sanctify something is to set it apart as special for God. The "unholy" is thus not only what is profane but also what is ordinary or "common." God is holy and he desires his people to be holy. Everything we offer him is to be marked by its holiness. He expects us to demonstrate in every aspect of our relationship to him the special regard he deserves. A second consideration is the biblical idea of "the firstfruits." As Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke says, this "does not refer to any specific type of thing placed on the altar; rather it is a description of the quality of the offering: the choicest of the fruits, the firstborn" (An Old Testament Theology, p. 466). God demands that we give him our best. The people of Malachi's day dishonored the Lord by bringing him inferior worship offerings. They sniffed at God's expectations and said, "What a nuisance this is" (Mal. 1:13). Not surprisingly, God was incensed by their contemptuous, "anything will do" attitude toward worship. "Cursed is the cheat," he warned them, who has a suitable sacrifice but offers up something less. God requires our best in everything we bring him. A third consideration is costliness. This has nothing to do with dollar amounts. The impoverished widow offered the Lord a tiny sum, but in Christ's estimation it amounted to "more … than all the others" (Mark 12:41–44). The point here, rather, is our willingness to expend ourselves sacrificially for the Lord's sake. This spirit of sacrifice was famously modeled by King David when he approached Araunah about purchasing his threshing floor as a place of worship (the future site of Solomon's temple, as it turned out). Araunah offered to donate not only the land but also his sledges and yokes for the wood and his oxen for sacrifices. But the king refused his gift. David would not offer to the Lord, he said, that which "cost me nothing" (2 Sam. 24:24). Instead, he bought the land at full price and then dedicated it to the Lord. It was a costly gift, one that proved acceptable to God. New Testament Worship That which is special, that which is our best, that which is sacrificial: We may be tempted to think such standards made sense in the context of Israel's ancient worship but have little to do with us. After all, none of us shows up at church on Sunday morning bearing sacrifices. Or do we? In the New Testament, the ancient offerings are replaced by the worshipers themselves. Worship is quite literally the act of offering ourselves to God. This was the apostle Paul's point when he urged us "to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship" (Rom. 12:1). When we gather with other believers to "offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name" (Heb. 13:15), we are offering ourselves to him anew, body and all. It is precisely the sort of wholehearted offering Jesus had in mind when he said that the Father is seeking those who will worship him "in the Spirit and in truth" (John 4:23–24). In the Old Testament, the place of worship and everything about it was considered holy. Worshipers were taught to approach that "sacred space" with awe and reverence. Today, God's people, both individually and corporately, do not visit that sacred space; they constitute that sacred space. Paul instructed the Athenians that God does not live in temples made by human hands (Acts 17:24), but his point was not that God has no earthly dwelling place. God dwells in a temple made with his own hands; he dwells within his people. Their bodies have quite literally become his earthly abode (1 Cor. 3:16–17). Casual Worship The question for us, then, is this: When we gather for worship, does this sacred event generate within us any similar sense of "awe and reverence"? As Richard Foster says, when the early believers in Acts met for worship,they were keenly aware that the veil had been ripped in two and like Moses and Aaron they were entering the Holy of Holies. No intermediaries were needed. They were coming into the awful, glorious, gracious Presence of the living God. They gathered with anticipation, knowing that Christ was present among them and would teach them and touch them with His living power. (Celebration of Discipline, p. 141) Is this how we come to worship? A perceptive observer of our contemporary church scene might be forgiven for scratching her head over such a question, wondering whether we have grown oblivious to the significance of our own gathering. How often, she might ask us, do you prepare for Sunday as if it mattered, guarding, for example, Saturday nights so as to be fresh and focused the next morning? How come our pre-service gathering so often sounds more like a bowling alley than a people meeting to offer themselves anew to their God? How is it we are we so susceptible to the lure of personality and entertainment up front, obscuring the God-centered purpose for which we have met? How prevalent is the notion that we can worship just as well at home, or on the golf course, or before a TV screen—or perhaps forfeit worship altogether due to inconvenient weather, the priority of other things, or who may be preaching that week? I recall hearing one pastor, for example, exhorting members of his summer congregation to join their "no-commitment choir." All it requires, he said, is to show up a little early on Sunday morning. This pastor is a good man with a good church, but also with a common blind spot: he saw no problem in appealing to such low motives in his people, much less bringing God such a substandard, it-will-cost-you-nothing musical offering. Is there anything in the Scriptures to suggest that our inferior worship offerings waft toward heaven with a sweet aroma, "a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God?" (Phil. 4:18)? As one contemporary observer put it, "Too many of us today have got it backwards: we worship our work, work at our play, and play at our worship." What's going on here? Could it be that our delight in the security of our standing before God—that is, that all who have "put on" Christ (Gal. 3:27) stand fully accepted in him—has blinded us to a different issue: the acceptability of our worship offerings? It would be the cheapest of what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace" to suppose that because we are secure in Christ, whatever we bring to God in worship, however inferior or mediocre, pleases him (Eph. 5:10). Not just anything will do when we come before God. He is still honored by what is holy, what is our best, what is sacrificial. The kingdom to which we have come, says the writer to the Hebrews, requires us to "offer to God acceptable worship with reverence and awe," because "our 'God is a consuming fire'" (Heb. 12:28–29, emphasis added). A blasé, casual attitude toward worship may indicate that we have failed to grasp this important point, a sign of our being more conformed to this world" than so transformed in our minds that by testing we are able to discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom. 12:2, emphasis added). Worship Attire And what of our worship attire? We deceive ourselves when we breezily claim that God does not care what we wear to church. God cares about our hearts, and what we wear is often an expression of our hearts. So what does our relaxed worship attire say about us? A bride would be insulted if we