Basic Training
Articles

Articles:
  • Religion vs Spirituality?
  • Worshipping Jesus
  • Is Satan the ruler of this world?
  • Why Jesus?
  • Which Bible Version?
  • Who Doesn't Tithe?
  • How Do We Name Our Churches?
  • What Does "Saved" Mean? (2019)
  • Abram's Voluntary Tithe (2019)
  • What is Tithes & Offerings? (2019)
  • Local Church Membership Required? ('19)
  • Are There True Living Apostles? ('19)
  • Communicating Through God ('20)


  • Religion vs Spirituality?
    9/2009

    There's this new trend going on, and I just wanted to take a moment to address it very quickly.

    Many of my Christian brothers and sisters are reading their Bibles now, which is great. They are beginning to see some of the flaws in the way man has chosen to do things in "faith-based" institutions and they call those institutions "religion" (quotes because all of these organizations are not necessarily faith based). This leads them to badmouth religion, and say "religious people this," and "religious people that" and desire to be seen as spiritual, but not religious. They now think religious is bad.

    But this is not religion, not according to the Bible. If we're living and discerning by the Bible, then we must regard the words of the Bible, even when it comes to defining what "religion" is.

    The people who want to have nothing to do with Christians and the church say "Oh, I'm not religious," as if it's a badge of honor to say that. Neither do they know what the term religious means.

    In the Bible, it is defined as this: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." -James 1:27 (truth)


    Éric L Farrell




    Worshipping Jesus
    3/30/2010

    As 1 Peter 3:15 says, you be ready to give answer to anyone that may ask you why you worship Jesus or whether Jesus is to be worshipped. I'm not sure where the viewpoint comes from or what religion presented it, but it has been said by man that Jesus refused to be worshipped because he was just a man, but this is not true. I say it's not true due to the following scriptures below.

    Jesus was worshipped and hailed:
    Matthew 2:11; Matthew 8:2; Matthew 9:18; Matthew 14:33; Matthew 15:25; Matthew 20:20; Matthew 26:49; Matthew 28:9,17
    Mark 5:6
    Luke 24:52
    John 9:38
    Revelation 5:14 (5:5-14) as the Lamb

    Jesus said "all hail" and received worship:
    Matthew 28:9

    The ones who believed He should NOT be worshipped and hailed crucified Him:
    Matthew 27:29
    Mark 15:18-19
    John 19:3

    An apostle of Jesus, Peter, refused to be worshipped or bowed to, being just a man:
    Acts 10:25-26


    Éric L Farrell




    Is Satan the ruler of this world?
    5/12/2010

    I've heard it commonly said that Satan is the ruler of this world, but I could not find any such statement in my Bible, unless one is using the word "world" to mean "those outside of Christ." But I don't think that's what people mean when they say "Satan is the ruler of this world." I believe they mean "Satan is the ruler of this earth." Yet if Satan is the ruler of this earth, then what position is God playing?

    To speak plainly, the King James Version (KJV) says that Satan is the ruler of the darkness of this world (not the ruler of this world). The New International Version (NIV) appears to say that Satan is the ruler of this world. Some of the other versions I've checked aren't very clear as to whether they are or aren't calling Satan the ruler of this world. What does your Bible say? Who rules?

    Ephesians 6:12 (King James Version)





    Why Jesus?
    11/26/2010

    First, let's address the issue of the pronunciation of the name Jesus (Jeez-us) as we pronounce it in America. It is biblically permissible (fine with God) for a name to be said one way in one region or by a certain people and to be said a different way by others with a different language, but still be understood to be the same name. An example of this is in Revelation 9:11 "...which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon." That's a great example because we see the name difference is more than two groups of people pronouncing letters differently. It's one name said two completely different ways. In the English language we say His name as Jesus (Jeez-us), and I'm sure Jesus is well aware of that and not confused by it. Let's not insult His intelligence. Furthermore, the concern of Jesus was not "how do you all say my name?" but "who do you all say I am?" or "whom say ye that I am?" (Matthew 16:15).
    God understands "unknown tongues" because 1 Corinthians 14:2 says "He that speaketh in an unkown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God. So we know that God is able to understand what we are saying. He would also understand who's name it is we are calling.
    1 John 3:18 also let's us know that our words are of lesser concern than the things we do and what is in our heart. As also stated in (Isaiah 19:13), saying Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me. Now it should be noted we're not talking about making up different names for Jesus here, but we're talking about different groups of people saying His name differently, based on geographic location or nationality. I'm not saying that someone can just decide to call Jesus "Sprinkles" and everything will be good. That's not the issue that's being dealt with when we say "Jesus Christ." In my opinion, anyone trying to make the conversation into a "Sprinkles" argument is really just trying to start an argument because it's a game to them and they should not be taken seriously. You may n
    Now, does the Bible say Jesus is the only way to the Father or to Heaven? Does Jesus say this? And does Jesus need to say this? We'll also begin to look at what the Bible says about Jesus being God. Let's answer scriptural questions with scripture. The scriptures we're going to look at concerning this are:
    John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
    Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
    Matthew 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
    Acts 4:10-12 "...by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified.... Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
    John 15:23 "He that hateth me, hateth my Father also."
    Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he saith, 'Thy throne, O God, for is ever and ever...'"
    Hebrews 9:2 "without shedding of blood is no remission."
    Hebrews 10:10 "we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
    Revelation 1:8 "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 1:17-18 "I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore"
    Revelation 1:13-15 "one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot... his eyes were as a flame of fire... his feet like unto fine brass "
    Revelation 2:18 "these things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass."




    Which Bible Version?
    3/7/2011 (12/20/2020)

    When it comes to Bible versions, does it really matter which one you use? Or can you just use which ever one you feel most comfortable with?

    I'll let you decide, but only after I point out some things you should look for before you decide. In fact, for the moment, I'll share some links to what some others have found, including one person who repented and denounced a popular version that he helped write.




    Who Doesn't Tithe? These men below.
    5/24/2011

  • John Wycliff
  • Martin Luther    (more...)
  • Charles H Spurgeon    (PDF format: APRIL 18, 1880, SERMON 2716 - Galatians 2:21) -->
  • John Wesley    (Sermon 50 "The Use of Money" 1744)
  • John Owen    ("...it is no safe plea for many to insist on, that tithes are due and divine.... there is nothing due under the gospel...")
  • Roger Williams (Early American Baptists didn't tithe)
  • John Smyth
  • John Bunyan
  • Dr. J Vernon McGee
  • John MacArthur    (Masters Seminary)
  • Charles "Chuck" Swindoll (Dallas Theological Seminary)
  • Francis Chan
  • George Barna
  • Michael & Mitchell Webb
  • Cornerstone Bible Church (Lilburn GA)
  • Westover Church (Greensboro NC)
  • The Flood Church (San Diego CA)
  • The Hill Ministries (Woodbridge VA)
  • Woodbridge Bible Church (Woodbridge VA)
  • Moody Bible Institute
  • George W. Greene (www.nomoretithing.org)
  • others

    The Difference Between Giving and Tithing
    I'm sure the people mentioned above were givers, but they just didn't tithe. By definition, giving and tithing are not one and the same; they are different. Not only are they different, they are done differently, they are done for different reasons, and they have different consequences if not done. I need to make this distinction up front, because most Christians have been either directly or indirectly taught by preachers that giving and tithing are the same thing. To give an analogy, one of them is a prison train, and the other is a motorcycle. Yes, they are both transportation, but they are extremely different, and you do not want to mistake one of them for the other.

    It seems that most Christians have been confused about this point here. A man can walk into a church house and put money in the basket to help out the ministry, and he can do this without tithing. In much the same way, when one of your friends gave you something, they gave it to you. It was a gift. They did not tithe to you. They saw that you either needed it, wanted it, or they wanted you to have it. There was no limit on how much they could give you, and no requirement for how much they should give you. It didn't have to be your birthday or any special occasion. A tithe, however is completely different. Unlike giving, tithing does not allow you to decide the Who, What, Where, When, Why, or How. Tithing is an issue of legal compliance. It is the law that tells you who to tithe to, what to tithe, where to tithe, when to tithe, why you must tithe, and how you must do it. It is illegal to deviate from that who, what, where, when, why, and how. If you are a tither and you do not comply, then you are breaking the law, and you will face the consequences for breaking the law. There is nothing more to be said about it. However, under the New Testament of Jesus Christ, we are entered into a new covenant. Under this covenant, we are not bound to laws of the old covenant. Tithing was a law set forth and defined in the old covenant. That brings up a whole new set of questions to be answered, but right now I mentioned that simply to state the fact that we (in Christ) are not required to be tithers, since we are not held to the laws of that old covenant. When we understand that God does not require us to be tithers, then we can rest assured that we do not receive any consequences for not tithing, seeing that we have not broken the law, since the law does not apply to us. It would be like a free man binding himself to the laws of the prisoner. However, although we are not tithers, we are still able to be givers.

