Christian 'megapastor' blasts believers on Dec. 25 dispute (defends decision to close)

With many large churches across the U.S. announcing they won't be open on Christmas Day, some pastors are defending their decision to stay closed, even going so far as to blast those who question their motives.

Among them is Jon Weece, pastor of Southland Christian Church in Lexington, Ky., who received complaint e-mails from Christians in all 50 states.

"I was deeply saddened by the knee-jerk response of the Christian community as a whole to give the benefit of the doubt to the media and not a church or a brother in Christ," Weece said in his Dec. 10 sermon. "I'm still troubled that more Christians in this community specifically did not stand up for us knowing what this church represents."

Weece blamed Satan the devil for using the Christmas issue as a distraction, prompting Christians to bicker among themselves.

"People are not the enemy," he said. "The devil is, and it is obvious that he has been at work in this situation."

Weece said the services being offered on Christmas Eve were still technically the "first day of the week" if one went by the custom of starting days at sunset, which some believe was the case in Jesus' day.

He went on to note: "Christmas began as a pagan holiday to the Roman gods, and if we were to really celebrate the historical birth of Jesus, it would either be in January or mid-April. I'm only pointing out the historical technicalities not out of intellectual arrogance, but again because of the illogical, ill-informed and even hypocritical arguments that were aimed at me personally this last week."

Weece also said Jesus himself walked all over opinion and tradition: "Do not lose sight of the controversy that Jesus incited by turning traditions on their head. And always remember in the economy of Jesus, the one whose birthday so many are claiming to be so passionate about, Jesus placed value and emphasis on people over policy and procedure and protocol every single time."

Meanwhile, the largest Christian church in South Florida has reversed itself on its closure Christmas Day, and now says it will be open for a single service next Sunday morning, Dec. 25.

Calvary Chapel of Fort Lauderdale originally decided to give its members and workforce a day off to spend with their families on Christmas, even though it falls on Sunday, its traditional day of worship. Instead, it had scheduled a slate of extra services for Saturday night, Christmas Eve.

"I've been called a bad person and a shame to Christianity," pastor Bob Coy told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "It made me realize that many people misunderstood our motives."

But after an onslaught of negative public reaction from both inside and outside his congregation, Coy had a change of heart.

"Say it isn't so," read one e-mail, according to Coy. "You're shutting your doors on Jesus' birthday. I'm appalled at the message you're sending to the community."

Coy also was advised by some church members who said they wouldn't be able to attend services on Christmas Eve, and preferred to come on the actual holiday.

"Christmas is filled with unrealistic expectations," he said. "I don't want to fuel that. If people need Jesus on Christmas, I want to make Him available."

The entire issue has exacerbated the national Christmas controversy at a time which many believe is supposed to harken back to the Gospel of Luke's "peace on Earth."

"There is no biblical mandate that we meet on Sunday, only that we meet," writes Larry Baden in an online messageboard. "This is clearly a nonessential issue. Nobody's orthodoxy stands or falls on having a Sunday service. Nobody's salvation depends on having a Sunday service."

Minister Jeff Chitwood contends: "I think the issue centers on canceling worship on a day that is supposed to be centered on Christ. Too many times the church accuses the world of taking Christ out of Christmas but now the church is the one changing things because a day centered on Christ conflicts with schedules. What kind of message does it send to those who we have condemned in the past? At our church we are rescheduling service times but not eliminating the opportunity to worship on a day centered on Christ."

One poster said true worship is about much more than just singing or attending a church service.

"The way I greet my family when I go home from work is an act of worship. The way I talk to my co-workers. The dedication I give to my employer. The passion and inspiration I find in teaching or writing or editing or reading or mowing the lawn or ironing my shirts. ...

"Let's all just focus on God this Sunday. He's a big Guy. I'm sure those who look for him will find him – even if they don't set foot in a church building."

First, I am no Roman Catholic as my tagline should make clear. Second, you speak of individual priesthood. The authority to bind and loosen was given to the Apostles, not to everyone.