cared so little as to show up for her lovely wedding in cut-offs and sneakers. Instead, we "dress up" for her wedding to express our regard for her and the significance of the event. What, then, are we saying when we see no need to treat our corporate worship with similar or even greater regard? "Give unto the LORD the glory due his name," says the psalmist; "worship the LORD in the beauty of his holiness" (Ps. 29:2). Surely the "holiness" of our public worship should influence how we dress for the occasion. There is nothing remotely "casual" about the worship taking place in heaven, where appropriate clothing seems to matter (Rev. 7:9–12). What internal disposition are we revealing when we dress no differently for church than we do for a trip to the mall or hanging out with friends around a barbeque grill? Could it be that our casual dress, chosen merely for our own comfort and convenience (that which "cost me nothing"), is a reflection of an equally casual, can't-be-bothered ("what a nuisance this is!") attitude toward worship itself? Concern for Others What about those around us? What message is my choice of clothing sending them as we gather for worship? A few years back a championship team of women's lacrosse players was invited to the White House for a private meeting with the President. When a group photo of the meeting went public, it created quite a stir: Several of the women in the front row were seen to be wearing flip-flops. Their defenders argued that the women should be able to wear whatever they like, that offending grown-ups is a rite of passage for the young, or that the flip-flops were less a statement of rebellion than a desire for comfort. Critics argued that wearing such informal footwear was insulting to the office of the President. Said one, "You would hope that when you were going to meet the commander-in-chief, it was special enough to get dressed up for." This debate went on for days in the blogosphere. But whatever one may think of flip-flops in the Oval Office, the greater significance of this dust-up was that it took place at all. Like it or not, those around us are constantly reading our appearance. Our clothing choices bear inevitable social implications. Can Christians who gather for worship afford to ignore what their church attire may be saying to those around them? "Let each of you look not only to his own interests," says the apostle, "but also to the interests of others" (Phil. 2:3–4, ESV). We are to be "love one another with brotherly affection," outdoing one another "in showing honor" (Rom. 12:10). Does our choice of clothing communicate to others that this gathering is an important occasion, thereby encouraging them to see it as important as well? Or does it send them in the opposite direction? We all understand that the wrong clothes can distract our fellow worshipers. Elaborate, showy attire may reflect a prideful, elitist, egocentric display of wealth, status, and power (Mark 12:38; Luke 16:19; James 2:3). Or it may serve as a mask, a facade behind which lurks a very different reality (Matt. 23:27). In this way and others our choice of clothing can be sinful. But this does not render our everyday ("common"), come-as-you-are attire "spiritual" or "honest." If we care for our fellow worshipers as we ought, we will take them into consideration as we dress for worship. We will clothe ourselves in ways that edify them and strengthen their own worship. We will attempt to avoid the nonchalant attitude that says this event is entirely routine; that it merits nothing special from me; that my only consideration in what I choose to wear is what is easiest and most convenient. Such a self-centered attitude is corrosive to a true spirit of worship. Instead, the goal in our choice of clothing should be to express to the Lord and those around us that this event matters, that I view it as a holy occasion, one which deserves our highest regard. If the first audience for our nonverbal messages is God himself, and secondarily, our fellow worshipers, dress that best suits these first two audiences may also serve a third: outsiders who join our public worship. Evangelistic gatherings can in many ways be designed to fit the unbelievers we are trying to reach. But this is harder to do with our corporate worship. The church must first shape its worship to honor God, a goal to which all else must be subordinate. But thankfully, watching believers do what they do can have its own evangelistic effect. When Christians are worshiping as they should, says the apostle, and "and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you" (1 Cor. 14:24–25). Attire that genuinely reflects a God-honoring attitude toward worship may well contribute to a similar result. Now We See In a Mirror None of the above leaves us with a dress code for public worship. It certainly does not translate automatically into coats and ties for men and fancy dresses for women. Idealizing bygone eras won't work here; the meaning of human clothing is too contextual for that. It varies too widely from place to place and time to time, and there are too many other variables to consider. We are left having to judge for ourselves what is appropriate for worship and what is not. But all of the above should at least warn us away from the glib assumption that God does not care about what we wear to church; or that what I choose to wear for worship doesn't matter; or that how I dress for church is a purely personal affair; or that my own convenience and comfort are all that need concern me. The truth is, one of the ways we express ourselves as human beings is by the way we dress. Wittingly or unwittingly, our clothing gives us away. God certainly does not need this expression to know our hearts. But as for the rest of us, we do indeed look on the outward appearance, even when peering into our own mirrors. In this way the clothes we choose for church may have things to tell us about our hearts that God already knows, but that we need to hear. Perhaps the best way to think of our church attire is to place it in the context of the spiritual disciplines. As Dallas Willard says, "One of the greatest deceptions in the practice of the Christian religion is the idea that all that really matters is our internal feelings, ideas, beliefs, and intentions" (The Spirit of the Disciplines, p. 152). The classical spiritual disciplines—for example, prayer, fasting, service, and worship—are about bringing the internal and external together. Says Willard, we must "guard against the view of spirituality as something 'wholly inward' or something to be kept just between the individual and God." The inward and the outward are not "two separate things, but one unified process in which those who are alive in God are caught up in their embodied, socialized totality" (pp. 77–78). We express this embodied totality in corporate worship through our shared symbols, rites, and rituals; through our posture and gestures as we bow, kneel, or lift our hands; through our actions when we stand or sit in unison or pour out our hearts musically in congregational song. And our clothing belongs on this list. By it we express to God and those around us what this occasion means to us. This is why, when we come to church, our clothing matters. Duane Litfin served for 17 years as president of Wheaton College.

