THE WALL: a blog of Baptist Voice Ministries

“Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?”

Posted on January 16, 2012 by Dr. Mike Harmon

Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the sons of God and the daughters of men. There have been several suggestions as to who the sons of God were and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants (that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate).

The three primary views on the identity of the sons of God are 1) they were fallen angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to the first theory is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6;2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with this is in Matthew 22:30, which indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender or are able to reproduce. The other two views do not present this problem.

The weakness of views 2) and 3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were “giants” or “heroes of old, men of renown.” Further, why would God decide to bring the flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbade powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain? The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment.

As previously noted, the weakness of the first view is that Matthew 22:30 declares, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” However, the text does not say “angels are not able to marry.” Rather, it indicates only that angels do not marry. Second, Matthew 22:30 is referring to the “angels in heaven.” It is not referring to fallen angels, who do not care about God’s created order and actively seek ways to disrupt God’s plan. The fact that God’s holy angels do not marry or engage in sexual relations does not mean the same is true of Satan and his demons.

View 1) is the most likely position. Yes, it is an interesting “contradiction” to say that angels are sexless and then to say that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who procreated with human females. However, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality and possibly even reproduction. Why do the fallen angels not do this more often? It seems that God imprisoned the fallen angels who committed this evil sin, so that the other fallen angels would not do the same (as described inJude 6). Earlier Hebrew interpreters and apocryphal and pseudopigraphal writings are unanimous in holding to the view that fallen angels are the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. This by no means closes the debate. However, the view that Genesis 6:1-4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis.

Posted in Apologetics, Guest Contributors | Tagged chains of darkness, daughters of men, fallen angels, nephilim, satan, sons of God, spiritual world | Leave a comment

“What is the Lutheran Church, and what do Lutherans believe?”

Posted on January 15, 2012 by Dr. Mike Harmon

The Lutheran Church is actually many different bodies, all of which base their teachings and practice to some degree on the work of Martin Luther. There is such a wide variance in their particular beliefs that it would be difficult to address them all, but this article will attempt to outline those most commonly held.

Martin Luther was born and raised in Germany and studied philosophy and law as a young man, but soon became discouraged by those studies. He became an Augustinian Monk in 1505, but the isolated lifestyle only led him to further despair as he spent countless hours in meditation and contemplation. In 1507, he was ordained a Roman Catholic priest and later began teaching theology at the University of Wittenberg. During his years teaching theology, Luther grew increasingly frustrated at the excesses and abuses which he saw within the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. On October 31, 1517, he posted his 95 Theses on the door of All Saint’s Church in Wittenberg, which was the accepted practice for anyone at the university who wanted to engage in theological debate. The majority of Luther’s theses addressed the lack of biblical knowledge, practice, and accountability among the leaders of the church, and were intended to point them back to Scripture. Martin Luther was not the first to address these issues; in fact, most of them had been pointed out by other men within the Roman Catholic Church for nearly 100 years. Despite the steady stream of critics, the Catholic Church refused to admit error or make any substantial changes.

As with the other Reformers, who were all born, baptized, confirmed and educated in the Roman Catholic Church, Luther had no intention of starting a new church, but only wanted to correct what he saw as violations of clear biblical teaching. Part of the problem was a widespread ignorance of the Bible, even among ordained priests. Carlstadt, an older peer of Luther, admitted that he was made a Doctor of Divinity before he had even seen a complete copy of the Bible. One of the driving factors in Luther’s work was the desire to have clear teaching for the common questions of the people, such as, “What must a man do to be saved?” and “How shall a sinner be justified before God and attain peace for his troubled conscience?” After a series of meetings in which Luther refused to recant his views, Pope Leo X excommunicated Martin Luther in 1521. Many of the common people and German nobility followed Luther’s teaching, and the Lutheran Church began to be organized as a separate body in 1525. In recent years, most Lutheran bodies have made efforts to mend the breach with the Roman Catholic Church.

In 1530, the German lords were requested by the Pope to give an accounting of their beliefs (as well as reconfirm their fidelity to the Holy Roman Empire), and they gave their reply in the Augsburg Confessions. This was the first detailed confession of faith by German Lutherans, and it is still the primary document used by Lutherans to describe and guide their faith. In 1580, the Book of Concord combined 10 documents which were considered authoritative for guiding the Lutheran faith. That book is still used today, but has a different degree of authority within the various Lutheran bodies.