The so-called "bible" of the 1st and second centuries you talk about, was incomplete. The Gospels were not complete until the end of the 1st century, as +John wrote his in the late 90's. Other "gospels" (i.e. of Thomas and Peter, etc.) of various sects and Gnostics were circulated as "genuine" inspired word and the Church (starting with +Irenaeus) fought heresies tooth and nail to maintain orthodoxy, the Faith that has not changed, although otuward rituals and vestments may have.

The various Churches could not agree on the current books of the Bible for several hundred years, and the Church did not agree on the biblical canon until the latter part of the 4th century. These are verifiable historical facts.

God certainly did not give Adam and Eve a Bible. The Old Testament dates back to 500 B.C. Surely, thousands of years passed without anyone toting a Bible! By 100 B.C., the Psalms and the Prophets were added to the Five Books of Moses, and that was all the Scripture known to the world. And that Scripture was known and intelligible only to Jewish priests. The ordinary Jews did not go to a synagogue to read Svrputre in a language they no longer spoke at the time of Jesus any more than anyone goes to a church to read the New Testament in Latin or Greek!

And then for 1,500 years the Bible was augmented with the New Testament and written either in Greek, or Latin (and, by the 12th century, in Church Slavonic), and was still knowable only to few. And even when Luther came out with his sola scriptura and translated the Bible into German, just who could understand and read it when over 90% of the population was illiterate and uneducated? And when the population became educated, the Bible was still expensive and out of reach for the majority of the people.

So, it is not until the 20th century that the population has become sufficiently litterate, and books sufficiently affordable, for everyone to have access to at leats some version of the Bible, but even then most people do not and can not simply read and comprehend it. It requires "preachers" and "ministers" and various "pastors" and so on to tell the people what it in the Bible. Why?

So, not only did God not give everyone a Bible to read since the Creation, but even today, you have mass congregations listening to some individual explain to them what should be obvious if sola scriptura had any validity -- that all one needs is a Bible. No, not a preacher, a pastor, a minister, just a Bible. No Sir. That's not the way it is. When one walks into a Protestant or Baptist assembly, one does not see individuals preaching to the world, each doing their own explanation, but one individual who "interprets" to the audience the "real" meaning as understood by that individual who has no Apostolic authority. Is that not a mini-pope?

Had it not been for the primitive Church, there would have not been a Bible as we know it, for there would have been no authority to determine what was Gnosticism and what was genuine Faith. And if people could understand their Bibles, there would have been no need for clergy or for various mini-popes who on television and radios "explain" something that sola scriptura says is self-explanatory.

The Church has maintained records and through those records we see and understand how the earliest Church understood the faith and how it practiced it underground. Many of the churches were ordinary houses so as to not be too conspicuous. We may not draw parallels from our modern perspective and fall into the fallacy of assuming that we know better what Christianity was all about than the people who were directly taught by the Apostles.

First, I am no Roman Catholic as my tagline should make clear. Second, you speak of individual priesthood. The authority to bind and loosen was given to the Apostles, not to everyone.

Exodus 20:8 (on the sanctity of the Sabbath)

I guess the key word here is keeping it holy.

Neh 13:15-22 (on the sanctity of the Sabbath)

A description of the Sabbath being desecrated.

Is 58:13 (on keeping the Sabbath holy)

A description of the benefits of Sabbath observance.

1 Cor 16:1-2 (On meeting in fellowship the first day of the week - the new Sabbath day as recognized by Christ's resurrection)

This is not a command for a fellowship meeting/offering at all. It is a specific offering for the poor in Jerusalem, verse 3. There was a famine in Jerusalem and Paul was requesting that they should set aside, every week, a certain sum specifically for the Saints in Jerusalem. This is the same situation spoken of in Romans 15:25-28. It was to be done at a specific time(when Paul came through)and at a specific place(lay by him in store)and for a specific purpose.....and directly specific to the Corinthians. The first day of the week was considered a normal work day and Jesus was resurrected on the Sabbath, [Matthew 28:1]See post #372.