And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. (Luke 24:46-49) WHAT PETER PREACHED SALVATION TO BE: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (Acts 2:38-39)

The Hebrew Bible (Exodus 1:15–22) describes a desperate decree by the Pharaoh of Egypt: he ordered that every newborn Hebrew boy be cast into the Nile. Motivated by fear, the Pharaoh perceived the rapidly growing Israelite population as a threat to Egypt’s security and future (Exodus 1:9–11). He even assiduously gathered intelligence – learning from royal scribes (or “magicians” in later tradition) – that a future Hebrew deliverer would arise to overthrow him. In response, the king enacted infanticide to prevent the rise of this moshiach(deliverer) figure. Egypt at this time was a powerful centralized state under the New Kingdom pharaohs, engaged in grand building projects. (The biblical text notes Israelites building the store-cities of Pithom and Ramses, reflecting extensive Egyptian brick–making labor, probably under 13th-century BCE rulers.) Pharaoh’s fear of Israel was explicitly strategic: he sought to hinder Israel’s growth so it could not ally with Egypt’s enemies or “leave the land” (Exodus 1:9–10). Midrashic and Rabbinic tradition filled in details of this event. According to Josephus, for example, Pharaoh’s daughter (named Thermuthis in that account) was warned by a court “sacred scribe” that the boy found floating on the Nile would bring about Egypt’s downfall. She defied the decree, secretly adopting the child as her own. Thus Moses, as the rescued boy would be named, grew up educated in the royal court. In Egyptian tradition pharaohs often employed foreign-born attendants and princes, but Moses’s case is unique: he was not only spared but trained at the monarch’s expense. This paradox – that the tyrant who ordered the genocide unknowingly raised the very leader fated to liberate Israel – is highlighted by the text and became a classic typological theme. Pharaoh intended evil, yet providence turned it to good. As one commentator notes, “those who sought [Moses’s] life are themselves dead” whenGod later commissions him (Exodus 4:19), allowing the deliverance plan to process. In short, ancient Israelite and later Christian writers understood that divine providence preserved Moses in Egypt despite every human effort to kill him. Pharaoh’s own daughter – the enemy’s household – became the unsuspecting protector of God’s appointed deliverer. Herod and the Infant Jesus A similar story occurs in the New Testament narrative of Jesus’s birth (Matt. 2:1–16). Herod the Great, the Roman-appointed king of Judea (37–4 BCE), was notoriously jealous and paranoid. When magi from the East announced the birth of “the King of the Jews” in Bethlehem, Herod perceived a rival to his throne. He feigned piety but secretly “became furious” at being outwitted. In a bid to eliminate this prophesied rival, Herod ordered a massacre of all male children in Bethlehem aged two and under (Matthew 2:16) – the infamous Massacre of the Innocents. Historically, this event is known only from Matthew’s Gospel, and Josephus makes no mention of it. Modern scholars largely regard it as unverified by secular records. Nevertheless, Herod’s well-documented cruelty and paranoia lend it plausibility. Josephus describes how Herod executed close family members (three of his own sons, his beloved Hasmonean wife Mariamne, even other kin) on mere suspicion. Archaeological and biographical evidence (e.g. Ehud Netzer’s excavations at Herodium) show that Herod kept a personal stronghold near Bethlehem. The palace-fortress of Herodium stood just east of the town, housing his troops. If Herod truly perceived the infant Jesus as a dynastic threat, he had the means to act swiftly. Certainly, Herod’s character – as assessed even by later pagan writers (Macrobius quips, “It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son” during the massacre) – is consistent with such brutality. Even if the exact scale of the massacre cannot be confirmed (Bethlehem was small, so the total was perhaps only dozens of children), Matthew’s account insists it fulfilled prophecy(quoting Jeremiah 31:15). More importantly, like Moses, Jesus was protected by divine intervention. An angel warned Joseph to flee to Egypt with Mary and the child (Matthew 2:13). This unexpected “reverse Exodus” spared Jesus in the land of Israel’s ancient enslavement, until Herod’s death. Only then did Joseph lead the family back, fulfilling Matthew’s citation: “Out of Egypt I called my son” (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15). In other words, what Herod intended for evil (the child’s death) God turned to good (Jesus’ survival and return to Israel). Historical context: Herod ruled a Roman client kingdom rife with intrigue. He had been installed by Rome (the Senate) in 40 BCE, and soon after consolidated power by massacring rival Hasmonean pretenders (as Josephus details). His regime was characterized by monumental construction (the Temple rebuild, Herodium, Masada, etc.) and by extreme paranoia. Scholars like Caspar Compton note that Herod purged perceived rivals in cycles, often executing military leaders and even Pharisees on rumor. Matthew’s narrative fits this pattern: a new potential “king” (Jesus) naturally aroused Herod’s deadly suspicions. Although no contemporary inscription records “Herod slew these children,” Matthew treats the event as historically real, and early Christian tradition accepted it as such. It was commemorated liturgically as the Feast of the Holy Innocents. Flight, Exile, and Return: A Pattern A remarkable pattern emerges when the Exodus and Nativity stories are compared. Both Moses and Jesus were “hidden” until the moment of destiny, and both experienced exile before returning to liberate God’s people. Moses spent years obscured in Midian after fleeing Pharaoh (Exodus 2:15–22, 3:1). Likewise, the Holy Family dwelt in Egypt while Herod lived (Matthew 2:14–15). Each hero’s apparition occurred only after the threat to his life had passed: as Scripture puts it, “all that sought [Moses’s] life are dead” (Exodus 4:19), and Jesus came back when “Herod was dead” (Matthew 2:19). In each case the death of the tyrant signified the end of the season of hiding (Exodus 2:23–25; Matthew 2:19–23). In typological terms, both leaders emerge on God’s timetable. “Don’t despise the season of hiding,” one can say: Moses’s wilderness apprenticeship was not wasted, nor was Jesus’s sojourn. Josephus even notes that Pharaoh’s daughter educated Moses to be “worthy of the kingdom of Egypt.” This concealed time allowed each deliverer to be formed away from immediate confrontation, under God’s supervision. Early Christians saw in this a moral: God preserves those He calls, even under persecution. No human scheme – not even an empire’s laws – can thwart His purposes. In both narratives, the apparent victory of evil (the infant-killing decree) turns into its defeat. The magicians and scribes of Pharaoh and Herod unknowingly set in motion the drama of God’s redemptive plan. Deliverance: From Egypt to the Promise The salvation each figure brings also highlights deep contrasts. Moses’s exodus was a national, covenantal deliverance. He led Israel out of Pharaoh’s oppression through God’s mighty signs: the Passover lamb’s blood on doorposts (Exodus 12) and the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus. 14). This physical liberation from slavery foreshadowed Israel’s journey to a promised land (Exodus 3:8) and the gift of the Law at Sinai (Exodus. 