    The main reason many have confused giving with tithing, and do not know the difference between the two is because while many preachers teach people to tithe in our modern day, they use scriptures that talk about giving. This causes confusion. For example, 2 Corinthians 9:6-7 is a scripture about giving. It is not a scripture about tithing. However, while telling people why they must tithe, many preachers will point to that scripture. However, when they point to this scripture, they do not specify that this scripture is not even talking about tithing. It's talking about giving. It even says "give." It does not say "tithe." In fact, nowhere in all of 1st or 2nd Corinthians are the words "tithe" or "tithes" ever used. In the whole New Testament, the words "tithe" or "tithes" is only found in Hebrews 7. They are also found in Matthew 23 and Luke 18, but technically that's still under the Old Testament since Jesus Christ (the testator) has not died on the cross yet, meaning the New Testament is not in effect yet because new covenant has not yet been entered into (Hebrews 9:15-20). I talk more about this below. However, the point I'm making here is that when tithing is taught by using scriptures that apply specifically to giving, then scripture is misapplied. It is wrongly dividing the Word of Truth. It is used wrongly, whether the preacher is intentionally using it wrong, or whether they just don't know any better because they have not themselves learned yet before trying to teach others. It is misused and that causes Christians to confuse the term "tithing" with "giving." Aside from 2 Corinthians 9:6-7 there are many other "giving" scriptures that are misused to teach about "tithing," which causes further confusion, but let's look at 2 Corinthians 9:6-7 to see what it actually says, and that it is about giving:
    6) But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. 7) Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. Okay, it says "so let him give" and "God loveth a cheerful giver." It doesn't say "so let him tithe" and "God loveth a cheerful tither." What's being said in these verses cannot even be applied to tithing for the following reasons:
    1. It talks about sowing sparingly or bountifully. With tithing, there is neither sparingly or bountifully, because it's a fixed amount. It's literally the tenth. It's always the tenth and will never be more or less than the tenth, so the concept of "sowing" more or less cannot apply. It you tithe less than the tenth, it is breaking the law; if you tithe more than the tenth it is breaking the law, and to tithe less than or more than a tenth, is considered disobedient if the person is supposed to tithe (tenth).
    2. It says "every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give;" A tithe is not something one decides with their heart how much or what to pay, because it is a mathematical calculation, and the Who, What, Where, When, Why and How is determined by God law, not each person's heart.
    3. It says this is not to be given "grudgingly, or of necessity:" For a tither, it is absolutely necessary. It is the law. It is illegal not to comply 100%. Someone under that law, needs to pay that tithe in order to escape being cursed. It must be followed for the people to be blessed.
    4. It says "cheerful giver." A tithe is not something that's given, it's something that's paid. In Matthew 23:23 Jesus said to the Pharisees "ye pay tithes of mint and cummin..." He didn't say give. The only time a tithe was ever mentioned as being "given" was in Genesis 14:20 by Abraham to Melchizedek, and that was before the law of tithing. It was not Abraham's fruits of his labor or his own goods that he tithed. Rather it was Sodom's stolen goods and people that he repossessed by slaughtering the perpetrators because they took his nephew, Lot. He gave that tithe to the priest Melchezedek, King of Salem (not Sodom), and apparently gave the rest of the recovered goods and people back to the King of Sodom, who it belonged to in the first place (asking only that Mamre and Eshcol may take their portion). The point I'm focusing on here is that it was something he decided to give, not something that was owed which he had to pay. Some would ask whether we may also "give" a tithe like Abraham outside of the law. And my answer would be, If it is a tithe you are speaking of giving, not paying, then it is not the same tithe spoken of in Malachi 3, because that tithe was something to be paid. And if you didn't pay it, it says there is a curse. That is the law. You cannot mix what Abraham did with what's in Malachi (the law) and create your own hybrid form of tithes that is both given as a gift, but has a consequence if the gift is not given. That does not fit the definition of a gift. You must do away with trying to follow the law in Malachi, and give, or either you must bind yourself to the law and admit that what you are doing is trying to tithe, not give. You are also not free to apply the law's Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How to you or your pastor's own definition of what tithing is. I would ask you to tell me, without referring to the law, what is a tithe? The "tithes" that pastors and church leaders collect today are defined from the law; the benefits of paying them are defined from the law; the consequences of not paying them are defined from the law. If you want to simply say, "I'm doing what Abraham did," then you are simply emulating Abraham. Emulation is not a virtue, it's a work of the flesh (Galatians 5:20), not fruit of the Spirit. It is not being led by God's Holy Spirit. It is not from your heart. It is copying what you saw someone else do. There was no definition or explanation of Abraham's tithe that would tell much of anything you can go by.
      Here's what we are told about Abraham's tithe:
    • Who (it was given by Abraham to Melchizedek)
    • When (when Melchizedek blessed him after he returned back from recovering that which was taken from the King of Sodom)
      But here's what we are not told:
    • What (it says "he gave him tithes of all," but it doesn't say whether that includes the stuff he recovered that belonged to the King of Sodom. Did Abraham only give a tithe of his own possessions and people? or just his goods? his money, but not his goods, and not the people?)
    • Where (was it done in a temple, a synagogue, a church house, in a pit, in the King's castle, at a storehouse, a treasury, in the pulpit? etc.)
    • When (was it done every Sunday morning, on the Sabbath, on a regular workday, once a lifetime? On a fifty year cycle, divided into seven by seven years, followed by a year of Jubilee? etc.)
    • How (how did he go about actually giving this tithe? Did he place it all in an envelope and put his name and address on it and check the appropriate box? Did he report it to the government and write it off? Was it a grand event? Did he hand it off to someone else and entrust that person to go take it to Melchizedek, or did he give it to him himself?)
    • Why (did Melchizedek need it to continue his ministry? Did he need it to give to the poor? Was Abraham giving it simply because Mechizedek blessed him? or because God delivered the enemies into his hand? Did he see someone else pay a tithe before and he thought it'd be a good idea? Did God come to this prophet Abraham and tell him to do it? Was it because Melchizedek didn't have a mother, father, descent, family and therefore didn't have any inheritance, similar to the strangers, fatherless, widows and Levites who, under the law, received a portion of the tithes? Was this simply done once in history so that the Levites did not have to later tithe, since Levi was inside of Abraham when Abraham gave, and therefore are counted as having already paid their tithes? Hebrews 7:10)
    • Consequences (there are no mentioned consequences for Abraham if he had not giving a tithe to Melchizedek)
    • Benefits (there are no mentioned benefits for Abraham for giving a tithe to Melchizedek)

    Seeing that Abraham is neither mentioned to be cursed or blessed for his tithing action, then I also assume that this is not what Christians are trying to do these days. Christian who are trying to tithe, are doing so because they believe they will be blessed for doing so or cursed if not, though some may not admit it. That shows that what they are following is under the old testament law. 95% of the Christian tithers I speak to about the issue of tithing justify their actions based on a personal testimony about being blessed or cursed associated with tithing or not tithing. There is no logic to believing in the blessings associated with it, but not believing in the curse associated with it. That would be like believing in Heaven, but not Hell, or good but not evil. If we can be blessed simply by giving, as 2 Corinthians says, there is no need to tithe. Being taught by Christ, led by the Word of God, and governed by the Holy Spirit within us is sufficient. We know what needs to be given, we know why we need to give, and where it needs to be given, and if we don't know, the Holy Spirit is fully capable of leading us if we allow ourselves to be led by the Spirit. Furthermore, as the scripture says, there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. To further study these things, one should search the Bible to learn the Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How of tithes. As you study, it will also help to know that the role of priest is key in tithing and that a pastor is not the same as a priest or high priest, and does not serve the same purpose or fulfill the same functions.
    Tithing in the New Testament
    So far, I've always seen this fact overlooked, so I will mention that when Jesus spoke to the Pharisees about tithing in Matthew 23:23 they were still under the Old Testament. Yes, even in Matthew they are in the Old Testament. The New Testament doesn't come into effect until Matthew 27:51 when Jesus died on the cross and the veil was rent in twain. This is taught from Hebrews 9:16-21, saying that the blood of Jesus Christ (the testator) was necessary to put the New Testament into effect (through a blood covenant). This means that Jesus was not acknowledging, allowing, or condoning the continuance of tithing in the New Testament when He mentioned it in Matthew 23:23, because Matthew 23:23 was still Old Testament. Yes, Jesus was born, but the birth of Jesus did not bring the New Testament into effect; the death of Jesus brought it into effect. This means the word "tithe" (singular) is never used in the New Testament, and the word "tithes" (plural) is only used four times in the New Testament; all four times are in Hebrews 7 (verses 5,6,8,9) which comes down to verse 12 which says, "for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Remember, verse 5 said "they that are the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham." The priesthood was changed, the law was changed, and that law even was among them and their brethren. This law that the sons of Levi were under is found in the book of Leviticus in the Bible.

    To further study these things, one should search the old testament of the Bible to learn the Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How of tithes. As you study, it will also help to know that the role of priest is key in tithing and that a pastor is not the same as a priest or high priest, and does not serve the same purpose or fulfill the same functions.
    (I used red and underline to highlight the correlations)




    "How Do We Name Our Churches?" by Neil Cole
    8/28/2013 (originally published 3/3/2010)

    How do we name our churches?: From our Jurisdiction to the King's Reign

    "What's in a name? A rose is a rose by any other name."