Acts 20:7 (Gathering in prayer and communion on the first day of the week)

This would be the description of a normal "Havdalah" meal served after normal Sabbath services on Saturday night after Sabbath sundown. This is a normal practice to this day in some congregations and since Paul spoke until midnight, you can readily see that this meal indeed began on the first day of the week which would be Saturday evening.....to the Jews.

Rev 1:10 (the Lord's Day being the first day of the week)

This is the only place in scripture that references "The Lord's Day".....but "The Day of The Lord" is used nineteen times in the Old Testament and four times in the New. Examples are [Amos 5:18 and Acts 2:20]. John is referencing this time....being "in spirit" having a vision of this specific day. I don't think he was just sitting on the beach somewhere on Patmos writing these words down some Sunday morning. It is a stretch to even believe that.

Acts 2:42 (on the importance of meeting together)

The Apostles indeed were together frequently during this time. There is no specific day of the week mentioned here but in verse 46 you'll notice that the term "breaking bread" means eating a meal.....just as it does today.

Heb 10:25 (In not forsaking the fellowship)

This verse mentions a specific day. Do you know which one it is......or is it just any old day?

What "Bible School" preacher taught you your "history"?

"There were Syrian and Byzantine Greek copies of the New Testament being copied and distributed all over (what is now) southeastern Europe from the time of the Apostles."

Oh? Since what you call the NT wasn't even established until the late 300s, I don't see how this was possible Do you have any idea at all how many manuscripts were floating around in those days which claimed divine inspiration and an Apostolic pedigree? Dozens, my Baptist friend.

"And of course, the Old Testament could be found in any synagogue in any city."

Which canon of the OT, friend? I assume it must have been the Septuagint since the OT you use is the one the Jews settled on in about 90 AD. Oh, wait, the Septuagint was in Greek, from about 300-200 BC. Its what the early Christians used, but it wasn't in the synagogues or the Temple in Apostolic times. So, which OT, friend?

"There was a Latin New Testament as early as 160 A.D. that was done in the same area. There were already copies of the Scriptures translated into other Eastern European dialects before 125 A.D."

Like I said, the NT The Church knows is from the late 300s. The one you use comes from the 1500s. There was no Latin Translation of either your NT or that of The Church in 160. I am unaware of any translation of any Scripture, whether it ultimately made it into the NT or not which was translated into any Eastern European language other than Greek in 125 AD. Have you any examples to back up this, shall we say, revisionist claim?

"The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there was nothing until "the church" meaning the RCC put it together. This is because of the 50 copies of Alexandrian Greek manuscripts that Eusebius delivered by request of Constantine after 325 A.D. RCC folks are not made aware that there were already autonomous Christian congregations spreading northward and westward from Antioch of Syria, following Paul's and Barnabas' and others' teaching of the Scriptures from a time no later than 60 A.D. Common Christians were winning Pagans and Barbarians to Jesus Christ northward and westward, all the way to what is now Poland, and Christians were known to be as far northwest as the British Isles long before the Council of Nicea. As people along that route heard the Gospel and believed it, churches were formed of them along the way. Those for north and west before 325 A.D. had no connection to any movement that eventually morphed into what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church."

This entire paragraph is an absurdity. Until after, as a practical matter, the Great Schism of 1054 there was no "Roman Catholic Church", just, aside from the Monophysites and various heretical sects which rose up and died out, The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. What is now called the Roman Catholic Church was the Church of Rome, like there was and is the Church of Jerusalem and the Antioch and Smyrna and Corinth and Alexandria, etc. Rome was the 1st See among equals of The Church, but not The Church. As for "autonomous churches, where did you get this idea? Have you never read the Letters of +Clement of Rome, of +Polycarp or of +Ignatius of Antioch? There was a developed, liturgical, Catholic Church, complete with sacraments and bishops in communion with each other before the end of the 1st century! Now there were numerous independant groups preaching various gnostic heresies in those days. Surely you don't claim ecclesiological descent from them, do you? Friend, they were stamped out utterly, or so The Church thought. Perhaps you do calim descent from them. Among the greatest heretics alive today is a Protestant woman professor of theology at Princeton, Elaine Pagels and of course, the heresy of the Episcopal Church of the USA is proudly proclaimed by its preachers. In fact, the only proponents I am aware of who preach the ancient heresies of Gnosticism, Seballianism, Donatism, ven Arianism and Nestorianism today are various Protestant sects.