20). Yet Israel’s salvation was incomplete and temporary without the Messiah. Jesus’s mission, by contrast, inaugurates spiritual deliverance. He “brought [us] out of sin by his blood” (1 Peter 1:18–19) – in Christian faith, the true Passover Lamb (John 1:29) who takes away the sins of the world. Just as Moses sprinkled blood on doorposts (Exodus 12), in the new covenant believers are “washed in the blood of the Lamb” when they receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives them utterance. Similarly, the waters that freed Israel at the sea now prefigure Christian baptism. Paul explicitly draws this parallel: “our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:1–2, ESV). In early Christian teaching, baptism is the new Red Sea: it passes the soul from death to life (Romans 6:3–4), from slavery in sin to freedom in Christ. St. John Chrysostom put it vividly: “You did not see Pharaoh drowned … but you have seen the devil with his weapons overcome by the waters of baptism. The Israelites passed through the sea; you have passed from death to life.” Thus Moses led out of earthly bondage into the land of Canaan; Jesus leads out of spiritual bondage into eternal life. Moses gave Israel the Law; Jesus gives “grace and truth” (John 1:17). God provided Moses manna in the wilderness; Jesus declares Himself “the Bread of Life” (John 6:48–51). In Moses’s day redemption was shadow and promise; in Christ’s day it is fulfillment. The theology of the Church has long held that “Moses could only bring them out of Egypt, but Jesus brings us all the way into glory.” The Apostle Peter even connects Passover to Christ: the lamb’s blood and the water of the Red Sea mark Israel’s salvation history, while “baptism now saves us” (1 Peter 3:21) in the Christ-event. Apostolic and Patristic Fulfillment The New Testament and early Church Fathers explicitly draw upon the Exodus narrative as prophetic typology. Christ’s own words and the Apostolic teaching uphold the pattern. For instance, John the Baptist identifies Jesus as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) – linking Passover lamb imagery to Calvary. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians uses Exodus imagery to teach baptism (1 Corinthians 10). The early Christian liturgy frequently retold Israel’s flight from Egypt as parallel to Christ’s redemption. In Acts 2:38, Peter exhorts repentant Jews to be “baptized … in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,” combining Christ’s saving blood with water. This sacramental triad of blood, water, and Spirit (echoed also in John 3:5–6 and Revelation 1:5) is mirrored in the exodus story: the Passover blood, the parted sea, and the guiding cloud (symbolic of God’s Spirit). Church Fathers elaborated on these connections. St. John Chrysostom (4th century) famously taught that Christian baptism “fulfills the type of the Red Sea crossing.” He contrasts Moses’s ministry with Christ’s: “The Israelites were delivered from slavery to a pagan people; you have been freed from the much greater slavery to sin.” Other Fathers (e.g. Justin Martyr, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem) likewise saw Moses as a “type” of Christ. In the catacombs and hymns, early Christians celebrated the Exodus: through water and cloud (fire), the Holy Ghost (Acts 2) would come as in Sinai. The Didache (an early Christian manual) even instructs baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” – echoing both Torah covenant and exodus symbolism in the reception and fulfillment of Christ. In sum, Pharaoh’s and Herod’s plots against the infant deliverers ended in failure. Neither ruler could thwart God’s plan: Moses was raised in Pharaoh’s court to confront a later king, and Jesus was shielded until Herod’s death to begin His redemptive ministry. As Christian writings affirms, “What Pharaoh could not destroy, and what Herod could not stop, is alive and triumphant in Jesus Christ.” In Him the Church has water (baptism), blood (Cross), and Spirit (Pentecost) – all foretold by the Exodus events. The parallel stories of Moses and Christ thus function not merely as inspiring history but as prophetic types. They teach that God’s promises endure against all opposition: the promised Deliverer will come, and bring His people out – into freedom, into covenant, into life eternal. Conclusion: Both the Exodus story and the Nativity show that God preserves His anointed liberators. Historical records (Josephus, Herodian archaeology) confirm the ruthlessness of the tyrants, while biblical and theological sources illuminate God’s sovereign provision. The pattern is clear: in history, faith overcomes fear, God’s hidden providence overcomes human plotting. This truth was never more fully realized than in Christ, the ultimate Deliverer whom neither hell nor history could annihilate. References • Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Crossway Bibles, 2001), Exodus 1:15–22; Exodus 2:1–10; Exodus 4:19; Matthew 2:1–16; John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 10:1–2; John 3:5; Acts 2:38. • Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities of the Jews. Book II (2.9–2.10). (Loeb Classical Library edition, transl. William Whiston). • Chrysostom, Saint John. Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 3.24–27 (cf. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 9, pp. 165–167). • Netzer, Ehud. The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009). • Netzer, Ehud. Herodium: An Archaeological Guide(Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1999). • France, Richard T. The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007). • Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1993). • Macrobius. Saturnalia, 2.4.11 (on Herod’s son). • (Additional commentary and patristic sources: see, e.g., Dunn, Who Was Jesus? (2017); Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho; Gregory of Nyssa, Inscriptions on the Doors of Churches.)