Though there are quite a few organized Lutheran groups around the world, the two main bodies in America are the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS). The ELCA has roughly 5 million members in 10,500 churches, and the LCMS has roughly 2.3 million members in 6,167 churches. The ELCA was formed in 1988 by a merger of the American Lutheran Church, the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, and the Lutheran Church in America. The LCMS was formed in 1847 by Saxon (German) Lutherans who came to America to escape persecution and the detrimental effects of German Rationalism on their faith. Both churches hold to the Augsburg Confession, which teaches that all men are born in sin, and therefore need to be justified through faith in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Along with faith in Christ, baptism is “necessary for salvation” and therefore “children should be baptized, for being offered to God through baptism they are received into his grace” (Art. IX). The church teaches that all men have some measure of freedom of the will—which is ironic considering Luther comes to the opposite conclusion in one of his most famous books, The Bondage of the Will. Lutherans also believe that, without God’s grace and help, given by the Holy Spirit, man is incapable of fearing or believing in God.

Many of the ceremonies and liturgies of the Catholic Church have been carried over into the Lutheran Church, with modifications to reflect their distinct doctrines. Some of the differences between the ELCA and LCMS stem from their divergent views on the Bible. While the LCMS affirms that the Bible is infallible in all areas (Psalm 19:7; 2 Timothy 3:16), the ELCA states that it is possible for the Bible to be in error concerning some areas, like science or history. In general, all Lutheran churches teach salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, but the manner in which that faith is lived out can vary from an empty participation in ceremonies to a very personal relationship with God.

Posted in Apologetics, Guest Contributors | Tagged infant baptism, lutheran church, Martin Luther, reformation | Leave a comment

“What is the Episcopal Church, and what do Episcopalians believe?”

Posted on January 14, 2012 by Dr. Mike Harmon

The Episcopal Church, USA (ECUSA) is the official organization of the Anglican Communion in the United States. Most of the earliest colonists to America were Anglican Puritans, and the Anglican Church became the established church of Virginia, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia during the colonial period. After the American Revolution, the Anglican Church in America formed an independent body in 1789 and called it the Protestant Episcopal Church. On their website, the ECUSA is described as a “middle way between Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions.” Like the Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church upholds the sacraments as essential to salvation, and like Protestant churches, it denies the supremacy of the Pope as the vicar of Christ on earth.

The word “Episcopal” comes from the Greek word that is usually translated “bishop” and points to the church’s understanding that a bishop is the primary ruler of the church. Under the Episcopal form of government, the bishop’s authority is equal to that of the Apostles and follows a line of succession by the laying on of hands in ordination. Priests come under the authority of the bishops and are responsible for the teaching and administration of the local churches. Throughout the history of the ECUSA, their doctrine and practice have been generally in line with that of the Anglican Church.

Over the years, the Episcopal Church has gradually accepted changes that have strained its ties with the Anglican Communion and have even resulted in schisms. In 1873, the Reformed Episcopal Church was formed over disagreements about the freedom to worship with non-Anglicans. In 2006, Jefferts Schori was elected as the Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA, the first woman to hold that office. That election strained ties with the Anglican Communion, as no other church body recognizes the ordination of women as bishops. Bishop Schori has made history in other ways, as well. While the Bishop of Nevada, she allowed for the blessing of same-sex unions in her diocese. When openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson was examined for qualification to continue in ministry, Bishop Schori voted to confirm him. At the 2009 meeting of the House of Bishops, over which Schori presided, that body voted that “any ordained ministry” should be open to gay and lesbian members as long as they were in a committed relationship. As a result of these positions on homosexuals in the church, nearly 700 dissenting parishes have formed the Anglican Church in North America, which has been recognized in full communion by the Anglican Churches of Nigeria and Uganda, which represent about 1/3 of all Anglicans worldwide. Several dioceses have also severed ties or threatened to sever ties with the ECUSA over that same issue.

Though there may be genuine disciples of Christ within the Episcopal Church, it seems that the general characteristic of the church is like the people that Ezekiel ministered to: “My people come to you, as they usually do, and sit before you to listen to your words, but they do not put them into practice. With their mouths they express devotion, but their hearts are greedy for unjust gain. Indeed, to them you are nothing more than one who sings love songs with a beautiful voice and plays an instrument well, for they hear your words but do not put them into practice” (Ezekiel 33:31-32).

Posted in Apologetics, Guest Contributors | Tagged Anglican Church, Episcopal Church, Gay bishops | Leave a comment

“What is the difference between Catholics and Protestants?”