" There was no Christian liturgical calendar in those churches."

Who told you this stuff??????????? There has been a liturgical calendar in The Church since at the latest around 75-80 AD. Even the heretical "independant groups" had liturgical cycles.

"We don't BIND people to calendars and holy days and other traditions of men. It's not at all what any particular Baptist church itself chooses to observe that matters. If we don't need it in our walk with Jesus Christ, we are free to walk out the door."

Why do you suppose that for 1500+ years The Church had (and still does) holy days and a liturgical calendar? Were all Christians in spiritual darkness unti someone came up with one of the 4-5000 Protestant sects with different rules and "saved" humanity? I've always wanted a Protestant to tell me why they think every Christian was wrong for 3/4 of the life of The Church on earth and what it was about the various reformers of the Protestant persuasion which allowed then to see what others apparently couldn't.

By the way, I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm an Orthodox Christian.

Wow, they keep you as much in the dark regarding manuscript evidence as does the Vatican keep Roman Catholics in the dark. Why would you think that common believers (there were many educated enough to read and write Greek and Syrian) would not have been copying the New Testament books and distributing them just as soon as they had them in their hands. And why would you think they would not be translating them, too, as they went and did personal evangelism and mission work in regions beyond. And why would you think that the Holy Spirit could not superintend the preservation of His word through such common believers who had no desire to build ecclesiastical or political positions for themselves? The Received Text (Textus Receptus) is a product of just such manuscript copying. From Palestine -- through Antioch of Syria -- through Byzantinia -- Westward and Northward. There are plenty of very scholarly volumes written on manuscript evidence, written by men over several hundred years that bring this to light. David Otis Fuller, Edward Hills, Phillip Morrow, Samuel Gipp, Peter Ruckman, Donald Waite, and many others have done fine research. None of these have been connected to each other, but their research concurs, and none of them have done their work to either protect, defend or bolster any particular church.

The text type you are referring to of the late 4th Century comes from Alexandrian manuscripts through Rome (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as far as the Greek NT), from whence Jerome's Vulgate is derived. There was much going on in manuscript copying and translating, and the Holy Spirit was doing His work in fulfillment of God's promise to preserve His Words, long before 300 A.D.

"Why would you think that common believers (there were many educated enough to read and write Greek and Syrian) would not have been copying the New Testament books and distributing them just as soon as they had them in their hands. And why would you think they would not be translating them, too, as they went and did personal evangelism and mission work in regions beyond."

Which texts did they copy, friend? Certainly the Shepherd and the Didache, the Protoevangelion of James, the letter of +Clement, +Ignatius and +Polycarp, but what about the Gospel of Thomas, or of Peter or of Mary, etc or even the Muratorian canon? Its a long list, friend. Did they include Revelations?

"The Received Text (Textus Receptus) is a product of just such manuscript copying."

That was put together in 1516. I didn't know any serious theologians even used that anymore. Its shot through with text with little or very weak support.

"David Otis Fuller, Edward Hills, Phillip Morrow, Samuel Gipp, Peter Ruckman, Donald Waite, and many others have done fine research. None of these have been connected to each other, but their research concurs, and none of them have done their work to either protect, defend or bolster any particular church."

Interesting group; not one of them a member of The Church so far as I can see, but rather all members of Protestant ecclesial assemblies. If they do not know the Faith of the Fathers, if they are unaware or contemptuous of the consensus patrum, it seems to me presumptious almost beyond description for them to opine on what The Church determined to be the NT and what it means. How do they account for Luther's changing of the canon of the NT and the acceptance of the Hebrew Canon of about 90 AD for the OT?