    -William Shakespeare

    Download/Print Article (PDF)

    My friend and mentor, Bob Logan has an unusual collection. He collects church names he has come across in his travels over the years. Here are some actual names of churches he has encountered in his journey (with some commentary from yours truly):

    • Accident Baptist Church is obviously not Calvinist.
    • First Church of the Last Chance World on Fire Revival and Military Academy (in Dade City FL). These folks have the first and last word on just about any subject. I don't even want to ask what sort of military they are training.
    • Greater Second Baptist Church in Chattanooga, TN, stands in contrast, I guess, to the not so great second Baptist church around the corner?
    • For those who do not want to commit all the way, you can go to the Halfway Baptist Church. On the other hand, Hell Hole Swamp Baptist Church in South Carolina is not a seeker sensitive church by any stretch of the imagination. You have to be really committed to attend this church; none of those "Halfway Baptists" will be found here. Of course everyone is welcome at Faith Free Lutheran. Like "sugar free" this is a church that contains no calories, convictions...or miracles.
    • Little Hope Baptist Church sounds a tad better than another church called No Hope United Methodist Church. Kind of makes you sad just saying it.
    • My personal favorite church name: Original Church of God, Number 2. I really can't think of anything to add that could possibly be funnier than the name itself...except for perhaps number 3.
    • Boring Seventh Day Adventist Church is another one of those "truth in advertising" names, but this church goes the extra mile because the name of their pastor is Elder Dull. Perhaps there are more exciting ways to spend your Saturday?
    • Harmony Baptist Church in East Texas is a name that doesn't sound so bad. The funny thing is that it is only a half-mile away from Harmony Baptist Church #2. I guess they are not so harmonious after all.
    • Battle Ground Baptist Church...aren't they all?
    • Waterproof Baptist Church in Louisiana begs the question: does the baptism count if you're water repellant?
    • Country Club Christian Church is in Kansas City, but you're actually likely to find some of these in every city. This may be the fastest growing model of church in America.
    • James Bond United Community Church in Toronto, is of course "shaken, not stirred." St. Martini Lutheran Church in Milwaukee, WI, is also shaken, and not stirred and comes with an olive or a twist of lemon if you prefer. Of course the Lutherans can actually drink a Martini so I guess it isn't such a stretch to name your church after one, or is it.
    • When Paul spoke of being all things to all people I doubt that he had this in mind: First United Separated Baptist Church. This church in Indiana needs to decide which it is, united or separated?
    • Hell For Certain is a church in Kentucky but for some reason they do not have too many visitors, no one wants to go there. Does their advertisement in the yellow pages read: Go to Hell For Certain, Sunday at 10 AM? There is also Hell Seventh Day Adventist Church, which is in Hell, MI. You could say: people are dying to go there!
    • Lover's Lane Episcopal Church is a very open church, but watch out if someone wants to show you the submarine races in the baptismal pool...their Episcopal, they sprinkle.

    Truth in advertising aside, one has to wonder what people were thinking when they decided upon names like these. We do not often think about names unless we hear of one that is strange or comical. I can't tell you how many times someone has introduced him/herself to me and the name simply went in one ear and flew right out the other leaving me embarrassed to have to ask a second time what their name is. To my shame there have even been times I have had to ask a third time. If only there was something between the two ears to catch the names as they passed through.

    When we are expecting a child we give much thought to a name, but once they have the name it is simply who they are to us. We stop thinking about the name and only think of the person.

    Because we name things so often, and names often get lost in the yellow pages, you may be inclined to think that a whole chapter about naming churches is a little too much. I would like to invite you to consider a church's name and it's naming as more important than you would first think. Taxonomy actually plays a significant role in the Bible. In the Scripture a name is an important thing and it should be to us as well. There are well over a thousand verses in the Bible that have the word "name" mentioned and in many of those verses the word is mentioned more than once. Perhaps because we have lost the true impact of a name in the Madison Avenue world of branding and market placement we are tempted to think that a chapter on naming a church is a waste of paper...but that would be wrong. I firmly believe that we have lost something in the naming of church.

    Coming up with a name is serious business in more ways than one. There is a sense of permanence that comes with naming something, so you want to think about the long-term implications. A poor name can wreak havoc in a person's life.

    When my wife and I were awaiting the birth of our first child we gave considerable time to thinking about what the name would be. We bought a book of names and read through it weighing each one. We settled on two possibilities, one for a boy and one for a girl. For the girl's name we chose Brittany (along with 33% of the other couples that year-she has had at least two Brittanys in every class while growing up). When our daughter was born and her mother and I looked at her we instantly knew she was a Heather, not a Brittany. She's been Heather ever since (usually there is only one other Heather in each class).

    Naming my son was a much more challenging ordeal. Why? Because of my own name and the names of my father, his father before him and the one before him. While most know me as Neil, my real name is Cornelius. I am Cornelius Cole the fourth!

    My grandfather Cornelius Cole II goes by the name Neil. My own father goes by the name Corny. I am called Neil, and now with the pattern set, you can see why we chose the name Zachary for my son rather than attach the name "Corny" to him as well. After 150 years of passing down this name we broke with tradition. While it works for my dad, who is a cartoonist and animator, I just couldn't see my son growing up being called Corny. Zachary, on the other hand, means the lord remembered. Both Dana and I felt that it is best that my son have his own name, rather then carry on the name of a man long dead and buried.

    For all of my youth I hated my name and tried to keep it secret. Everyone knew me as Neil, not Cornelius. Unfortunately, at the beginning of every school year the teacher would read aloud the roll call of the official names of each student in class and inevitably I‘d have to begrudgingly raise my hand when Cornelius was read aloud and endure ridicule for several weeks thereafter. I have come to appreciate my real name now and believe it is special to me. Cornelius, popular in protestant Dutch circles, is originally a Latin name which means Battlehorn. In many ways, I am a simple tool in the hands of the Lord. When His breath blows though my life the troops are called to battle. A name can, and should be something powerful and meaningful.

    We tend to name ministries in the West based upon criteria such as likeability, creativity, or personal identity and positioning in the community. In my first pastorate, I actually worked hard to change the name of our church from Grace Brethren Church to Grace Fellowship. My reasons were that it was more friendly to the community we were trying to reach and less offensive to those who are gender sensitive. I mistakenly thought that simply changing our name would equate with church growth, and I was wrong. People do not choose a church home based on a name; there are many more important things to consider. That said, I do think that the way we name our churches in fact has great significance.

    So how do we tend to name our churches or movements? Below I will list five common ways names are derived and give examples for both churches and denominations.

    Where Church Names are Derived

    Named after a Geographical Location.

    This is, of course, the only source of name in the New Testament. The church that is in Philippi. The churches of the Galatian region. The church of Antioch or Jerusalem. This is still a common source for a name. Saddleback Valley Community Church, later shortened to simply Saddelback, is a region named after a prominent mountain resembling a saddle overlooking the area where the church is found. Brooklyn Tabernacle is obviously named by its geographical location. Even movements that become denominations can start this way, such as the Moravians. Though they sent people all over the world, they are identified by their starting place, which is found today in the current Czech Republic. Even the Roman Catholic Church has its roots in geography, even though it has come to mean so much more than simply its location.

    Named After a Founder or to Someone in High Regard

    This is actually one of the most common derivatives of names in church history. The Montanists were named after Montanus of Phrygia. The Waldenses were named after Peter Waldo. The Franciscans were of course named after St. Francis. There are many denominations today that are still named after their original founding father: the Lutherans and the Mennonites are two examples. There are also many churches named after saints. St Cornelius is around the corner from my house and is a particular favorite of mine.

    A Name that is Appealing.

    While the previous two derivatives are most dominant in church history and the Bible, this category is quickly becoming the most common today. Choosing a name that is attractive to the world and unique in the community and even thinking about logos and promotional pieces has become normative. Willow Creek Community Church was selected without a willow tree or a creek, but simply because it was appealing. The Friends, often referred to as the Quakers, is an appealing name for a group that holds to pacifism and abolitionism as a core belief.

    A Name that is Simply Pragmatic or Descriptive.

    Sometimes names are chosen because they identify a unique quality about the church or movement. First Baptist would be an example of simply naming a church for pragmatic reasons. The Pietists, were called such because they valued living a holy and zealous life for God. Charismatics are named such because the word for gift is Charisma. Pentecostals are named such because they are seeking the same experience found in the original birth of the church on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

    My own organization is called Church Multiplication Associates because it describes what we are about, and certainly not because the name so easily rolls off the tongue. We mostly go by the acronym CMA which tends to get us confused with the Christian Missionary Alliance (another descriptive name). I often joke that we did such intentionally to increase mistaken donations, but that is just a bad joke because there isn't that much money in the other movement either.

    Named by the Opposition.

    One of my favorite means of deriving a name is not selected by the founders at all, but by those in opposition. Followers were first called "Christians" in Antioch by those opposed to the movement. The label "Methodist" was slapped on a burgeoning movement by those who wanted to identify a movement that was propelled in large part by simple and reproducible methods. The Quakers were called such because of their ecstatic response to the inner presence of the Holy Spirit.

    I personally like this means of deriving a name the best because it means that others are noticing your movement and that you yourselves were too busy doing the work to worry about coming up with a name. Usually these are titles mean to be derisive but they actually become endearing. That being said, I am not so keen on being known as the "pancake churches" just because one denomination felt inclined to call us that (see chapter two).

    From a pragmatic point of view these concepts are not bad, but they bypass something significant that the Bible can teach us about giving names?

    What's in a name?

    I remember when I was starting a church in the Barrio of East LA I came across a young woman who had two small children from two fathers, both of whom were in prison. The youngest of the two had a father in prison for life for multiple murders as a leader in the Mexican mafia. I asked the girl what her boy's name is and was shocked when she told me he had not been given a name. He was an older toddler at the time. What a shame. To grow up not having a name is sad on so many fronts. Imagine knowing that you are not important enough to even have a name. Imagine how your own sense of identity is left unclear without a name. She simply called him Pudgy, but that was not his name just something they called him. This girl, who was the drug dealer for much of the neighborhood, eventually gave her life to Christ.[i] I told her that she now has an opportunity to give her son a name that is special and can identify him for an important purpose for the rest of his life. I challenged her to pray and think about a special name for her son and hopefully turn this tragedy into something special. After she turned her life around she took her small family out of the hostile neighborhood and I was not able to keep contact with her. I have entrusted her and her boys to the Lord who has a name for all of us.

    A name is an important thing. The Bible says that a good name is better than great wealth (Proverbs 22:1). A name can even be a commodity itself. Some banks will give credit to you simply because of your name, if you have the right one. Likewise, you could get run out of certain towns simply because of a name. A single person can ruin a name for the rest of history. I seriously doubt anyone reading this book is named Judas. You probably have never met anyone who has the misfortune of having the name Hitler.

    Zacheus, smudged with sap and perhaps a splinter or two, was hanging over the path longing to see the famous Rabbi as he approached town. His precarious position was not one of dignity and probably revealed more than any below would care to see. But you see, Zacheus was not one concerned with his reputation, he had passed that concerned many years ago. He was a tax collector. In fact, he was the head of the tax collectors, which meant that his own people already disowned him and considered him a traitor. He was hated by all, so he was less concerned about what people would think about his climbing a tree in mid day to see Jesus.

    Suddenly, and without warning, Jesus stopped. He looked up and called Zacheus by name! Wow, imagine the shock of that moment. It probably took everything he had to keep from falling off the branch, which is about the only thing less dignified than being up in the first place. The power of a personal name can be incredible given the right context and spoke by the right person. Imagine if President Obama greeted you and knew your name personally! That would mean he knows something of you and had given thought to you prior to your meeting, and that alone is something.

    Have you ever wondered why Jesus makes such a big deal out of his name? Look at how much effort it took to make sure He was given the right name by Joseph and Mary (Matt. 1:21-25). If you do a search of the usage of "My name" in reference to Jesus in the Gospels you will find it 20 times. People come in his name, go in His name and are received in his name. His followers will be hated in his name, give water in his name, and pray in his name just to "name" a few (pardon the pun). If we ask the Father for anything in His name it will be granted to us. Wow, that does sound powerful doesn't it? Perhaps a name is a powerful thing. When addressing a thousand demons at once he asked to know their name. Why? It is not as though a name is a secret password to spiritual power like saying "open Sesame" is in fairy tales. A name is important because it says something about the person. That is why Jesus' name is so important, it says something about him and we are to value that...and use it for His purpose, not ours.

    His name alone is powerful. It is so potent that the enemy wants to dilute it by making it a curse word. Have you ever heard someone hit the wrong nail with a hammer and shout out "Oh Buddha!" Of course not. Why? Because Buddha's name is not as powerful, nor as much a threat as the name of Jesus. Not to pick on anyone in particular, Mohamed's name is not elevated to the curse word status either. Jesus' name is powerful because He is powerful. His name is part of who He is and represents His being, just like yours does for you (except in his case his person is a whole lot more powerful than you are). His reputation stands apart and His name is therefore powerful.

    The church is the bride of Christ. We are a people who carry His name. We should realize that this is more significant than simply branding a ministry in the eyes of potential parishioners. Selecting a name for the church is in fact a holy and dangerous thing. We should approach the whole idea with much reverence and fear. I don't think I am being overly spiritual here; I am letting you in on a learning I have been on myself. Culturally speaking, in the West, naming something is pragmatic; but in God's economy a name means so much more than positioning in a free market.

    Why is a name such a big deal?

    A Name identifies a person, place or thing.

    The obvious advantage of a name is to designate any person, place or thing that we are communicating about or with. This makes communication possible and grants meaning to our lives. When you are in a crowded room full of people all seemingly talking at the same time and suddenly someone across the room mentions your own name it gets your attention. It is your personal designation, so when someone uses it in conversation they are talking about you, and of course this is of interest to you.

    A Name gives identity to a person, place or thing.

    Beyond simply being useful in communication, a name does even more for us. It not only identifies us, but it becomes our identity. It becomes almost impossible to separate a person from their name in our minds. We put all our memories and feelings about a person in a file in our minds under a label with this person's name on it. It becomes virtually impossible to separate the person from their name. A name becomes virtually synonymous with the person, place or thing.

    Many couples have pet names for one another. This is actually a form of great intimacy. When you are identified in a special manner by only one other person on the planet it makes your relationship unique and intimate. It is just wrong when any other would use the pet name. In this manner, Jesus will have a special name for us that only He knows (Revelation 2:17). Can you imagine hearing him call you by your new name and it will be the first time you've heard it; and you will know that it is you and only you that Jesus has in mind? Wow, that is a special thing. It is a powerful and intimate thing that is special to you and Jesus and no one else. How disappointing it would be if that name was simply a random series of numbers. That would take all the power, joy and intimacy from it, but such is not the case. Just think, even now at this very moment, in Jesus' mind is a special name chosen just for you and no one else is to have it or even hear it...just you! When he calls out that name you and only you will be the one he wants to communicate with.

    A Name carries a reputation.

    Because of the previous idea, a name carries with it a reputation. When people hear your name do they think of good things, bad things or are they indifferent? A single movie star's name at the front of the credits can mean instant millions of revenue for an entire industry.

    A brand name can mean success or failure for any product. Some brand names are so well accepted that they become synonymous for the entire industry. A person may ask for Kleenex when what they really want is a tissue. When the boss sends you out to Xerox something she is actually sending you out for photocopying. When you ride a Jet Ski you are actually on a specific brand of personal watercrafts made only by Kawasaki. In these cases, the name of a specific brand has become as big as the entire industry.

    I believe it is this third reason that Jesus' name is so important in our lives. Actually, the word denomination carries with it the idea of a name. When we choose a name for ourselves and that name gains a reputation we become identified by that name. Could it be that it is really just a name that separates us all? Baptist, Brethren, Methodist, Presbyterian, Foursquare, Assemblies of God, Christian Church, Adventist, Mennonite, Friends, Vineyard, Reformed Church of America, Christian Reformed Church, and so on, could it be that we are all just different names for the same thing?

    Is it right to choose a name for the church?

    A few years ago I was speaking at a conference on Simple Church. We had many networks of churches represented there. My friend Wolfgang Simson was also speaking. Some of the networks represented from CMA were: Awakening Chapels, Big Fish Chapels, The Fountain, Apex, The Quest, Houses of Refuge, ValleyLife, Cross Roads and so on. When Wolf heard all of these names he became a little agitated, and felt that naming churches was egotistical and not right.

    I resisted his assumption for a couple years. As with many things, however, I eventually came to see some truth in what he was saying. I began to bring the question under the scrutiny of the Scriptures and discovered that giving someone or something a name is not an idle exercise.

    The Naming of things Belongs to the One who is in Authority

    Naming things, however, is indeed something the Bible does have much to say about. You do not have to go very far in the Bible to find the concept of naming things. Right from the start God names Adam and Eve, but not all of the rest of creation. He tells Adam to name all the creatures of the earth. The creator placed the man as responsible over the created world. In such a role he is given the responsibility of naming all the creatures. And God is the one in authority over mankind, so he named them. Later Adam and Eve are able to name their own sons and daughters, and parents have been doing so ever since.

    Giving a name in the Bible is a weighty responsibility. Names were not given randomly but chosen based upon the person's unique personality or even destiny. It was a sober affair and often took some time to reflect upon. Usually, in the West, we choose a name that sounds nice or we do so in honor of someone we love or respect.

    But naming something also has another important element to it. According to the Scriptures, the one who selects the name is one who has a God-given authority and corresponding responsibility over the one being named. Hence the reason why you may not want to buy a name for a star any time soon...that is a huge responsibility! There was a struggle about John the Baptist's name because the crowd felt that normal routines were important, but the child born was anything but normal. God Himself was to name this special prophet and a mute man was healed just to declare it so. Even in vitro this person was a special servant of the Lord.