By Thomas Weisser Thomas Weisser is pastor of Independence United Pentecostal Church in Monmouth, Oregon and has served on the youth committee of the Oregon and has served on the youth committee of the Oregon District. A graduate of Apostolic Bible Institute, he has written three books. He has also conducted Oneness Heritage seminars in a number of churches in Oregon and California. Was the Early Church Oneness or Trinitarian? What was the Early Church like? The answer varies from church to church. To a Catholic, the answer is Catholic-with Peter sitting in the Pontiff's chair. To a Protestant, Peter was a Luther-like figure preaching justification by faith alone. Some concepts of the Early Church are ridiculous. It is important for us to have a clear picture. Just as the Law was instituted at Sinai and remained the unchanging ideal for Jews, so with Pentecost (Acts 2) and the Church. Early Christianity rather than being primitive presents to us an ideal to be sought after. Many conceptualize the church of the first century as unorganized charismatic groups with myriad variations in doctrines. The New Testament strongly disagrees with this assessment. An objective reader will conclude the Early Church was organized and had a developed faith. The question we are primarily concerned with is: What was this faith in regards to God? Historical evidence points to a conclusion that the Early Church was not Trinitarian. What was it then? Significant facts point to it being Modalist. Baptismal Formulas "There is little doubt that baptism was practiced by the first Christians as a kind of initiatory rite, when they received new believers into their community. Also, we can be quite certain that this baptism was given 'into the name of Jesus' or, at least, that it was referred to as 'into the name of Jesus'" This is a quote from a recent issue of Studia Theologica by Lars Hartman. He goes on to say this baptism "implied a rather `high' Christology" on the part of early Christians. E. C. Whitaker writes, "Similarly, in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, written in the middle of the second century, Thecla is represented as baptizing herself and saying, `In the name of Jesus Christ do I baptize myself for the last day.' If we may assume that we have here a case of the formula in ordinary use adapted to extraordinary circumstances, then it appears that the formula in ordinary use must have been 'I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ.' This not only brings our evidence for a baptismal formula of this type to a very early date; it also strengthens the view, suggested in the Acts of the Apostles, that an invocation of Jesus Christ had a place in the baptismal practice of the Early Church. A modern Oneness or Modalist believer welcomes the above statements from the theological community. The records of the Acts of the Apostles clearly point to baptism in Jesus' name as the universal practice of the Early Church. This not only implies an advanced Christology as Hartman supposes. It also strongly implies something that most theologians and historians have missed: the Early Church was Modalist. Instead of attaching three personalities to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost they recognized them as three modes, or manifestations, of the One God. The saving name they gave to Father, Son and Holy Ghost was Jesus. Indeed, this idea is not foreign to the New Testament for Jesus identified Himself with all three titles. The next question that comes to mind is: What about Matthew 28:19? This verse of Scripture simply says to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". This really does no more than strengthen the Modalist stand. For it is obvious that, if these words did indeed come from Christ, the Apostles interpreted them the way a Modalist would; i.e. to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. The only reasonable and logical explanation for the difference between Matthew 28:19 and Acts is that the Early Church was Modalist. What About The Didache? The Didache is an ancient writing attributed to the Apostles. Since the discovery of an eleventh-century copy of it in 1875, it has been the subject of great controversy. Various dates have been ascribed to it and authorities have yet to agree on a date. The problem that we must consider is that some say it was written in the first century. The particular part we are concerned with is Didache 7: But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Many Trinitarians claim this proves the Early Church was Trinitarian. Let us first consider that we are dealing with a forgery. Although it is ascribed to the Apostles they probably never saw it. Secondly, the internal evidence points to Didache 7 as an interpolation, or later addition. In Didache 9, which deals with communion, the writer says, "But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord hath said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs." Shortly after saying baptism should be performed in the titles Father, Son and Holy Spirit he states the absolute necessity of being baptized in the name of the Lord (i.e., Jesus-the same Greek word as in Acts 10:48). This represents an obvious contradiction and gives validity to the argument Didache 7 is an interpolation. Thirdly, the writer's approval of baptism by pouring presents a problem with dating it in the first century. Bigg points out that this must have been written after A.D. 250. He argues that pouring was generally unacceptable in baptism as late as Cyprian (c.250). Therefore, Didache 7 could be no earlier than the late third century. Conclusion-Baptism Baptism in the Early Church (first century) was in the name of Jesus Christ. The apparent contradiction of Matthew 28:19 is clarified when we consider that the Early Church was Modalist. Didache 7 is an interpolation written no earlier than the late third century. First Century Church-Primitive? A popular term for the Early Church is primitive. The implication is that it was destined to become sophisticated as time passed. This does not agree with New Testament writings. We read there was an established, recognized faith. This faith was established "upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone." And this faith once delivered to the saints should be sought after. The general idea of an evolving or formulating faith holds no credence with the New Testament. The Godhead Harold 0. J. Brown in his recent book Heresies says, "It is a simple and undeniable historical fact that. . .the doctrine of the Trinity. . .was not present in a full and well defined, generally accepted form until the fourth or fifth centuries." The written evidence points to a gradual development of Trinitarianism from the descending triad of Tertullian to the three co-equal, co-eternal persons of the Athanasian Creed. Even Fortman states, "There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons." The question comes to mind, "If the first century Church did not give us written evidence they were Trinitarian how can we assume they were?" Certainly any one of the New Testament writers were capable of expressing basic Trinitarian dogma. If they were not, then God, whose thoughts are above ours, could have inspired them to articulate it. A casual reader of the New Testament is able to conclude no real problem existed concerning the Godhead. John warned about those who denied Jesus is the Christ and Jude warned about men who denied the Lord, but these men had obviously left the Church. Even the strong language of the first three chapters of Revelation does not reveal a problem with first century belief concerning the