"There was much going on in manuscript copying and translating, and the Holy Spirit was doing His work in fulfillment of God's promise to preserve His Words, long before 300 A.D."

Agreed. Did the Holy Spirit let people get it wrong for 1500 years until the Protestant reformers came along, monkeyed with the canon of the NT (and the OT for that matter)and apostasized?

You talk like a lawyer. But some believers are just simple enough to Believe God when He promised to preserve His words to all generations. He didn't leave out the generations between 70 A.D. and 350 A.D. The common believers who were the converts of the converts of the Apostles used the Autographs and the copies thereof, of the very same books of the New Testament that are the preserved Canon today, the text type would have been that known to the sending Antiochan believers of the Apostle Paul, and probably even the text type of copies of the Autographs used by the earliest Byzantine region believers. The compiled and, shall we say, preserved form came down in the 1516 text you speak of, if you are referring to the good work of Stephanus --- a greatly superior text to the perverted Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the products of manuscripts that were perverted by mystics in Alexandria. By the way, 'tis interesting indeed that the Scriptures themselves speak generally good things of Antioch of Syria, and generally warns God's people to stay away from Egypt. But Alexandria is the source of the 50 copies ordered up by Constantine after Nicea.

Oh, Thank the Lord that the defenders of the Receptus type manuscripts (Hills, Fuller, others) have not been members of the dark, mysterious Babylonian blends of Christendom, where men are under bondage. That means that their studies are not bound to the defense of a particular religious system -- they can study as free men.

Which canon of the OT, friend? I assume it must have been the Septuagint since the OT you use is the one the Jews settled on in about 90 AD. Oh, wait, the Septuagint was in Greek, from about 300-200 BC. Its what the early Christians used, but it wasn't in the synagogues or the Temple in Apostolic times. So, which OT, friend?

And who taught you your history? The fact is that this sad argument ceased popularity when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. You are apparently not aware that the Isaiah Scroll which is in the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem varies only in vowel markings and minor copist errors from the Masoretic text. The Masoretic text is clearly one of the most carefully scribed of any text we have. Too bad the Catholic scribes were not as careful. As for the P'shitta (Syriac) is in fact a very reliable text, that pre-dates all of the current Greek texts of the N.T. even though it is not in Greek.

As for Sinaticus, what a joke. This text, supposedly preserved for us by the vaunted Catholic Church, was saved by Tischendorf when he saw the monks starting their fires with it. It isn't complete. Neither is Vaticanus. Not to say that they aren't of value, but oldest does not make right.

"The common believers who were the converts of the converts of the Apostles used the Autographs and the copies thereof, of the very same books of the New Testament that are the preserved Canon today, the text type would have been that known to the sending Antiochan believers of the Apostle Paul, and probably even the text type of copies of the Autographs used by the earliest Byzantine region believers."

A question. If you accept that what you read for the NT, I mean to say the amended version of the Protestants, but believe that that was the version used by the early Church, do you also accept the Apostolic Succession, an ordained priesthood, the Virgin Birth and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? The early Christians did. By early Christians, I mean those gathered around the Apostles or their immediate disciples. The early independant heretics didn't. Now I understand that you profess to be connected in some way with the early Christians. If so, can this be a true profession if you don't believe what they believed about the foregoing? I already know you use a different bible than they did.

"The compiled and, shall we say, preserved form came down in the 1516 text you speak of, if you are referring to the good work of Stephanus --- a greatly superior text to the perverted Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the products of manuscripts that were perverted by mystics in Alexandria."

Who were these mystics, pray tell? +Athanasius the Great? +Cyril?

"By the way, 'tis interesting indeed that the Scriptures themselves speak generally good things of Antioch of Syria, and generally warns God's people to stay away from Egypt."

Are you a Monophysite, a Non-Chalcedonian? You know, I assume what Antioch taught and Alexandria fought against.

