Place your banner ad here.          See all banner ads

|| || About || Links Library || Help Warn Others ||
|| Madison Church of Christ || Richland Hills Church of Christ || Hillcrest Church of Christ || More Churches || Sunday School in Exile ||

Where is my NewThisWeek Email subscription?Click Here

Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Ken Sublett
(no login)


January 13 2010, 1:33 PM 

The BOTTOM line is that there is NO remission of Sins or receiving A holy (washed) spirit until one
Is baptized INTO Christ
Obeys the Gospel
Obeys the Form of Teaching

No one is added by Christ to HIS church who was not SAVED by being baptized.

The rest are not STAIR STEPS to be performed but a logical sequence.
How can one HEAR without someone to PREACH?
How can they believe without hearing.
Turning directions is the logical step if you are walking into the freeway.
Confession is that which ENABLES (does not hinder) one from Calling or requesting A good conscienct.

Nextly, the letters were circular letters intended to be Scripture from eye and ear witnesses.
Every church would have an evangelist or elders to receive and teach the letters.
No one would presume to be saved without baptism
Simple Simon would be able to understand the logical steps leading up to "He that lands the fish shall eat."

[linked image]

I am so happy that God did not have to tell me to get in out of the rain.

Romans 10 lists the STEPS including CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD.
The same Paul wrote for everyone to read.

Acts 22:16 And now
why tarriest thou?
arise, and
be baptized, and
wash away thy sins,
calling on the name of the Lord.

I suspect that Paul was SITTING?

 Respond to this message   
(no login)

Not trying to twist

January 13 2010, 4:26 PM 

Dr. Bill, you said, "Here are Christ's requirements for salvation" and then you said, "did not say that Christ commanded the list"

My point remanins the same - Jesus did not make all of the requirements you noted nor did he command the list. You do not have to have heard of Scott to copy him - his teachings are so ingrained in the doctrine of the churches of Christ that we know them without ever having heard of the man who originated them. Again, and this seems to be entirely lost on this crowd - what Dr. Bill posted is nothing more than his interpretation - a sermon so to speak - and there is nothing wrong with speaking one's or teaching one's interpretation.

The error comes when you call your interpretation Christ's teachings or "Christ's requirements".

And if you do not start with Jesus when speaking with a non-Christian, any man-made list is no good at all. IN EVERY Biblical example of conversion, they started with Jesus.

Why is it so hard to recognize what is the teachings of Jesus, what is the teachings of the apostles, and what is your compilation of Jesus and the apostles teachings into your own agenda?

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

Re: Not trying to twist

January 13 2010, 6:50 PM 

So let Ray believe as he will. The discerning person, if he reads the New Testament diligently, will see that Christ requires that we hear or become familiar with the Gospel, that we believe the Gospel (which is the message of salvation), that we repent of our sins, that we confess Him as Lord, and that we are baptized for remission of sins. All of the foregoing Christ requires for us to become Christians. After that, the discerning reader will note that Christ requires all Christians to obey all of His remaining teachings that come either directly from Him in the four Gospels or by Him through His apostles in the apostolic epistles. The true Christian surely believes that the apostolic epistles are just as inspired by Christ as are the four Gospels.

I've said this over and over. Making a list does not nullify the teachings of Christ and His apostles about what is absolutely required for salvation. People must therefore decide either to understand and accept those requirements or reject them. It's your choice.

Peace to you.

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)


January 14 2010, 10:25 PM 

When you really think about it, obedience to everything that Christ and His apostles taught is required for salvation. There are certain things that Christ taught that focus on the conversion process: hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized. Then the rest of Christ's and the apostles' teachings focus on what is required of the Christian to remain a Christian in faithful obedience unto Christ for the rest of his life. The "Christ's Requirements for Salvation" list simply sums it all up very neatly. Nothing is added, and nothing is left out. People will realize that if they take the TIME to read and study the WHOLE New Testament.

 Respond to this message   
(no login)


February 2 2010, 1:23 PM 

Hello Concerned Members! I hope all of you are well. Dr. Crump I agree with Ray about your man-made creed. Aside from it being a creed, it is not titled correctly as well.