Posted on January 13, 2012 by Dr. Mike Harmon

There are several very important differences between Catholics and Protestants. While there have been some attempts over the last several years to find common ground between the two groups, the fact is that the differences remain, and they are just as important today as they were at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Following is brief summary of some of the more important differences.

One of the first major differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the issue of the sufficiency and authority of Scripture. Protestants believe that the Bible alone is the sole source of God’s special revelation to mankind, and as such it teaches us all that is necessary for our salvation from sin. Protestants view the Bible as the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. This belief is commonly referred to as “Sola Scriptura” and is one of the “Five Solas” (sola being Latin for “alone”) that came out of the Protestant Reformation as summaries of some of the important differences between Catholics and Protestants.

While there are many verses in the Bible that establish its authority and its sufficiency for all matters of faith and practice, one of the clearest is 2 Timothy 3:16 where we see that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Catholics on the other hand reject the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” and do not believe that the Bible alone is sufficient. They believe that both the Bible and sacred Roman Catholic tradition are equally binding upon the Christian. Many Roman Catholics doctrines, such as purgatory, praying to the saints, worship or veneration of Mary, etc. have little or no basis at all in Scripture, but are based solely on Roman Catholic traditions. Essentially the Roman Catholic Church’s denial of “Sola Scriptura” and their insistence that both the Bible and their “Sacred Tradition” are equal in authority undermines the sufficiency, authority and completeness of the Bible. The view of Scripture is at the root of many of, if not all, the differences between Catholics and Protestants.

Another major but closely related difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is over the office and authority of the Pope. According to Catholicism the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ” (a vicar is a substitute), and takes the place of Jesus as the visible head of the Church. As such he has the ability to speak “ex cathedra” (with authority on matters of faith and practice), and when he does so his teachings are considered infallible and binding upon all Christians. On the other hand, Protestants believe that no human being is infallible, and that Christ alone is the head of the church. Catholics rely on apostolic succession as a way of trying to establishing the Pope’s authority. But Protestants believe that the church’s authority does not come from apostolic succession, but instead is derived from the Word of God. Spiritual power and authority does not rest in the hands of a mere man, but in the very Word of God recorded in Scripture. While Catholicism teaches that only the Catholic Church can properly and correctly interpret the Bible, Protestants believe that the Bible teaches that God sent the Holy Spirit to indwell all born again believers, enabling all believers to understand the message of the Bible.

This is clearly seen in passages such as John 14:16-17: “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.” (See also John 14:26 and 1 John 227). While Catholicism teaches that only the Roman Catholic Church has the authority and power to interpret the Bible, Protestantism acknowledges the biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, and that individual Christians can trust the Holy Spirit for guidance in reading and interpreting the Bible for themselves.

A third major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is how one is saved. Another of the “Five Solas” of the reformation was “Sola Fide” (faith alone), which affirms the biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-10). However, according to Roman Catholicism, man cannot be saved by faith alone in Christ alone. They teach that the Christian must rely on faith plus “meritorious works” in order to be saved. Essential to the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation are the Seven Sacraments, which are: baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, anointing of the sick, Holy Orders, and matrimony. Protestants believe that on the basis of faith in Christ alone, believers are justified by God as all their sins are paid for by Christ on the cross and His righteousness is imputed to them. Catholics on the other hand believe that Christ’s righteousness is imparted to the believer by “grace through faith,” but in itself is not sufficient to justify the believer. The believer must “supplement” the righteousness of Christ imparted to him with meritorious works.

Catholics and Protestants also disagree on what it means to be justified before God. To the Catholic, justification involves being made righteous and holy. They believe that faith in Christ is only the beginning of salvation, and that the individual must build upon that with good works because “man has to merit God’s grace of justification and eternal salvation.” Of course this view of justification contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture in passages such as Romans 4:1-12; Titus 3:3-7, as well as many others. On the other hand, Protestants distinguish between the one time act of justification (when we are declared righteous and holy by God based on our faith in Christ’s atonement on the cross), and sanctification (the ongoing process of being made righteous that continues throughout our lives on earth.) While Protestants recognize that works are important, they believe they are the result or fruit of salvation, but never the means to it. Catholics blend justification and sanctification together into one ongoing process, which leads to confusion about how one is saved.

A fourth major difference between Catholics and Protestants has to do with what happens after men die. While both believe that unbelievers will spend eternity in hell, there is significant and important differences as to what happens to believers. From their church traditions and their reliance of non-canonical books, the Catholics have developed the doctrine of purgatory. Purgatory, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, is a “place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” On the other hand, Protestants believe that because we are justified by faith in Christ alone, and that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us – when we die we will go straight to heaven to be in the presence of the Lord (Corinthians 5:6-10 and Philippians 1:23).