Godhead. It appears that belief in One Lord had been established and that the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit presented no problem. On the other hand, if the New Testament is inspired and prophetic as any fundamentalist trinitarian would agree, something is missing. Where is there any indication that a greater understanding of the Godhead would follow? I find none, and certainly this presents a tremendous obstacle for the fundamental trinitarian. While the Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles [New Testament] and prophets [Old Testament] and not Chalcedon, it is amazing how freely Trinitarians lean on this post-apostolic creed. Whenever we read in the New Testament about the future it is a gloomy picture. Paul wrote to Timothy, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter [following] times some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils." Immediately before this Paul emphasized that "God was manifest in the flesh". Again he said, "The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." Jude tells us of "mockers" (deriders) who have separated themselves and given themselves to their natural senses. A perfect example of this deriding carnal behavior can be seen in Tertullina. His Against Praxeas fulfils Jude's prophecy. We are talking about the father of the Trinity. The problem a Trinitarian faces is that there is no indication of developed Trinitarianism in the New Testament. Many try to overcome this by saying Trinitarianism was implicitly believed. This cannot be proved or disproved but there is no reason, if it is true, why God would keep it a secret for decades, especially if its belief is a prerequisite to salvation as the Athanasian Creed brazenly says. Philosophy Beware lest any man spoil you [take you captive] through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth [keeps dwelling] all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Paul here explicitly mentioned philosophy as something that would take a believer away from Christ. The philosophy Paul was talking about here is the philosophy of men as opposed to the truth of God. Apparently, he was warning that the philosophy of men could rob the church of an understanding that the fulness of the Godhead is in Christ. The predominant philosophy of the third and fourth centuries in the Roman Empire was Neoplatonic. It was begun by Plotinus, who was not a Christian. In the early third century this philosophy grew tremendously throughout the Empire. At first it was the greatest antagonist to Christianity. Later, it actually became assimilated into the Catholic Church, and a union shown in the creeds of the fourth and fifth centuries was the result. That this philosophy had a tremendous impact on the formulation of Trinitarian thinking is supported by many sources. Platonism had a marked influence on Christianity. It entered from many channels, among them the Hellenistic Jew Philo, who was utilized by some early Christian writers, and through Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, and the writings which bore the name of Dionysius the Areopagite. The term Logos, which was extensively employed by Christians as they thought about the relationship of Christ to God, came from Greek philosophy, perhaps by way of both Stoicism and Platonism. From the middle of the fourth century onward, however, Christian thought was strongly influenced by Neo-Platonic philosophy and mysticism. In the East Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Synesius of Cyrene, and Nenesius of Emesa and, in the West, Marius Victorinus, Ambrose, and Augustine made abundant use of Plotinus or Porphory, frequently without citing them. . . The encounter between Neoplatonism and Christianity thus conditions the entire history of Western philosophy. The dogma of the Trinity and the drama of the redemption must be interpreted in a manner that would be consistent with this priori definition of the deity of God [one essence, three persons]. Neoplatonic elements were unmistakably present in this definition, but in setting it forth Augustine believed himself to be-and he was-expressing the Catholic creed. The Catholic creed of the Trinity is not the belief of the Early Church. The Logos Christology of the philosophers (most of the Fathers fit under this description) fell far short of early Christian Christology. Weaknesses in Trinitarian Historiography Many Trinitarians agree with the historical fact that Trinitarianism evolved or was formulated. The irony is that, after admitting this, they continue to say that Trinitarianism is a Bible doctrine. Both these could not be true. Either the Trinity was developed or it was there all the time. The fact is that it appeared after the New Testament was written. Another fact is that Jude exhorted us to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude was written c. A.D. 80 and he was telling us to look back to the beginning of the Church (i.e. Acts). Trinitarians are telling us to look ahead from Early Christianity to the Creeds of Nicea, Chalcedon, and so on. Which voice will we heed? Canonizers Some Trinitarians claim that because the canonizers were Trinitarian the writers of the New Testament were also. They assume the approval placed upon the New Testament by Trinitarians implies strongly that the first century Church was Trinitarian. I imagine the implication is that had the writers not been Trinitarian the canonizers would have disapproved. This may sound good to someone trying to prove the Early Church was Trinitarian. Before we jump to conclusions, let us see what a few Trinitarians say about the canon: The church councils only acted at a later time, when the decisions had already been made in a practical way. The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by His work of creation, and similarly He gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up. We never find a church council saying in effect, "We have reviewed this writing and found it to be good; henceforth, it will be considered part of the canon." Instead of conferring canonicity on a book, the pronouncements were always statements of recognizing what the scattered congregations already considered canonical. The Catholics, of course, conceive the canonizers as a special breed on a par with the Apostles. The general Protestant position is that the canonizers approved books already accepted as divinely inspired (except when attacking the Oneness position). The latter is a more accurate assumption. But even though the canonizers were Trinitarian what does it prove? It certainly does not necessitate the New Testament being Trinitarian. It is hard to prove anything by association. Any prosecutor who tries to prove a man guilty simply because he was in the vicinity of the crime is going to lose his case. Considering the canonizers, an interesting comparison can be seen in Scripture. The main duty of scribes in Jesus' day was to copy and therefore preserve the Old Testament. Jesus said, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not." Jesus continued His discourse on scribes by saying they were "hypocrites, fools, blind, whited sepulchres, full of iniquity." He ended by asking the question, "How can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Clearly, just because the scribes were preserving Scripture did not make them holy or even good judges of holiness for themselves. If this was true for the scribes it could also be true of the canonizers. Conclusion In conclusion let us examine our reasons for the Early Church being Oneness or Modalist as opposed to Trinitarian. 