Just a few more weeks until faithsite forums will be open again. Be sure to check in. I think you will like the new "moderator" if all goes as rumored. You guys should be well rested and ready to "rumble". See Ya!

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)


February 2 2010, 3:33 PM 

So Rocnar implies that Christ did not tell us to hear the Gospel, believe the Gospel, repent, confess Him as Lord, be baptized for remission of sins, or to live a life of obedience unto Him in order to be saved. Yet all of those commandments are found in the New Testament; hence, they are by no means a man-made creed. Obedience to all of Christ's teachings and commandments is required for salvation. If man refuses to heed and obey them, then THAT is the "man-made" creed--a creed of denial and rebellion.

If FaithSite should ever reopen and be "moderated," hopefully all insults, name-calling, character assassinations, and smearings--abominable behaviors from all sides that plagued FaithSite in its former life--would never again be tolerated. In other words, all sides would present their points of view without reprisals. There would and will be disagreements, but vicious, un-Christ-like behavior would result in instant and permanent banning of the offenders. That would be the ideal. Is the "new" FaithSite going to be a fair, stand-up site in its "refurbished" form, or is it going to be a liberal, one-sided site as it once was?

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)


February 3 2010, 9:14 AM 

BTW, here's an interesting observation: "Rocnar" is an anagram for "Rancor." Coincidence? happy.gif

 Respond to this message   
(no login)


February 3 2010, 2:47 PM 

Well it's next to impossible to get anything past Dr. Crump!

Let's try again.

{Rocnar deliver} Dr. Bill!

All in fun Dr. Crump. Have a good day!

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)


February 3 2010, 10:27 PM 

Well, there's no denying that "Rocnar" IS an anagram for "Rancor," just like "Santa" IS an anagram for "Satan," but I don't recall anything written in stone that Rocnar and Rancor are one and the same person. Yet the latter anagram is a most interesting coincidence, one must admit, however.

Yes, Rocnar/Rancor/whatever, all in fun. happy.gif

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

A Parable

February 4 2010, 10:29 AM 

A college student enrolled in a particular course and took copious notes from the professor's lectures. At the end of the course, the professor gave an examination, for which the student felt that he had adaquately prepared. The student assumed that the exam would be nothing more than a simple regurgitation of facts to run-of-the-mill questions.

But the exam questions required the student to list various characteristics, properties, and traits about items in the course. This took the student by surprise, because the professor had never given any explicit lists in the lectures. The student was at a loss about how to answer the questions correctly and therefore received a poor grade on the exam.

The student felt that the exam was unfair and complained to the professor about his poor grade.

"What's the idea of making up an exam with lists anyhow?" raged the student. "You never mentioned one word about lists in your lectures! Your exam is unfair and did not cover the material in your lectures!"

"Upon what basis do you claim that the exam didn't cover the lecture material"? replied the professor. "Everything on those exam lists can be found in my lecture notes. The lists tested you to see how well you could assimilate the material and summarize it neatly. Evidently you didn't know the material well enough. You should have studied more diligently."

The student stomped out of the professor's office and thumbed through his notes again and compared them with the exam questions. Sure enough, though there had been no lists in the notes, the answers to the exam were staring him in the face. The student just hadn't taken the time to assimilate the material well enough.

Some people react similarly to Christ's requirements for salvation. They reason that since there is no explicit "1-2-3 list" in the New Testament about what Christ requires for salvation, then man must not make any kind of "list." Yet throughout the New Testament, Christ and His apostles have issued explicit requirements for salvation. Those people who have diligently studied the teachings of Christ and His apostles will have become familiar enough with those requirements and can neatly summarize them in a list for easy reference. Yet other people in rebellion against Christ will scoff at such a list and denounce it as "man-made."