Yet even more disturbing about the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is the fact that they believe that man must or even can pay or make satisfaction for his own sins. This along with their misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches about how man is justified before God, results in a low view of the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ’s atonement on the cross. Simply put, the Roman Catholic viewpoint on salvation implies that Christ’s atonement on the cross was not sufficient payment for the sins of those who believe in Him, and that even a believer must atone or pay for his own sins, either through acts of penance, or time in purgatory. Yet the Bible teaches over and over again that it is Christ’s death alone that can satisfy or propitiate God’s wrath against sinners (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10). Our works of righteousness cannot add to what Christ has already accomplished.

While there are numerous other differences between what Catholics and Protestants believe, these four should be adequate to establish that there are serious differences between the two. In much the same way as the Judiziers (Jews who said that Gentile Christians had to obey the Old Testament law to be saved) that Paul wrote about in Galatians, Catholics, by making works necessary for one to be justified by God, end up with a completely different gospel. The differences between Catholicism and evangelical Protestants are important and significant.

It is our prayer that God will open up the eyes of anyone reading this article who is putting their faith or trust in the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is our hope that everyone will understand and believe that their “works of righteousness’ cannot justify them, or sanctify them (Isaiah 64:6). It is our prayer that all will instead put their faith solely in the fact that we are “justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God displayed as a propitiation in His blood through faith.” (Romans 3:24-25). God saves us, “not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5-7).

Posted in Apologetics, Guest Contributors | Tagged meritorious works, Pope, reformation, sacred tradition, seven sacraments, sola scriptura | Leave a comment

GRIN AND SHARE IT: “The Vacation”

Posted on January 13, 2012 by Dr. Mike Harmon

The Vacation

A man was getting a haircut prior to a trip to Rome.
He mentioned the trip to his barber, who responded,
“Why would anyone want to go there?

It’s crowded and dirty and full of Italians. You’re crazy
to go to Rome. So, how are you getting there?

“We’re taking TWA,” was the reply. “We got a great
rate!” “TWA!” exclaimed the barber. “That’s a terrible
airline. Their planes are old, their flight attendants are
ugly, and they’re always late.

So, where are you staying in Rome?”
“We’ll be at the downtown International Marriott.”

“That dump! That’s the worst hotel in Rome. The
rooms are small, the service is ugly and they’re
overpriced. So, whatcha doing when you get there?”

“We’re going to go to see the Vatican and we hope
to see the Pope.” “That’s rich,” laughed the barber.
“You and a million other people trying to see him.
He’ll look the size of an ant. Boy, good luck on this
lousy trip of yours. You’re going to need it!”

A month later, the man again came in for his regular
haircut. The barber asked him about his trip to Rome.

“It was wonderful,” explained the man, “not only were
we on time in one of TWA’s brand new planes, but it
was overbooked so they bumped us up to first class.
The food and wine were wonderful, and I had a beautiful
28-year-old stewardess who waited on me hand and
foot. And the hotel!

Well, it was great! They’d just finished a $25 million
remodeling job and now it’s the finest hotel in the city.
They, too, were overbooked, so they apologized and
gave us the presidential suite at no extra charge!”

“Well,” muttered the barber, “I know you didn’t get to
see the Pope.”

“Actually, we were quite lucky, for as we toured the
Vatican, a Swiss Guard tapped me on the shoulder
and explained that the pope likes to meet some of
the visitors, and if I’d be so kind as to step into his
private room and wait, the Pope would personally
greet me.

Sure enough, five minutes later, the Pope walked in.
As I knelt down he spoke a few words to me.”

“What’d he say?”

He said, “Where’d you get the crappy haircut?”

Posted in Grin and Share It | Leave a comment

“Is the Church of Christ a good biblical church?”

Posted on January 12, 2012 by Dr. Mike Harmon

This is a difficult question to answer due to the phrase “Church of Christ” being such a broad description. There are many churches who refer to themselves as the “Church of Christ.” Even within the most widespread “Church of Christ” denomination, there can be significant differences between the churches. There is no doubt that many in the Church of Christ denomination are genuine believers in Christ who desire to truly worship, follow, and obey Him. At the same time, there are others in the Church of Christ, and some Church of Christ churches, that are borderline cult-like in their preferences, practices, and doctrines. We are by no means disparaging the entire Church of Christ denomination or every church that refers to itself as the “Church of Christ.” The purpose of this article is to express some concerns and answer some questions about the Church of Christ that we have observed and experienced.