    While choosing a name is a normal right of parents, there is a time when it was not their right. John the Baptist was an example. Jesus was also an example. It was made clear by the visitation of angels more than once that Joseph and Mary were not the ones who would select Jesus' name.

    A New Name for a life surrendered

    Often, when a person had reached a life-changing moment where he or she were now under the strict leadership of God and God alone, the Lord would change their name. Abram became Abraham. Sarai became Sarah. Jacob became Israel, Simon became Peter and Saul became Paul. God selected names for them that indicated something special to them and also demonstrated that He was now the authority over their lives, rather then their own original parents. These were renamed by God to reflect a change in their life; most notably that God now was the authority over their life. They have become a new person under the Headship of the Lord God.

    We have lost the significance behind naming things. In fact, if you pay $19.99 you can give a name to a star. Wow, imagine that, you can name a star all to yourself. Now, that is a creative money-making venture isn't it? There is no overhead. No one had to buy the stars and then sell them to us. This creates revenue out of nothing. But is it right for us to name stars? No one ever really asked that question.

    While we are given the authority to name the animals in the Bible, the naming of stars is well beyond the scope of our authority. Only God has a name for the stars (Ps 147:4), we can't even count the stars, let alone name them.

    Now I fully understand the need to identify stars, so giving them a name is functional. The same can be said of naming churches. But I first think it is important to ask if we should name a church. It is dangerous to assume the authority over something that is God's not ours. We have been granted authority to name animals, insects, fish and birds, but not stars and certainly not the kingdom of heaven. Our jurisdiction has limitations. So we should, at the very least, tread carefully when selecting a name.

    When we set out to start churches in Long Beach, CA we came to the time when we were to select our name. We brainstormed a long list of potential names. Then in a meeting of the leaders (about 12 of us) we kicked those names around, eliminated almost all and came down to two choices: Real Life Church or Awakening Church. We were split even on these two names. A name is a lasting thing that is not easy to change later on. Given the weight of such a task I instructed the leaders to each go home and sleep on the two names...but God had other plans.

    That night at 4:00 in the morning I woke up. My wife will tell you, one of the things she has always envied about me is my ability to fall right to sleep and sleep soundly though the night, but this night I was wide awake and unable to fall back to sleep. What was really strange is that a Bible verse was in my head and I couldn't shake it: Awake Sleeper and Rise from the dead and Christ will shine on you. I suddenly realized that God had cast his vote and all other votes are discounted. Our church would be named Awakening. God chose our name.

    Having a name is not an issue, but selecting your own name, as if you have the authority to do so is probably the more significant issue. Without names to identify us we would have a hard time even functioning. Names are practical and can be meaningful. But do we have the right to make such decisions ourselves when it comes to God's family?

    In Ephesians 3:14 -15 Paul writes, "For this reason, I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name."

    I think that one of our problems is that we want our ministry to make a name for ourselves. We strive to create a brand name for our ministries. It doesn't take much for a spiritual leader to have his or her identity wrapped up in the success of the organization that he or she leads. Eventually, the brand name of the ministry becomes almost synonymous with the leader. This is not a bad thing in the business world, but it is not what God's kingdom is supposed to be like. In his Kingdom, the King is what is important, and frankly you and I are not Him. Our names are all subordinate to His; in fact, every name in heaven, earth and under earth will bow at His name (Phil 2:9-11).

    In the New Testament there are not churches with unique names. They are simply the church in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus or Corinth. In some cases they are the churches (plural) in Galatia (which is an entire region of Asia rather than a city). In other times they are the church that meets in "your/their house."

    I am not suggesting that we all drop our individual names and join together, although as I write that it does have its appeal. Several years ago a number of pastors in the city I was at would get together monthly and pray for the health of our churches, and city. We talked about creating a generic church banner. On a given Sunday we would all cover our individual church signs with this generic brand that simply said "church" and we would also each show up and speak at a different church that Sunday. It was a grand idea and I wish we pursued it more.

    Pragmatically, we are way past being able to simply call all churches the church in (fill in the blank city). Too much history has passed and created a world in which we have divisions that cannot be ignored. We can have unity; I do believe that. But we now have designated names that we cannot abandon or we would be unable to communicate.

    So What should We do?

    I am not advocating that having a name is a bad thing. I would simply suggest that we approach the naming of God's work with a little more humility and reverence and less with promotion and marketing in mind. Ask Him what He would want the work to be called, and have the courage to accept whatever He says. We must recognize that we are not the ones who sit in a place of authority over the church and thereby are to give her a name. He is the Head of the church.

    Perhaps one thing we could give thought to is how we can exalt Christ's name over our own ministries name. Can we make it less about our organization and more about our King? We are way too quick to slap our brand on everything and the results are that the brand is what is known rather than the qualities that Jesus intended for His church. We need to stop putting our brand on God's work; it is not our place and puts us in a place where we should never be.

    If you find that the name of your church does not carry a positive weight in the community then perhaps it is time to consider changing your name. But wait, what I mean by that is not simply changing your signage and stationary...I mean you work hard to establish a new and better reputation in your community, one worthy of Jesus' name. In reality, what does the name help with? Most in a church do not use the name unless they are describing it to someone who is not part of it. When a family member speaks about church they just say "church" and everyone seems to know what is being said. Besides advertising a name is really not all that significant.

    For those just starting out, I strongly advise that you pray and seek the Lord regarding what the name is to be for your ministry. At least give the Head of the church the right and the opportunity to select a name for your church. Most church planters not only have a name before they have a church, they even have a logo. I fear when we so easily and quickly assume that privilege we trample a bit on holy ground. When we start a church with such an ignorant yet arrogant maneuver we set in place a culture where we ourselves are the ones responsible for the church, and unfortunately the church rarely escapes this trap. I for one, would much rather be part of a church where Christ is the one calling the shots, wouldn't you? Why is that not the case in so many examples? Perhaps we have lost the ability to believe that Jesus does in fact care about these things. A name is important to Jesus. Or, perhaps we have lost faith that Jesus is capable of deciding things for His church.

    The Moravian Church is a great example to us of how the church is meant to be a movement. After a revival of sorts broke out in Herrnhutt, called the "Moravian Pentecost" in August of 1727, they began to have people go out and spread the message of simple devotion to Christ all over Europe and abroad. They were not starting Moravian churches but encouraging people of any denomination to start living communities of faith in any tradition. This enterprise was phenomenally successful before there were any mission agencies or church planting divisions of existing denominations. By 1748 there were 540 faith communities outside of the Baltic provinces and 45,000 people attached to groups within the Baltic region. They had groups founded in Britain, Ireland, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, and even Russia. Nevertheless, they continued to resist having any official affiliation with their own "denomination."

    For many years, they did not even have a name for this movement. It started without a plan, a name, a budget, or any kind of organized objective more complicated than spreading the love and message of Jesus. No advertising campaign, no branding, no ten year strategic plan, they simply obeyed Jesus and let Him build His church as they went out to share with others the profound experience they had. Many years later they referred to the groups meeting all over the world as the "diaspora" or "scattered ones" which is really just a description more than a title. They didn't need a name. Do we? I have to wonder if the need for a name is a clear indication that you are not a healthy movement. In my opinion, if it takes a brand to sell your "product" than your church is less than it should be. If people are not wanting to tell others about what we have and we need to sell ourselves with ads then we have lost the plot.

    Awakening Chapels started with a name. But as we multiplied we found that the name didn't stick with future generations, and we are fine with that. Even now, no one really says, "I'm going to Awakening." They say, "I'm going to hang out with my church." When they refer to a specific gather they will say, "The church that meets at Milton's house," or "the El Camino College Campus church that gathers on Thursdays." This actually sounds very New Testament to me. Sort of like "the church that meets in their house (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19)." It is not about a brand, it is about a Kingdom. Can we be content with that? Can we let the name of Jesus be more prominent than our brand?



    [i] Her story is recounted in my book Organic Church, pp 78-79

    COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This post above is copyrighted © 2009 Neil Cole and republished here with permission from Neil Cole. Permissions granted in the Terms of Use for the offensedefense.org website do not apply to this post and cannot grant you permissions for this post. Regarding this post, Neil Cole's rights supercede those of this website, and permission must be sought from him if you desire to republish or print his work. Offensedefense.org is not authorized to grant you that permission.
    Original post: http://www.cmaresources.org/article/naming-churches_n-cole





    What Does "Saved" Mean?
    5/26/2019

    In Matthew 1:21, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph and spoke to him about Mary, saying "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." So it appears that being "saved" simply means being saved from one's sins by Jesus. This, of course, is referring to when someone uses the term "saved" by itself, with no other references or description of what specifically someone is saved from. Otherwise, someone could mean something else when they use the the word "saved."




    Abram's Voluntary Tithe
    7/15/2019


    I. ABRAM'S VOLUNTARY TITHE

    Who
    Abram (Abraham) tithed to Melchisedec, priest of the most high God, King of Salem. It is important to note that Melchisedec was a priest, otherwise, this would likely not be considered a tithe, since later all tithes had to be given to a priest.