To the scoffers, remember these bits of information: The terms "Bible" and "Holy Bible" are also "man-made." God never uses those terms at all in His written Word, yet the Christian world readily accepts them. Dividing the Bible into chapters and verses is also "man-made." God did not do that, yet the Christian world readily accepts it. The point is that there is NOTHING wrong with calling God's Word "Bible/Holy Bible," nor is there anything wrong with dividing the Bible into chapters and verses. Doing so makes reference to the Bible's contents much easier. Likewise, there is NOTHING WRONG with making a list of Christ's and His apostles' teachings about what is required for salvation. Such a list only makes it easier for people to know how to be saved.

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)


February 21 2010, 12:27 PM 

I posted this essay on a Facebook page called "The Bible" that has a discussion board similar to FaithSite. As expected, negative sentiments from liberal denominationalists and skeptics poured in, just as they did on FaithSite. Most of the furor centered around baptism as a requirement for salvation. One anti-baptism guy asked that if "getting wet" saves you, then what happens when you dry off? He reasoned (tongue in cheek) that you must remain wet all the time and risk getting a cold!

Of course, a religious discussion board wouldn't be complete without the usual derogatory remarks. One anti-baptism woman said I was "messed up." When S.E. from FaithSite (he used his real name on Facebook) defended baptism as essential for salvation, that same woman hurled an insult that I've never heard before: she referred to S.E. as a "water boy." Yes, the liberal denominationalists and skeptics can be quite innovative with their sarcasm, insults, name-calling, smear tactics, and character assassinations against those who preach the Truth of the New Testament.

 Respond to this message   
Your Ole Pal
(no login)


March 1 2010, 11:47 PM 

William Crump claims....."Yes, the liberal denominationalists and skeptics can be quite innovative with their sarcasm, insults, name-calling, smear tactics, and character assassinations against those who preach the Truth of the New Testament."

.....yet he tells someone at Faithsite that they are full of H.A.A.R. (hot air and halitosis) and curses at someone else.
Throwing rocks from a glass house can cause a great catastrophe indeed.

Hypocrisy to the nth degree.

Well worded indeed.

If anyone out there can't seem to find the word "well worded" in the dictionary, no need to's not there. William Crump has the auspicious mark of having 'created' that phrase. I think he should be given a 'hoo rah' for that one. It takes spunk to do so.

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

Re: Hypocrisy

March 2 2010, 1:40 AM 

I'll just refer to "Your Ole Pal" as YOP for brevity. YOP claims that the phrase "well worded" [sic] is not found in the dictionary. And he's absolutely right! YOP claims that I made up that phrase! Well, if YOP had done a bit more searching, he would have discovered that the phrase "well-worded" (with a hyphen) IS in the dictionary. So yet once again, YOP has squawked too soon.

All YOP needs to do is go to and type "word" in the "search" box. Scrolling down nearly to the end of the page, he will see the following:

Related forms
in·ter·word, adjective
outword, verb (used with object)
well-worded, adjective

So keep reading the dictionary, YOP. Throwing rocks from glass houses causes a catastrophe indeed. Falsely accusing someone of making up a phrase as YOP has done only brings embarrassment and a lack of credibility to YOP. I'd say that YOP's glass house is now in total ruins. happy.gif

 Respond to this message   
Your Ole Pal
(no login)

Thanks WIlliam Crump

March 9 2010, 12:02 PM 

William Crump, as always, becomes infuriated when someone corrects him. Why? Because he loves to correct others with their english. He even commented a while back on Faithsite that others in school referred to him as the english cop in school. William Crump, as it has been shown before, spews forth a double standard that stinks of hypocrisy. Just read the following statement from his response to me about where he become irate on me correcting him. The following statement will bewilder most, because remember....this is a retired pathologist, not a 7 year old throwing a temper tantrum. Notice the smiley face at the 'Ha, I showed him.'
"So keep reading the dictionary, YOP. Throwing rocks from glass houses causes a catastrophe indeed. Falsely accusing someone of making up a phrase as YOP has done only brings embarrassment and a lack of credibility to YOP. I'd say that YOP's glass house is now in total ruins. happy.gif"

Oh, by the way William Crump, I went to both and produced the word or phrase of "well-worded." I tried it without and with the hyphen. No cigar.
What you gave is some slang from another word. You also, in your ineptness, failed to show the word that the 'related forms' came from. Why? You thought you had found something to smear me with, and it didn't matter even if it came back on you to show how shallow and devoid of love you are. Quit digging a hole that you can't get out of William.
Remember William, get what you ask for.....more times than not.

Hey William, do you still use a word check program for everything? I never have. Now, if I spot a word that doesn't look right I will check it, but in general, I don't need my complete statements checked. I think it's wonderful that I don't need to use a word check program for chat such as this. For something that I would author, or something more important that such chat as this here, I would use a word check program. I know that occasionally I will miss a word and then it gives someone like you a chance to dig deep, find it, and gives them something to do....other than teach the Word of God falsely.

 Respond to this message   
Your Ole Pal
(no login)

Word and well worded

March 11 2010, 1:29 PM 

Is 'word' and well-worded' the same?

Didn't think so.

'Word' is found in any dictionary. 'Well-worded' is not found in any dictionary.

'Well-worded' is only a slang form, which William Crump dug hard to find from the meaning of 'word.'

It just seems weird that William Crump, who once referred to himself as the english cop, would continue to use a word or phrase which isn't even qualified within the english language to be considered an actual word or phrase. Just shows you what arrogance and pride will do for you.

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

Re: Word and well worded

March 11 2010, 3:22 PM 

I guess YOP failed to follow the link I gave about "well-worded." It is found in the dictionary IF he will only open his eyes and READ. For example, on page 2159 of The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd edition, unabridged, there is a long list of hyphenated words using "well" coupled with other words to make adjectives. There are words such as "well-occupied, "well-served," and, of course, "WELL-WORDED." YOP must use an unabridged dictionary to find "well-worded."

As far as an online dictionary is concerned, we'll try this again. Use the link Type in "word" in the Search box. Scroll down until you see the following, which I cut and pasted verbatim here:

"Related forms
in·ter·word, adjective
outword, verb (used with object)
well-worded, adjective"

Notice the heading "Related forms." "Word" is a noun, but "well-worded" is an adjective. Now if YOP wants to remain stubborn and not examine these or similar sources which prove that "well-worded" is indeed a legitimate adjective (it is NOT slang), then let him remain ignorant. That would be similar to Walt from FaithSite, who misspelled "inseparable" as "inseparateable," but who refused to correct the spelling when he was informed about it.

 Respond to this message   
Dr. Bill Crump
(no login)

Re: Word and well worded

March 11 2010, 6:38 PM 

BTW, YOP, if you went to, that is an online abridged dictionary. Just about all of the online dictionaries are abridged; hence, you won't find "well-worded" (hyphenated or not) in any of them. I'll reiterate: You must use an unabridged dictionary to find "well-worded." The online Merriam-Webster site does have a link to the M-W unabridged dictionary, but access requires a paid subscription. I own a printed, unabridged dictionary; hence, I know what I'm talking about when I say that "well-worded" is not slang, that it is a legitimate word.

Now since you apparently do not have an unabridged dictionary, do as I said earlier: go to, type in "word," hit "Search," and scroll down until you see the heading titled "Related forms." There, you will see as an example the hyphenated word "well-worded," which is an adjective.

 Respond to this message   
Your Ole Pal
(no login)

Quit Digging

March 16 2010, 9:06 PM 

Yes William, unabridged, meaning that it is more comprehensive, YET, it also means that a word or phrase that isn't mainstream and PERTINENT in today's english language would not be in an abridged dictionary. William, you're learning.....slowly, but yet it is still learning. You can teach an old dog new tricks. I applaud you.
"Well-worded" is not a legitimate word, HENCE the related form/slang form of 'well-worded' that you found under the word 'word.' You cannot find the term 'well-worded' BY ITSELF, or ALONE in ANY abridged dicitionary. Why??? Again, because it is not a legitimate part of the English language of today. Remember too, William, that even though an abridged dictionary is not as extensive as an unabridged.... it is quite extensive in itself. It covers most anything that you would need to look up with todays's English. Now do as I said earlier William......drop the shovel. The hole is getting deep.