"Oh, Thank the Lord that the defenders of the Receptus type manuscripts (Hills, Fuller, others) have not been members of the dark, mysterious Babylonian blends of Christendom, where men are under bondage."

I take it that would be use who have worshipped the Triune God for 2000 years in the same way with the same Faith, in virtually the same words which of course is all wrong seeing as we didn't have the benefit of a bunch of Johnny come lately Germans and Englishmen who haven't lit on a constant theology (except maybe real Calvinists) for the few hundred years they've been out multiplying sects!

"That means that their studies are not bound to the defense of a particular religious system -- they can study as free men."

Ah yes, every man a pope, including heretics like Pagels, right?

I still wish you'd tell me why you think The Church, East and West, got it so wrong for 1500 years until the fractious Protestants showed up.

" As for the P'shitta (Syriac) is in fact a very reliable text, that pre-dates all of the current Greek texts of the N.T. even though it is not in Greek."

Doesn't surprise me in the least. Except in various fragments all the complete texts have problems, especially Sinaticus. By the way, Sinaticus was preserved by the monks of the Monastery of +Katherine at Sinai, an Orthodox monastery with no ties to Rome. Tischendorf, like so many other 19th century Protestant "biblical scholars" was nothing but a thief. No one but Protestants believe the monks were burning their holy manuscripts. Its interesting that this story of Protestants "saving" scripture manuscripts from being burned by monks was repeated all across the Middle East and the Balkans in the 19th century.

"The Masoretic text is clearly one of the most carefully scribed of any text we have. Too bad the Catholic scribes were not as careful."

I'm sure it is. It is of course very late in the Christian era and the Septuagint pre-dates the Dead Sea scrolls. I can't address what "Catholic" scribes did with the Masoretic text. Oh, and I am actually quite familiar with the Dead Sea scrolls, having worked on a couple of copies of the fragments myself, though that was a very long time ago. The text is convenient for Protestants, though, since it avoids the difficulties which the Apocrypha posed for the reformers.

"A holy day isn't about us; it's about Him. The fact that Christmas falls on a Sunday this year is causing a clash between the two."

Just curious here. It seems a whole lot of Christians don't have very much faith in the good intentions of the churches they go to. It's like they are making their pastors of those churches who have chosen to have Saturday evening services rather than Sunday ones the enemy, and are accusing them of being of little faith because of one of the occasional times that Christmas happens to fall on Sunday they close.

Catholic churches have less of a problem with staying open, as their priests aren't married, and therefore don't have little ones waking up in the morning to run to the tree to look for their presents. And that too is a Christmas tradition, and has been for years. I grew up with barely being able to contain myself on Christmas morning, before finally having my parents wake up and let us go to the tree. And there is absolutely nothing wrong at all with this. I suspect most Freepers grew up with the same traditions as I did. So, this year it falls on Sunday, and all of a sudden everyone's pants are in a bunch. Would you have the same reaction if Christmas fell on a Wednesday? I doubt it, because I haven't heard any prior reactions like this year about churches being open or closed on Christmas Day.

I think this is a phoney indignation on many people's part. Maybe they think it enhances their "Christianity" to take this stand, but to me it just makes them look petty. And I bet their Pastors of some of these churches that chose to close that day to give their workers and their families the day off to celebrate Christmas at home with their children think so too. Bah humbug on puffed up, "I'm holier than thou" Christians with lousy attitude towards their fellow Christians. So, the many are to bow to the few, it seems. Well, I for one, hope these churches continue with their plans, give a day off to their church workers, and ignore the few who would make a big something out of a little nothing. You say it "isn't about us". I think it is exactly that; it's all about you, and how "holy" you are in comparison to your fellow Christians who aren't good enough for your tastes. Hope you enjoy wallowing in your own self rightiousness.