    What
    Abram went and recovered the spoils of war that were taken from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer (Genesis 14:17). From that which he recovered, he gave Melchisedec a tenth part of all of the spoils he retrieved (Hebrews 7:1-2,3). Abram did not tithe from his own personal belongings or increase, and refused ownership or right to any of what he recovered. He gave the rest of the spoils remaining back to those they were originally taken from.

    When
    This took place before Levitical law was established by God, that is, before God required or even mentioned a tithe at all for any reason. That's why this tithe is referred to as voluntary, because Abram didn't have to do this. He chose to do it. This was before God changed Abram's name to Abraham.

    Where
    This meeting took place at the valley of Shaveh (Genesis 14:17).

    Why
    Abram got involved and went and recovered the spoils of war because his brother Lot was taken captive among those spoils (Genesis 14:14). Abram states his reasons was not to take anything from him and, so he could not say he made Abram rich (Genesis 14:22-24). However, we are also told in scripture that Melchizedek was without father and mother, and without descent, and didn't have a beginning of days or end of life, but abides a priest continually (Hebrews 7:3). Therefore, he would also be without an inheritance, similar to the fatherless, and strangers, and perhaps the widows who were therefore in need of receiving a portion of the tithe under Levitical law. If he was continually a priest, and always was that, and always would be, he would not have any opportunity to work and earn wages to provide for himself, nor did he have family through which he could inherit any land, property, or anything from. He was in need, and Abram obviously saw his need, and blessed him. This would also qualify Melchisidec/Melchizedek as being a stranger, but one who was also set aside for doing the work of the Lord, like the Levites. This would essentially put him in the same categorical need as all of those who were later given a right to a portion of the tithe, the widow, the fatherless, the Levite, and the stranger. Genesis 14:18 tells us that he was King of Salem and the priest of the most high God. But just because he was a king and priest, don't assume that his needs were all met. Remember, Jesus was also a king and priest, but during much of His time ministering, He and his disciples needed food and shelter, and other needs to be met. Being a king doesn't automatically make one rich, and being a priest certainly does not make one rich, although the Lord provides. It's possible that Salem wasn't even a place, since Hebrews 7:2 appears to explain that King of Salem translates to "King of peace." It is interesting to then note that Salem is part of the name of Jerusalem (Jeru-Salem), which is said to mean "in awe of peace" or "teaching peace."

    It's possible that it was not even referred to or considered to be a tithe until later, as Hebrews 7:2 merely states that he gave him a "tenth part of all." Hebrews 7:4 also says he gave him a "tenth of the spoils," while Hebrews 7:6 does actually say "tithes." So at the time Abram gave it to Melchizedec, he was likely not intending to tithe, per se, but that's what it was, considering the circumstances of Melchizedek's position and need, and him being a priest. I say this with understanding of how the children of Israel passing through the Red Sea was later considered to be a baptism, although at the moment, it was unbeknownst to anyone except God that they were being baptized (1 Corinthians 10:1-2). They were just trying to escape. Likewise, Abram was likely just trying to bless Melchizedek, seeing his need and wanting to do the right by God with the spoils of the war. This is also similar to Jesus being a high priest, and in a circumstantial position to both be a sacrifice, and perform the sacrificial offering. What appeared circumstantial to man, was in God's plan. It is possible too that what Abram did from the heart, was used by God as a basis for establishing the tithe, which was focused on supplementing the need of the people without inheritance. In other words, Abram, through this act, may have established what the tithe would be (tenth of increase given to priest toward the need of those without inheritance, and including those sanctified to do the work of the Lord).

    How
    Abram obtained spoils of war, when he heard that his brother Lot was taken captive. Abram armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah which is on the left hand of Damascus. And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people (Genesis 14:14-16). It doesn't say there was anything special he did that made it a tithe, aside from the amount he chose to give him, and the circumstance that Melchizedek happened to be in, a priest without inheritance in need of assistance.






    What is Tithes and Offerings?
    7/16/2019


    Tithes and offerings is not a biblical term. They are two words. Tithes is one word referring to a specific thing, defined by God in Old Testament scripture. Offerings is another word referring to a different group of other specific things, defined by God in scripture. The two words are mentioned together only once, and that was in Malachi 3:8.

    In other words, there is no such thing as "tithes and offerings," but there are such things as "tithes" and "offerings."

    In scripture, we hear about two different types of tithes in the Old Testament. Tithes are never mentioned by name in the New Testament, except for in Hebrew 7:5-9. At the time of writing of Hebrew 7, some people were still paying tithes, as Hebrews 7:8 states "And here men that die receive tithes..." but it is not specified who is tithing and receiving tithes. It is reasonable to believe that those tithers were children of Israel who had not accepted Jesus as being the Saviour, and still living by Old Testament law, paying tithes to Old Testament priests who also didn't accept that Jesus is Saviour and high priest. Both types of tithes are mentioned in Hebrews 7. One type of tithes was what Abraham tithed to Melchisedec. He did not tithe from his own belongings; he tithed from the spoils of war he recovered from the captors. Neither did he keep any percent of that recovery. The other type of tithe was what God required from the children of Israel under the Levitical priesthood. Generally speaking, it was a tenth of their harvest from the field. They had to take that to the priest to put in the storehouse, and certain needy people (the Levites, widows, fatherless, and stranger) had a right to have a portion of that tithe that was put in the storehouse. Neither of those tithes were money.

    In scripture, when it says "tithes" as a plural word, we can see that it is not referring to different types of tithes. What Abram did was not really a type of tithe, it was just one specific instance. By saying "tithes" instead of "tithe," it appears to simply mean more than one tithe, in a sense that if five people each bring one tithe to the priest, then the priest has then collected tithes. However, if only one person brought a tithe, then the priest would have only collected a single tithe, instead of tithes. From looking at scripture though, we see that the word "offerings" is plural for a different reason though. In scripture, we hear about nearly 20 different types of offerings. They were difficult for me to count, because not all of them appeared to be well defined as to whether it was an officially considered an offering or not.

    These are the types of offerings I found in scripture along with some of the scriptures that mention them:
    1. Burnt offering (Genesis 8:20, 22:2; Exodus 29:1,10-18) This is the type of offering Abraham was going to give when he was going to offer his son, but ended up offering a ram that was there in the bushes.
    2. Drink offering (Genesis 35:14; Exodus 29:40) Jacob poured a drink offering to God.
    3. A offering for materials to build a sanctuary that the people bring willingly/voluntarily (Exodus 25:2-8; 35:4 - 36:6) This was an offering that God only wanted the priests to take from the men who gave it willingly of their heart. This was done like a gift registry, in that God mentioned the things that would be needed, and left it up to the people to offer those things, and had given the priests a blueprint and instructions on what to do with all of it. God asked for gold, silver, brass, and linen of blue, purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, goat's hair, rams' skins dyed in red, badgers' skins, shittim wood, oil for the light/lamp, spices for anointing oil and for sweet incense, onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod and in the breastplate. Exodus 35:22 says both men and women actually gave, not just the men. This offering was stopped as they had enough, and Moses restrained the from bringing things.
    4. Wave offering (Exodus 29:1,19-24)
    5. Sin offering (Exodus 29:14; Isaiah 53:10 seems to suggest Jesus was a sin offering/the arm of the Lord; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 10:10,14,18 Jesus as an offering, the last sin offering)
    6. Heave offering (Exodus 29:27-28)
    7. Peace offerings (Exodus 29:28; Leviticus 3:1-9)
    8. Meat offering (Exodus 29:41)
    9. An offering of half a shekel (Exodus 30:12-16) This was the men, 20 years old and older among the children of Israel. This sounds to have been a mandatory offering, and was used for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.
    10. Trespass offering (Leviticus 5,6)
    11. Vow or voluntary/[votive] offering (Leviticus 7:16)
    12. Freewill offering (Leviticus 22:21; Deuteronomy 16:10, 23:23; Ezra 1:4, 3:5,7:16; 8:28)
    13. Offering made by fire (Leviticus 23:36) This might refer to burnt offering or may be different (Numbers 28:3).
    14. Jealousy offering/Offering of memorial (Numbers 5:15,18)
    15. Levite offering (Numbers 8:5-26) The Levites were a living offering made to God, required by God.
    16. An atonement offering from the spoils of war (Numbers 31:52). This appears similar to Abraham's tithe, but this is not a tithe, nor referred to as a tithe, and it seemed to be voluntary perhaps. And Abraham gave a tithe of all, and this seemed they just gave out of the gold and jewelry.
    17. Wood offering (Nehemiah 10:34)
    18. The land offering for the sanctuary (Ezekiel 48:8)
    19. Gentile offering (Romans 15:16)
    20. Wine offerings? (Hosea 9:4)
    21. Firstfruits? (Nehemiah 10:35-37,39) - Firstfruits might not officially be considered a type of offering

    (I only numbered these to save you time from counting them. )

    There is so much material in scripture about offerings and tithes, that it can not be covered in any short amount of time. But in short, what most of today's pastors refer to as "tithes and offerings" is not found in scripture, and is something completely different than the offerings and the tithes spoken of in scripture that was collected and performed by the priests. The key differences are that those offerings and tithes were not money, aside from the shekel offering, and that they were given into the hands of priests, not pastors, and handled differently and used for different purposes. To begin learning more about this subject in scripture, it should be helpful for you to first look into to scripture to research what the role and responsibilities are for a priest or a high priest. It will also be helpful to realize that there are scriptures that speak about giving, there are scriptures that speak about tithing, and there are scriptures that speak about offerings, and that they are not all the same thing. Scriptures that speak about giving pertain to giving, scriptures about tithing pertain to tithing, and scriptures about offerings pertain to offering.

    For example, when you see a scripture such as 2 Corinthians 9:7 that says that God loves a cheerful giver, understand that it is talking about giving, not tithing, not offering. It's a gift! You give it from your heart because you want to give it, and you want them to have it. You don't shove a gift in someone's face and say "Here! Fine! Take it!" with angry attitude. Nobody wants that! Keep your little gift and your stank attitude, and get out of here with that! So that scripture about giving, for example, doesn't pertain to tithing, only to giving.

    Tithing was more like a chore, like paying the rent. It doesn't matter how you feel about paying the rent, as long as the rent gets paid! Doesn't matter if you're an angry or a cheerful rent payer. If you pay the rent, the landlord is satisfied, and will bless you with a place to stay, even if you're angry when handing over the money, because it's not a gift, it's an obligation. But if you don't pay the rent, you get cursed and thrown out on the curb, because you were obligated to pay, and you didn't do what you were supposed to do.

    To keep analogizing, offering was more like breaking someone's window while playing baseball. You might not really be obligated to pay them, but yeah, you kind of are obligated. I mean, come one, you broke their window! Unless you're really a bad person, or you just don't have anything at all to give them, you really should offer them something to make it up to them and help them, because if it wasn't for you, they would still have a perfectly good window. And they may not accept your offer if they don't feel like it's good enough or you could have done better, because it's an offer, and offers can be accepted or rejected. Don't offer them a piece of bubblegum off of the ground! That's not- No! You offer them your best, to at least show you really do care.

    So there are scriptures about offering, and different scriptures for tithing, and different scriptures about giving, because they're all different. When you're studying the scriptures to understand these things, just remember that giving, tithing, and offering scriptures are not interchangeable, and mix matching them will lead to confusion. And that's one of the main reasons why there's so much confusion about this topic these days. When you know there's a difference between giving, tithing, and offering, it's not difficult at all to learn about.




    Does the Bible say Local Church Membership is Required?
    7/17/2019

    There appears to be a general consensus among most of today's pastors that local church membership is required for Christians. Before seeking to answer whether local church membership is required, let's first look at what each of these words means, local, church, and membership.

    In scripture there is no such term as "local church." In fact, you'll find that the word "local" does not appear in the Bible at all, if you try to look it up in a concordance for the King James Bible. A concordance is an index of words that appear in the Bible, which tells you every scripture that a particular word is mentioned in.

    The closest thing we can find to the idea of a local church in scripture is the church people in a particular city. For example, the Bible may refer to the Church at Ephesus (Ephesus was a city), or the Church at Corinth (another city). However, we don't see any individual church building in scripture that has its own name, which is called a church, such as First Baptist Church of Corinth. Today, what pastors and ministers refer to as "local" when they say "local church," is a group of people that meet in a particular place, even as small as being in a particular building on a particular part of the street. In other words, there can be one "local church" on a street corner, and three separate local churches across the street from it, each on their own corner, and then another local church down at the other end of the block. There may even be a sixth, seventh, eight, ninth, and tenth local church that meets in each of those same buildings on a different day, or at a different time than those "local churches." So actually, the idea of a "local" church doesn't really have anything to do with the locale of the place, but it has everything to do with the belief that people can form their own organizations or corporations that they call "churches," regardless of where they might be located, or where they meet at. This requires us to look into the definition of the next word. What is a church?

    In scripture, the term "church" is pretty simple. When someone believes and confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, and accepts Him as their saviour, they automatically become a member of His body. He is the head of the body, and all of the believers (aka Christians) are the church. In scripture, it's the people who are referred to as the church, not buildings, and not particular corporations or organizations. Those believers are often referred to by what city they are in, so when the scriptures say something like "the church which is at Corinth," it's another way of saying "the Christians in Corinth." It does not necessarily mean that there is any difference or division between those Christians and the ones in Ephesus. For example, if someone from Ephesus moved to Corinth, they would automatically be considered a part of the church which is at Corinth, because it was not considered to be a separate organization or corporation. It was just the church that Jesus founded. They were all essentially still one church that just existed in different places. Even if some people lived on one side of Ephesus, and the others lived on the other side of Ephesus, they were referred to as the church which is at Ephesus, or the church in Ephesus.

    The word "churches" (plural) is used a few times in scripture, so that it appears there is more than one church, but scripture never indicates that it means anything other than people being in different places. For example, it is said for them to ordain elders in every church, and The Revelation speaks about the seven churches in Asia. Well, Asia is really big, so that likely just means the different gatherings of the people in different parts of Asia.

    Today, most pastors and Christians mean something different when they say "church." They mean that someone created a group, named it, secured a meeting place, and filed papers with the local government saying they have created an official organization or corporation, and they refer to that organization or corporation as a church, or they call their building a church. And they refer to that organization as their church or "my church," because it is considered to be theirs, and it is considered separate from other organizations that other people created and named and call their church. And when a Christian moves from another city and now lives in a neighborhood next to that "church," they are not automatically considered to be part of that organization. Even if they start regularly attending meetings with those people, they will often still not be considered to be a part of that organization, until they do what the person who created that organization says they have to do in order to be a part of that "church," because that person (or group of people) are legally considered to be in complete control of that organization, regardless of what the Bible or Jesus says. Even if they are a Christian, and are already a part of the church that Jesus built, they are not considered to be a part of that organization unless the creator of that organization says it's okay. Once the leaders or people of that organization, their "church," accept them, and they have joined them, they are referred to as being members of that "church." However, that use of the word "member" is not what is referred to in scripture. So what does scripture say a "member" is?

    In scripture, as in life, the word "member" is used to describe what a body part is. For example, your finger is a member of your body, and your leg is a member, or your arm is a member. If someone said you were dismembered, it would mean they cut your body into pieces (sorry for the gruesome explanation). This is the same use of the word "member" that the Bible uses. There is actually no such mention in the Bible of anyone being a church member, because the term "member" is a reference to being a part of a body. So the more accurate way to say it would be to say one is a body member, or a member of the body of Jesus Christ. The believers who form His body are also referred to as the Church, so that's why some may speak of being a member of the church, when they really mean they are a part of the church that Jesus built, since technically that is an incorrect use of the word "member." Remember, scripture says He is the head, and we are the body. Ephesians 4 says that there is one body. Jesus Christ only has one body, and it is not divided, nor is it ever permitted in scripture for it to be divided. So the idea that there is more than one "body" of believers is incorrect. If they are trying to adhere to the scriptures, those local man-made organizations ought not be referred to as separate bodies of believers, because Christ has only one body.

    The term "membership" and "church member" is not used by many pastors and Christians today in a biblical sense. When someone one meets their requirements and joins their organization, that is what they call membership. In reality, it may be said that they can call it membership, since they have actually formed their own body, of which they are the head, evidenced by the fact that they can say who gets to join their organization and who doesn't, even if Jesus or the Bible says otherwise.

    So to answer the question, does the bible require local church membership? The answer must be no, because there is no such thing in the bible as church membership, and what people today call the local church is a different thing than what the Bible says a church is. Secondly, for the fact that one is automatically already a member of the body of Christ once they become a Christian, there is no requirement anywhere in the Bible that a Christian must take another step to join or become a member of another organization. That would be requiring a double-membership, and scripture speaks no such thing as double-membership, the need to become members of something else after one is already a member of the body of Christ.

    What then should we do? Today's church organizations usually require or strongly admonish that one join a local church. The Christian has no biblical obligation to "join a church" since they are already in the church, so the Christian ought not to worry about such a thing. The leadership of any organization saying they are the church ought to welcome the Christian, and be satisfied that their membership in the body of Christ is sufficient. They ought not to treat a brother or sister in Christ as being any less than any other brother or sister in Christ, or to consider them as being disobedient or rebellious, unless they have been disobedient or rebellious to Christ and to His word. If they call themselves a Christian, but are a fornicator, drunkard, or any such thing for which the Bible says not to keep company with them, then they are to refuse to eat and associate with that person, but not simply because they did not fulfill some requirements to join the organization they formed.

    The Christian who is rejected or treated lower because they would not "join" such organization such reason, may consider that the person or group of people may have indeed formed their own organization or legal entity in the eyes of the world's legal system and government, and have a legal right to decide who may join their organization, and who may not join their organization, and consider that organization to not truly be a church under Jesus Christ. If what Jesus and the Bible says is disregarded, in favor of what that organization's founder says is what is upheld instead, then the Christian may rightfully consider that that organization's founder is their lord, and not Jesus Christ. In that case, the Christian is not guilty for not assembling together with the true believers that may be in that organization. It is then the leader of that organization that has forsaken that Christian for assembling with his or her brethren, and has created division among them. The Lord will provide the Christian with other believers to assemble with, whether they be in a formal organization or not. Where two or three are gathered together in His name, there will He be in the midst.