 Respond to this message   
Ken Sublett
(no login)

Some acts can destroy your salvation.

March 6 2010, 8:23 PM 

There are some acts which can disqualify you beyond redemption. For instance,

The people who plan to sow discord and add instruments go at it slowly so that no one gets spooked. They often use the Law of the Monarchy (not The Book of The Covenant or The Book of the Law) to claim that burning the goats with instrumental noise which Christ says was not commanded is THEIR message they have received from the "spirit" to add instruments to THEIR congregation knowing and planning to sow discord.

They often deny any difference between keeping the Sabbath and observing the Lord's Day. It is appropriate after rejecting the NEW DAY OF REST that they impose the instruments which destroyed the rest.

Of course, that is the easy part: even while lying about it they intend to impose instruments on the Lord's Day and the Sabbath Worship may shut down.

The SABBATH means REST. Primarily it meant rest FROM the Babylonian worship of the SUN and starry host imposed because of musical idolatry at Mount Sinai. WORSHIP in a spiritual sense took place to rest, read and rehearse the Word of God: synagogue or church is a school (only) of the Word of God (only). What Jesus took off our backs theology has imposed in literal imitation of the Scribes and Pharisees Jesus called hypocrites by naming speakers, singers and instrument players.

Claim: Sunday was only the day of Resurrection, but there is nothing in the Bible to tell us that the day of worship has been changed! A promise of thousands of dollars dare us to take a look

Sabbath worship is becoming common in many religious groups.

There is nothing in the Bible to tell us that Saturday was ever a DAY OF WORSHIP other than by ALL of the SUN and planetery gods. For the godly people had to rest on the seventh day and the spiritual effort was on the DAY AFTER THE SABBATH.

The Israelites rose up in musical idolatry and therefore profaned the common day of rest at Mount Sinai. God turned them over to worship the starry host including the Sun and Saturn whose number is 666.

As a nation, there was no REST. The synagogue ordained by Christ in the wilderness quarantined the spiritual people from the common pagan rituals on the seventh day where they also took up the Babylonian tithe.

Heb. 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said,
......As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest:
......although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Heb. 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise,
......And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
Heb. 4:5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

Because of musical idolatry at Mount Sinai God turned them over to worship the STARRY HOST. That was always on the SEVENTH day. They never enjoyed the commande rest day God had promsied them.

Heb. 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein,
......and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Heb. 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David,
......To day, after so long a time; as it is said,
......To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

Heb. 4:8 For if Jesus [Joshua] had given them rest,
then would he not afterward have spoken ofANOTHER DAY
Heb. 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Another is the Greek: Allos is not totally different but includes THE NEXT DAY, another, i. e. one besides what has been mentioned, with Numerals, yet, still, further,

It could never mean ANOTHER DAY as a restored SABBATH. Therefore, it was the NEXT day after the sabbath.

That is why the Lord's Day is often called the Eighth Day: the day when God resumed rule.

Heb. 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest,
......he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Jesus was resurrected on ANOTHER DAY: the next day after the Sabbath. He "synagogued" with the disciples in the evening of the FIRST DAY of the week. He returned AGAIN so that the NEXT Christian synagogue met on "another day" being the Day after the REST day. Otherwise, He could not have travelled specificially for a set-time-place when the disciples would be gathered. Jesus never assembled with the Disciples as a "synagogue" on the sabbath day.

The new REST day DEPOSED the singers and instrument players from their honors. Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites. In Ezekiel 33 Christ identified them as rhetoricians (orators), singers and instrument players. He CAST OUT the musical ministrels with a word meaning LIKE DUNG. He consigned the pipers, singers and dancers to the market place with all of the other polluters inclluding the pagan temples.

Kata-Pauo 3.depose from power, k. tina tês archês, tês basilêïês, Hdt.4.1, 6.64; tous turannous Id.5.38 , cf. 2.144, 7.105; Mousas depose them from their honours, cease to worship them, E. HF685

Mousa singing, playing the lyre, Aiak moisan pherein Pi.N.3.28;

The MUSES forced the effeminate males to sing and make music to worship HER.