1. Early baptism was in Jesus Name. The difference between Matthew 28:19 and the record of Acts presented no problem and the only logical explanation for the difference is that the Early Church was Oneness or Modalist. 2. In the First Century a basic faith was established. lt was not to be changed but rather sought after (Jude 3). 3. Trinitarians have not come to grips with the contradictory statement that Trinitarianism evolved while it was always present in the Church. 4. Colossians 2:8-9 explicitly warns about philosophy taking Christians away from an understanding that the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ. The concept of Trinitarianism was drawn largely from the philosophy of its day. 5. There is no indication of an evolving faith but warnings of apostasy in the New Testament. 6. The assumption the Early Church was Trinitarian because the canonizers of later years were is based on no verifiable historical facts. Oneness believers, as well as many fundamentalist trinitarians, agree that it is an absolute miracle of God that the Bible has been preserved and remains infallible. We do not agree that this implies any inherent virtue in the dogma of the Trinity. Notes 1. Hartman, Lars, "Baptism into the name of Jesus and early Christology" Studia Theologica, Vol 28 no. 1 (1974), p.21 [hereafter cited as Hartman]. 2. Hartman, p. 48. 3. Whitaker, E.C., "The History of the Baptismal Formula," The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 16 (April 1965), pp. 5-6. 4. Yadon, C.H., Birth of Confusion (Hazelwood, Mo.:Pentecostal Publishing House), tract no. 106. 5. See John 5:43 and John 14:9, 16-18, 26. 6. Matthew 28:19. 7. Vokes, F.E., "The Didache - Still Debated," Church Quarterly, Vol. 3 (July 1970), pp. 57-62. 8. Lightfoot, p. 232. 10. Bigg, Charles, The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1898), p. 58. 11. Cyprian, Epistles LXXV no. 12, 13. 12. Ephesians 4:5. 13. Ephesians 2:20. 14. Jude 3. 15. Brown, Harold O.J., Heresies (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1984), p. 20. 16. Fortman, E.J., The Triune God (Philadelphia, Westminster, 1972), p.32. 17. I John 2:22. 18. Jude 4 19. Ephesians 2:20. 20. I Timothy 4:1. 21. I Timothy 3:16. 22. II Timothy 4:3-4. 23. Jude 18-19. 24. Colossians 2:8-9. 25. Latourette, Kenneth Scott, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper and Row, 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 260-261. 26. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 14th edition Edited by William J. McDonald (New York: McGraw, 1967), Vol. 10, pp. 335-336. 27. Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 296-297. 28. Jude 3. 29. Harrop, Clayton, History of the New Testament in Plain Language (Wave, TX: Word Books, 1984), p. 136. 30. Packer, J.I., God Speaks to Man (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965), p. 81. 31. Saucy, R.L., Is the Bible Reliable? (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1973), p. 94. 32. Matthew 23:1-3. 33. Matthew 23:13-17, 19, 23-29. 34. Matthew 23:33. RESPONSE by Richard M. Davis In fulfilling the duty of a respondent, it is necessary to play the role of "devil's advocate." It is a challenge indeed not to allow one's bias and intense love for the Oneness message to override the effort to look at the paper as a Trinitarian might consider it. In scrutinizing each point, we will attempt to consider four areas of reasoning: scriptural, historical, logical, and practical. Overall the discussion was very well organized and presented. The paper contains several well documented arguments and suggestions which add credence to our beloved message of the fulness of the Godhead which is in Jesus Christ our Lord. First, the point is well made that the Early Church was not primitive, but highly developed in its organization and in its doctrine. This is evidenced by a close examination of the New Testament writings. This is an important aspect of the paper inasmuch as it pressures the Trinitarian to document his Trinitarian philosophy in the Scriptures, and not primarily in history as is his custom. As the author has noted, many Trinitarians have themselves admitted the Trinity is not highly developed in the New Testament, but was later refined. They attribute this to the church being primitive and unorganized, but this simply is not evident in Scripture. Secondly, concerning the Didache, it is probably wise to recognize the points made indicating that the writing was spurious or at the least an interpolation. If written in the first century as most claim, then why was it not included in the canon of the Bible? Again the author pointed out that the canon was not selected by men, but only recognized. God gave the inspiration and hence formed the canon. It is evident that parts of the Didache are not congruent with the Scriptures; therefore, one or the other must be rejected. The author brought out well the fact that the concept of the Didache allowing pouring water on the head for baptism did not appear until much later than the first century and is at least not apostolic. It is nowhere to be found nor implied in the Scriptures. Thirdly, a strong point in the treatise involves the differences of perspective between the Apostles and Trinitarians. Namely, Jude and other writers encouraged believers to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints - that it is the ideal; whereas Trinitarians constantly appeal to second and third century history to identify ideal doctrine regarding the Godhead. Who is correct? This is a common mistake of trinitarians. They fail to remember that history records the failures of mankind as well as the achievements. It is to the Scriptures we must look and solely depend upon to find our concept of God in Christ. Yet another outstanding point is made regarding the scribes of Jesus' time. Though they kept the Scriptures and preserved them yet they were personally condemned and rebuked by our Lord Himself. This confirms the truth of the message Brother J. T. Pugh has shared with us that although a man may be anointed to accomplish a task he may yet not be blessed or approved of God. The author pointed out that because the canonizers were Trinitarian in philosophy and because they approved the canon does not even by implication prove that the apostles were Trinitarians. Such reasoning on the part of the Trinitarian segment of society is, of course, absurd. Quite honestly, this paper has been very well prepared and presented for the time allowed. There are perhaps areas which were not as documented, or at least developed as completely as would be necessary to dissuade a Trinitarian from following his doctrine of error. In the time allotted, however, the author has done a commendable job of covering a good scope of his assigned subject. There are perhaps three cautions that should be shared: (1) From the viewpoint of a Trinitarian the subject of baptism was probably not adequately dealt with. Of course this was not the author's subject and thus he probably did not have time to fully develop that aspect. The conclusion that the Early Church was modalist in theology was based solely upon the difference of the modes of water baptism. To convince a Trinitarian, we need to develop that argument more fully. This could be done by delving further into the area of water baptism and by further Oneness theology from the Scriptures. In addition, we must bear in mind that some who were called modalist in early church history did not have a pureness of total doctrinal thought. We should be careful what areas of modalism with which we identify ourselves. (2) A brief comment regarding the Logos concept of John 1 would be in order. Although most Trinitarians will caution that we must consider the historical aspects of the Greek Logos as well as the grammatical aspects, we must realize these men write from a biased point of view. Of course they must mix history with grammar because the simple grammar of the Greek word Logos allows for a development of Oneness theology. Regardless of the origin of the word Logos we should not hastily set aside the concept John endeavored to present. John 1 is a beautiful Oneness exposition by Greek grammar. It is no wonder each Trinitarian appeals to the historical aspects of the word. Let us accept the simplicity of John's intentions. (3) Finally a Trinitarian would question the apparent contradiction inherent in the following statements: "A casual reader of the New Testament is able to conclude no real problem existed concerning the Godhead. . . . Whenever we read in the New Testament about the future it is a gloomy picture." If there were no real problem in the church at that time concerning the Godhead, and if the apostles believed and taught the imminent return of Christ, then when did they expect this falling away to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils to occur? Could there have been evidence of doctrinal division even during this time of the first century? Richard Davis is the Editor of Word Aflame Publications. RESPONSE by David 0. Walters The paper was very good. It went into the historical aspect, which was excellent. One important thing was the simplicity of the language. It was easy to understand. It was easy to know where the author was coming from and where he was headed. It is important to have that kind of writing in our fellowship. Sometimes our clarifications only muddy the water. We should appreciate the approach taken in this paper, its simplicity, the excellent work, and the research into areas unfamiliar to most of us. We do not all have available to us the resources used by those who have worked so hard to bring this information to us. Several points should be made about this presentation: First, the strong scriptural appeal is to be appreciated. That is still the United Pentecostal Church's strongest point. We stand on the Word regardless of whatever history may bring to us-distorted or otherwise. The Word of God still must be the foundation of the church. Second, the author did a good job of appealing to Trinitarian writers who state and often deal a death blow to their own cause. He appealed to their writings and pointed out areas where they themselves are not sure that what they believe is correct. There is an inconsistency in the paper's use of the example of Thecla, when the author quotes E. C. Whitaker: Similarly, in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, written in the middle of the second century, Thecla is represented as baptizing herself and saying, "In the name of Jesus Christ do I baptize myself for the last day." If we may assume that we have here a case of the formula in ordinary use adapted to extraordinary circumstances, then it appears that the formula in the ordinary use must have been "I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ." The author concludes that a modern modalist would welcome the above statement from the theological standpoint. He later does an excellent job in dealing with the Didache, discrediting it because of the reference to baptism by pouring. The problem is that we do not approve of people baptizing themselves. Moreover, Thecla baptized herself in the name of Jesus Christ for the last day, and our position is that we baptize for the remission of sin. To take a questionable reference such as this and include it in such a fine paper could serve to discredit the paper in the eyes of a Trinitarian, especially when we use the same reasoning to discredit the Didache. There are many authentic historical references to baptism in the name of Jesus. We do not need something as questionable as this. To toss out the Didache and then use this example weakens the author's position. Finally, a stronger scriptural development would have been helpful, particularly on our position that the early church was not primitive. The Apostle Paul was a Jew and a scholar. He knew the only Scripture at their disposal at that time and he knew it well. Jesus Himself said to the woman at the well, "We know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews." They certainly did not have an undeveloped position. The Early church knew whom they worshiped. They knew what they believed and they knew why they believed it. We can have the same understanding and confidence today.

That’s the way — his name is Jesus, the road that never bends, the Old Paths trod by saints whose faith outlives their ends. Turn back, O weary heart; repent and come apart, let waters wash the ledger clean, the new life start. In Jesus’ name the baptism flows — remission’s promised plea, the old-time Gospel plain and sure as waves upon the sea. Dip down into that mercy, rise forgiven, washed, and free; let faith obey the simple word — Acts 2:38, plainly. Then breathe — receive the Holy Ghost, a rushing, sacred wind, tongues of heaven speak the soul, the inner loss rescind. Not mystery to hide away, but power to stand and sing, the seal of God upon the heart, the Spirit’s fire within. Read it, heed it, walk the way — no subtler road, no other plan; the straight and narrow paved with grace: Repent — be baptized in Jesus’ name. Return to ancient faithful truths, keep to the path of light, and let the world see, plain and clear, the Way that makes all things right. Written By Elder Keith Joel Walker

I've seen man that weighed two hundred pound and muscles like iron, and didn't have a ounce of man in them. That's right. Man's not measured by his muscles, but by the bags in the knees of his pants where he's been praying. That's the way…Man is not measured by muscle; he's measured by character. There never was a greater Man than Jesus Christ. That's right. And He was measured by character, not by statue. -- Brother Branham April 24, 1959 pm

And I want you to get built up now in the holy Oracles of God, in the faith, the faith of this hour. The faith, it's going to take more faith than ever was in any age, for this has to be rapturing faith, be taken up. And so we want you to believe tonight in all that you have seen, heard, the Word that you have heard preached, the signs and wonders that you've seen done. We want you to accumulate all that together in your heart and consider it whether if that be God or not. It's like Elisha of old said, "If God be God then serve Him." And if Jesus is the Center of all things to the Christian, then I think we ought to let loose of everything else and cleave to Him. Remember, He is the Center; He is the North Star; He is the Ultimate; He is the Absolute. And if He is the North Star... There's only one thing that'll point to the north star; that's your compass that you're sailing with. And the Compass that I'm trying you to sail with is the Word, and the Word always points to Him. And we feel like that we're going through a great time of distress and trials, perplexity of the time and distress between the nations, and all kinds of things happening, and sometimes I get engulfed like I... Everywhere I look it's like in a ship out on the sea. And I've been give charge of the Boat. And how we going to make it? And here comes one with a white cap, hundred times bigger than my ship, but we'll crest them, every one. We are more than victors through Him. The Captain, the Chief Captain, has got a hold of the string on the end of the ship, He'll pull it through. We'll crest every one of them. -- Brother Branham July 18, 1965 pm