    According to scripture, fellowshipping, is not something some does. When one becomes a member of the body of Jesus Christ, one is then in the fellowship. Hebrews 10:25 says not the forsake the assembling together, it does not say not to forsake fellowshipping. The word "fellowship" is being used incorrectly today. Fellowship is not something to be done, it is something that one is in. Likewise, church is not an event or a place to be attended, it is what Christians collectively are. We do not go to church, we are the church. We do not fellowship, we are in the fellowship, or we have fellowship with something or someone. Fellowship is a state of being, not an act of doing. What we do is assemble together. We meet together, sometimes in buildings. When many of us assemble or meet together, it is called a congregation or an assembly.

    The Bible does not say one must assemble together with other Christians in order to be a real Christian, but it does say not to forsake assembling together. That means that it is possible that one may not forsake assembling together even though they may not be able to do it. They have not necessarily forsaken it. But it also does not say it is a sin to not meet with other believers, or that one must meet with other believers in order to secure salvation. It just does not say it. However, we are called to perfection in Christ, and to keep ourselves unspotted from the world, and it is helpful for us and may at times be necessary to accomplish that by being in touch and spending time with other believers. And it would also be pretty difficult to edify and love one another if we do not assemble together with one another in some way. However, the scriptures do not say how exactly we must do that. For example, I know many pastor won't like me saying this, but scripture does not say every Christian must go to church service, or that assembling together can only be done in an official Sunday or Saturday church service, as we call it. It also does not say the assembling must be logged in a log-book. So that time you ran into a fellow believer at the store, and you all checked up on each others spiritual well-being, or talked over the scriptures to edify or admonish or perhaps prayed, or ministered to one or the other in some way, that also counts as assembling together, when gathered together in His name.




    Are There True Living Apostles?
    7/17/2019

    I believe we can come to a simple and quick answer after taking a moment to read Ephesians 4:8-16 again:

    8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
    9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
    10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
    11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
    12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
    13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
    14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
    15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
    16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

    The keyword in this whole passage to help answer our is the word "till," the first word in verse 13. Jesus gave some people these positions in verse 11, this work in verse 12, until this goal is met in verses 13-16. And till that goal is met, the work must continue to be done by people in these positions.

    So our next logical question is "Have we met that goal yet?" If that answer is "no, we haven't met that goal yet," then the answer to our bigger question must be yes, because we still need these people in these positions doing that work, so we can meet that goal. So, yes, we must still have true living apostles. We need apostles along with the prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in order to do the work to meet that goal. And I believe it's fairly easy to take a look at ourselves and come to the conclusion that we have not yet met that goal.

    We have not all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Far too many of us are still immature, and being tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. And very few of us in the body of Christ are speaking the truth in love, and the body of Christ has not grown up into Him in all things. And there is way too much division among us. The whole body is not fitly joined together, nor compacted by that which every joint supplies. I'm not exactly sure what that "compacting" thing means, but I doubt we've got that handled either.

    Quite frankly, we are a mess, and everybody can see that we, the body of Christ, have Jesus looking like a big-headed toddler in his terrible twos, that doesn't know how to love and share, screaming "mine! mine! mine!" "No! No!" We're not grown up. We have not yet grown up into our Head in all things. We still need apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, the Holy Spirit, and any other help we can get, Jesus, please!




    Communicating Through God
    4/2/2020

    The saints of God should be able to communicate with one another through God, even over far distances, and not merely face to face, and through manmade technology.

    The simple explanation for this idea is that man is able to communicate with God. Man is able to pray to God and communicate a message to God, and God is able to communicate a message or an answer to man. This means that one man is able to communicate a message to God, and ask God to communicate that message to another man. And God is able to do that if He chooses to. If God does communicate the message from one man to another, that man is able to request God to communicate a message back to the other man. If God would do so, and there is no obvious reason why He would not, then two men can communicate with one another. It has perhaps been done before, at least partially. Of course, there may be many factors involved that could help or hinder God and two saints from communicating in this way, but there are many reasons why this concept is worth exploring. Worthwhile abilities may be discovered.

    Before looking further at what we type of communication abilities we may discover, we should perhaps look at what type of communication abilities we have already discovered; or I should say have already been revealed to us. We have already mentioned prayer to God. Most of us know and believe that we can pray to God, and many of us have done it, with various results. Not as many of us have received communication from God, at least, not that we are aware of; but some have. I am fairly confident that I have, and that I received enough evidence to believe that I heard Him correctly a number of times. So now we all at least know of someone who at least claims to have received communication from God. Then we are familiar with the prophets. Though I claim and believe to have heard from God, I do not claim to be a prophet. I think it's possible for us to hear from God without being a prophet. As far as I currently understand, a prophet is a human who God uses to communicate a message to other humans. In the bible, we have records that God has communicated to prophets in different ways. To name a few, He has communicated to prophets through angels, like with Moses and the burning bush, and through His own word, which is perhaps what is referred to as later becoming flesh and dwelling among us, who we know as Jesus (John 1:1-14). Prophet Jeremiah often said "The word of the Lord came to me, saying..." (Jeremiah 2:2). I believe it was Moses that God was said to have spoke with "face to face," as a man speaks to another. God, through an angel, wrestled with Jacob. God appeared to use the angels sort of like avatars, or perhaps, like a telephone (the angel being like a living walking telephone). Prophets either hear words from God or see visions from Him. However, we should note that since God is a person, not a thing, they are not pulling information or words from God at will, like a thing or device that is operated or manipulated, because He is a person. When a prophet or person gets a vision from God, it may be in a wake state, or in a dream, and the vision may also contain words. One may also feel. I was once in dream that I believe to be a vision, if it was not more than that, and I myself being shaken violently, as if I were in a vehicle and a mob of people were beating on and shaking the vehicle. There was a time while I was in prayer about marriage (others marriages, and marriage problems and divorce), and God told me someone needed me, so I asked Him to make it clear to me who needed me and I would go. It ended up being a phone call I had to make, and He told me what number to dial, and a stranger answered crying, having a emergency marriage crisis. I called back again to get her to talk to me. So God did connect us, two people who didn't know each other through a phone number that used to belong to someone that I was acquainted with. God has sent angels to people to deliver messages to them, such as when He sent an angel to Mary and Joseph about Jesus' birth. Jesus once healed someone who was not even in His presence. This is not necessarily communications, but in a way, it is too. He would have likely used God the Father or Holy Spirits ability to connect remotely to that person, similar to how I'm saying God can connect two people through Himself, whether they can send messages through Him or He simply relays. God spoke to ___ in his sleep to wake him up, and he thought it was the other person in his house talking to him (Samuel?), until he was told it was probably God and to speak back to him. When prayed to ask for a dream interpretation, God gave dream interpretation. God gave people foreign tongues, and unknown tongues, and the ability to interpret. God gave some interpretation along with dreams/visions, which were likely vision dreams, different from regular dreams. Someone prayed for an answer from God, and God answered, but took ten days to answer, so there are delayed communications between God. There could be delays in communicating through God to other saints, if He permits it, so we ought not to necessarily consider non-immediate communication as failed communication. God once revealed to me something that was happening in another place, not something that would take place, but I believe as it was happening. I asked the person the next day, and they confirmed that did happen around a certain time. I believe I remember in the scriptures it was said that something was a stench in God's nostrils, a certain sin, perhaps? So smells and interpretation of smells may be a thing that can be communicated, as well. I intend to write these out more clearly with scripture references. In Jonah's case, we see that God can communicate to a prophet even if the prophet doesn't want to receive the message and is in disobedience to God. God gave Nebuchadnezar? a dream/vision even though he was not a man of God or a prophet. Peter?s vision or the other guy about someone coming (arise, kill and eat). The angel knew that Sarah laughed within herself on the other side of the tent door, showing that the angel, not only spoke for God, but must have also knew what God knew, or it was God speaking through the angel, having seen what was in Sarah's heart. So there was a real-time connection through the angel, not just the angel carrying a message, or else the angel some had access to God's mind, or could himself see and hear beyond human ability. But this brings up the idea that it may also be possible for the saints to be of one mind, in that what one knows, all know, to some extent, at least (Genesis 18:10-15). The angel didn't second guess himself when Sarah lied. He knew she lied, and called her out on it!

    Since God communicates to man through visions, it may be possible for man to communicate back to God with visions as well, that is, instead of articulating oneself using words of a language, one may be able to send images or moving images to God as prayer communication instead of words, or along with words. I don't remember any case of this in the Bible, however.




    More Articles
  • Concordance
    Free Online Bible
    Free Audio Bible
    more resources...
    Read This
    Watch This
    Listen to This
    www.offensedefense.org
    sign guestbook
    join newsletter
    make a contribution
    view guestbook


    copyrighted ©2008-2010 Éric L Farrell. Only Certain Rights Permitted. Read Terms of Use.