One of dozens of examples connecting the MUSES to the pagan gods.

Pindar Nemean 3 [1] Queenly Muse, our mother! I entreat you, come in the sacred month of Nemea to the much-visited Dorian island of Aegina. For beside the waters of the Asopus young men are waiting, craftsmen of honey-voiced [5] victory-songs, seeking your voice. Various deeds thirst for various things; but victory in the games loves song most of all, the most auspicious attendant of garlands and of excellence. Send an abundance of it, from my wisdom; [10] begin, divine daughter, an acceptable hymn to the ruler of the cloud-filled sky, and I will communicate it by the voices of those singers and by the lyre. The hymn will have a pleasant toil

Craftsmen: tektôn of poets, 3. master in any art as of poets, tektones sophoi (sc. epen) Id.P.3.113; tektones eupalamn humnn Cratin.70 (ap.Ar.Eq.530); tektones kmn, i.e. the khoreutai,

Sophos mostly of poets and musicians, Pi.O.1.9, P.1.42, 3.113; en kithara [guitar player]

Humnos a hymn in honor of a god


Rev. 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
Rev. 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians [[color=red]muses=adulterers], and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman [Techne] , of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;

Rev. 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.
Rev. 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

This identifies the Babylon mother of harlots as JERUSALEM called SODOM where the priestly musicians murdered all of the prophets Christ

 Respond to this message   
< Previous Page 1 2 3 Next >
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Place your text ad here.           See all text ads

This web site is not part of or approved by any Church!

...........................THE BOOK

What Happened at the Madison Church of Christ?

There are thousands of churches being taken over across America.

This book is only about one of those churches. It's about the Madison Church Of Christ. By studying the methods used here along with the resource references you might be able to inoculate your church. At the very least you will recognize the signs early on.

Many of the current members of the Madison Church of Christ still don't know what happened.
Some never will know! This book is for them as well.

Madison Church of Christ was a 60 year old church. At one time it was one of the largest churches in the US, and the largest Church of Christ.

It thrived for many years on the vision of it's elders and those of it's ministers. Those visions undoubtably came from the the inspired word of Jesus Christ.

At sometime in the last 10 years there was a deliberate plan by a majority of the elders to take the Madison Church of Christ into a more worldly realm.

They used secrecy, covert planning, and outside sources to scheme and to change the format and direction of the Madison Church of Christ.

The Elders knew that the membership would never approve such a plan. Using the tools of the "Community Church Movement"(consultants, books, seminars, meetings,planters,seeders) they slowly started initiating change so it was never noticed by the members until it was too late.....

At the heart of the plan was the fact that old members were going to be driven off so new techniques could be used to go out and reach the unchurched through new "Contemporary Holy Entertainment" methods developed by the "Community Church Movement"

Old members had to be kept on board long enough to get their plans ready, or the funds would not be there to pay for the new building. So by the plans very nature, it had to be secret.

The church had no plan in effect to renew or approve elders. There was never any need. The elders had always been "as approved by God". 10 of the last 15 elders would begin to shed some doubt on that.

The Elders did not even need a majority at first, because some of the elders went along unwittingly.

This edition starts shortly after some of the members begin to smell something strange in January 2001. Later editions may go back and fill in some of the timeline.

To even start to understand whats happening here, you must read the background materials in the first of the book.

This is only the first edition, and not the end. New editions will be printed as needed. To keep abreast of current changes, please visit our web site;

Here is the list of players;

5 Godly Elders
10 Not so Godly Elders
120 "Deacons" (allegiance unknown)
2,800 - 4,000 church "members"
2 "teners" (people who have publicly confessed to have broken all ten commandments)
Unknown number of "sinners" (This is what the 10 elders call us.)
Unknown number of "demons" (Flying everywhere, to many to count)

Click Here......The Book is Available Now FREE

Place your banner ad here.           See all banner ads ...About ...Links Library ...Sunday School in Exile ...Help Warn Others

FastCounter by bCentral

CM Visit Counter as of 6/25/2015

Site Visits Since 6/30/2015
page counter