But some believers are just simple enough to Believe God when He promised to preserve His words to all generations

This is indeed true. There was not a significant period of time from the Apostles onward where the Church of God did not have the writings to copy and distribute. Peter had Mark who faithfully wrote down everything Peter said and, I'm sure, allowed to be copied wherever they went; [2 Peter 1:15]

Paul, of course, was prolific with the pen. Writing Timothy from prison in Rome, he specifically asks him to get Mark, come to Rome, stopping at Troas where evidently he had been arrested the 2nd time and to pick up his scrolls, especially the parchments. He probably was unable to gather his belongings together before being dragged off to Rome and prison. These items surely included Hebrew Scriptures as well as Paul's own letters. I'm sure wherever Timothy and Mark stopped along the way scribes were busy. [2 Timothy 4:13] Mark would also have a copy of all of Peter's words.

The common believers who were the converts of the converts of the Apostles used the Autographs and the copies thereof, of the very same books of the New Testament that are the preserved Canon today

This is also true.

It's this simple. I take a King James Bible and read it. I study it according to a normal-literal and contextual interpretation. I consider that the Holy Spirit had the "Holy men of God" who did the actual penning of His words, to use some various figures of speech. But where the Bible itself does not tell us that we are reading a parable, or a symbol, I take the words very literally, observing both local and remote context. Then I pray, asking God for the Holy Spirit's help in understanding AND in obedience. I pay no attention to the interpretations of church systems or hierarchies.

I keep my applications to the local assembly of believers, who show up to study and worship with their Bibles in hand, ready to examine and question. We tell our folks that they should not leave their brains on the porch when they come to church -- they have the liberty to question and examine, and decide their positions without us attacking them if they dissent.

To be quite frank, although I have files full of writings of men who were supposed to be first, second and third generation believers from the Apostles, I do not build my doctrinal positions on them, on what they may have written, or on what others say about them. What they wrote is not the Scriptures. It is not given by inspiration. I have gotten very weary over the years of hearing early church "fathers" quoted, and then going to discover something quite different in their writings. I also take into consideration the kind of institution in which the writings of "fathers" have been archived. And I am also weary of people often taking the early church "fathers'" figures of speech to be literal, when they make the literal passages of Scripture to be figurative in the same breath.

I believe that God God is real, proactive, interested in any soul who seeks Him with an honest and contrite heart. I also believe that the Holy Spirit of God indwells all who have rested in the Finished Redemptive Work of the Cross of Christ and have owned the Lord Jesus Christ as only Savior and Lord, the only remedy for their sins. EVERY son of God has instant unhindered access to the Throne of Grace, and may be a pupil of the Words of God with the holy Spirit as his/her teacher.

I am not an arm-chair theologian. I am a Christian who enjoys the fellowship of the elderly saints of God who will regularly be caught with an open Bible in their lap as they rock on the front porch of their home in a S. Carolina canyon. Their Bibles are stained with tears as they pray for the salvation of souls, for the protection of God's servants who preach the Gospel, for missionaries who evangelize overseas, for the sick and impoverished.

I need no robes or miters, cathedrals, rings, smoke, statues, paintings, stations of this or that or the other, confessional booths. I have a Personal Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is my Personal Friend as well. He walks with me, and I have seen His hand in our ministries in America and in three Asian countries.

If you think for one moment that I would be concerned over a particular position of a sinner who happened to be living within 50 years of the death of the Apostles and so is called a church "father," I have news for you. He is just a sinner like me; fallible like me. If you tell me that someone back then was a pastor and that they believed in the "presence of Christ (bodily?) in the 'Eucharist'," I won't even have to take a baby aspirin to get to sleep tonight. I met in prayer with the One Who died for me and paid for my sins with His own Blood, and redeemed me and made me a son of God. I have the preserved Words of God in a bound volume -- my Bible. I have the blessings of God to be in a now 28+ year-long evangelistic/missionary enterprise under which we watch the Holy Spirit take His words and regularly draw men to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. We have watched God call some of the men into His ministry in four countries. Really, why should we be distracted over some sinner, though a professing believer, who is honored by someone's religious apparatus, who is called an early church "father."

I don't get distracted by popes, patriarchs, denominational hierarchies of any description...even "Baptist" denominations don't impress me in the least. I know Christ and He knows me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.