One “minor” issue is the Church of Christ policy of not allowing musical instruments in their church services. While we entirely agree that a church is well within the freedom God gives to not use musical instruments in worship, the problem is that some within the Church of Christ are fanatically against musical instruments. Some are fanatical to the point of declaring any church that uses musical instruments as not being a true, biblical, or godly church. Such dogmatism on a clearly non-essential issue is often the mark of a cult, not the mark of a good biblical church.

A second issue is the fact that some in the Church of Christ claim to be “the one true church,” outside of which there is no salvation. By no means do all Church of Christ members believe this, but it is prevalent enough to warrant concern. Some go so far as to argue that since the name is “Church of Christ,” that indicates that the church / denomination is the one and only true Church of the Lord Jesus. This is completely unbiblical. The claim of exclusive access to salvation is another common identification of a cult, not the teaching of a good biblical church.

A third and very important issue is the Church of Christ’s emphasis on baptism as being necessary for salvation. Church of Christ advocates point to Scriptures such as Acts 2:38, John 3:5, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, and Acts 22:16 as biblical evidence that baptism is required for salvation. There is no denying that baptism is very important. Baptism is intended to be an initial act of obedience to Christ, an illustration of Christ’s death and resurrection, a public declaration of faith in Christ, a step of identification with Him, and a proclamation of desire to follow Him. In the minds of the apostles and early Christians, baptism was so inextricably linked with salvation that the two were viewed as inseparable. The idea that a person could receive Christ as Savior and not be baptized was completely foreign to the early church.

With that said, however, baptism is not required for salvation. There are biblically plausible and contextually valid interpretations of each of the above Scriptures that do not indicate baptism as being necessary for salvation. There are many Scriptures that declare salvation to be received by faith / believing, with no mention of baptism or any other requirement (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9). If baptism is necessary for salvation, these Scriptures are in error and the Bible is contradictory.

Church of Christ advocates argue that when the Bible speaks of salvation “by faith,” it is speaking of a living faith, a faith that produces works of obedience, such as baptism and confession (Romans 10:9-10). They do not claim that baptism is a work that earns salvation, or in any sense makes a person worthy of salvation. Rather, the Church of Christ teaches that baptism is a work that God requires before He grants salvation. For the Church of Christ, baptism and confession are no different from faith and repentance—they are what God requires before He grants salvation to a person. The problem with this is that, while it may seem to be a subtle difference from the biblical doctrine of salvation by faith, it is in fact a crucially important difference.

A person who has genuinely received salvation will produce good fruit. Good works are the inevitable result of salvation (Ephesians 2:10). What differentiates a “living faith” from a “dead faith” in James 2:14-26 is the presence of good works. Church of Christ advocates are right to denounce churches that teach intellectual assent to the facts of the Gospel as sufficient for salvation. The Church of Christ is right to reject the idea that a dead faith, a faith that produces no good works, is what saves a person. Faith / trust in Christ as the Savior is what saves a person, but this faith is a living faith that always results in and produces good works. To say that good works must be present BEFORE a person is saved is to make salvation dependent on our obedience, which is works-salvation, not salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. As Titus 3:5 declares, “He saved us – not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit.”

So, are Church of Christ churches good biblical churches? This is a question that cannot be answered with an all-encompassing response. Many Church of Christ churches are in fact solid, biblically based churches. There are many Church of Christ churches which declare the true Gospel of salvation by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone. At the same time, with an extreme over-emphasis on the absence of musical instruments, with a claim of exclusive access to salvation, and with a doctrine of salvation that is borderline (at best) works-based, there are other Church of Christ churches that should definitely not be attended / participated in. This requires discernment on the part of a believer considering joining a Church of Christ church. The answer to the question depends entirely on which type of Church of Christ church it is.

Posted in Apologetics, Guest Contributors | Tagged baptismal regeneration, Church of Christ, falling from grace, instruments in church service, works for salvation | Leave a comment

	WordPress Links… on “Why are there two diffe…
	Faith Talk Ministrie… on “What does the Bible say…
	Brain Teasers! \| Rad… on GRIN AND SHARE IT: Brain Tease…
	Pastoral Search Repo… on GRIN AND SHARE IT: Pastoral Se…

THE WALL: a blog of Baptist Voice Ministries

“Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?”

“What is the Lutheran Church, and what do Lutherans believe?”

“What is the Episcopal Church, and what do Episcopalians believe?”

“What is the difference between Catholics and Protestants?”

“Is the Church of Christ a good biblical church?”

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta