Archive for Ecclesiology
Wes Kenney Motion
Posted by: | CommentsWes Kenney presented a motion during the convention at Orlando that was referred to the Executive Committee. The following is the motion in full:
I move that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 15-16, authorize the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to consider any church’s affiliation with the Alliance of Baptists to constitute an action to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior.
Some may try to call this “guilt by association”, but it allows the Executive Committee the authority to make a determination during the year instead of waiting six or seven months after an incident. Also, it keeps precious business time from being consumed on the convention floor.
The catalyst for this motion was the DC City Council bill that was passed legalizing same sex marriage. The bill presented to the DC City Council was based on a Declaration that was authored by Clergy United for Marriage Equality. This group has for its members an area DC Baptist pastor the Rev. Dr. Amy Butler. Dr. Butler is Senior Pastor of Calvary Baptist church in Washington DC. Calvary Baptist, while not sending messengers to the convention, is sending ACP information to the Southern Baptist Convention and thus is listed as a Southern Baptist Church. Also if you scroll down to the signatories of this declaration one will find Rev. Stan Hastey, Alliance of Baptists. Rev. Hastey is not just a representative of the Alliance of Baptists but he is Executive Director of this group The Alliance issued a position statement on same sex marriage back in 2004 as follows:
“Affirming that our federal and state constitutions exist to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority and in the context of the current debate over same-sex marriage, we of the Alliance of Baptists decry the politicization of same-sex marriage in the current presidential contest and other races for public office. We specifically reject the proposed amendments to the constitution of the United States and state constitutions that would enshrine discrimination against sexual minorities and define marriage in such a way as to deny same-sex couples a legal framework in which to provide for one another and those entrusted to their care.
As Christians and as Baptists, we particularly lament the denigration of our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender sisters and brothers in this debate by those who claim to speak for God. We affirm that the Alliance of Baptists supports the rights of all citizens to full marriage equality, and we affirm anew that the Alliance will ‘create places of refuge and renewal for those who are ignored by the church’.”
While many in the Alliance openly affirm same sex marriage the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is not quite ready for that step, or is it?
This recent article reporting a break-out session that was attended by nearly 300 persons is one reason we see a need for the Kenney motion. While Kenney’s motion does not identify the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship it may not be long before a motion similar in language may be needed. Why would I say such a thing? Notice the position one of the presenters at the 2010 Cooperative Baptist Fellowship gathering takes. George Mason, Pastor of Wilshire Baptist in Texas presented the following thoughts in a break-out session of approximately 300.
“I can tell you that my mind has changed and I am seeing differently on this over time.” That has disappointed some people, he said. “As a pastor, I have known the pain of people who have left the church I serve because I was too conservative about the matter – and people who have left because I was too liberal about the matter.”
“A family conversation about same-sex orientation is not necessarily about behavior,” Mason said. “Some people think different orientations don’t exist, that there is only acting gay and sinning as a result. Others say people are simply born one way or the other.”
“I’m not certain about either position,” Mason said. “It seems that people are more on a continuum about their orientation. That’s uncomfortable.”
Mason noted that the few biblical texts that mention homosexual behavior are more likely to be about specific acts like rape or pederasty, and that “the Bible seems to be silent about orientation.”
It appears that now the position of non-committal is the favored position of the CBF. There is only one step left for this organization to take and that is the position of orientation. Orientation is the only viable position left for those that want to say they believe the Bible but be seen as scholarly by the academy. In the orientation position the ungodly behavior is not the fault of the person it is the fault of the Creator. If the CBF position of non-committal prevails, I believe, within five years the position on same sex marriage of the CBF will be the same as the Alliance of Baptists.
Great One Liners
Posted by: | CommentsHere are some one liners from a Pastor named Kevin DeYoung, who is the Pastor of the University Reformed Church in E. Lansing, Michigan. These one liners are great quotes. Read, enjoy, and learn from them. Here they are:
• The Church is Christ’s bride. And why is it that so many people think it is cool to diss Jesus’ girlfriend?
• In this day with so much postmodern squishitude people are hungry to listen to someone winsomely, humbly, wisely, say—with passion and conviction—‘Thus saith the Lord.’
• What will it profit a man if he tries to transform the culture, but loses his own children?
• As long as God is interested in his glory, he will be interested and committed to the local church. He has a vested interest in your church. Nobody loves your church more than God.
• Those of you who have issues with the church, let me warn you that disillusionment can become an idol. You can easily find your identity in being jaded.
• Our generation in particular is prone to radicalism without follow-through. We want to change the world and we have never changed a diaper.
• Can we be the young generation that loves and respects and looks up to the older generation?
• The Church is, in fact, the hope of the world, not because she gets it all right, but because she is a body with Christ for her head. So do not give up on the church. The New Testament knows nothing of churchless Christianity.
Landmarkists? Really?
Posted by: | CommentsJ. R. Graves, who was such a major influence for Landmarkism in W. TN and Western Kentucky, was also a major player in the development of Union University in Jackson, TN. Dr. James Pendleton was also a major influence for Landmarkism in Southern Baptist life, and he was a former President of Union University. These two men probably did more to influence the Mid South in the area of Landmarkism than anyone else. Of course, there are many others in SB history, who were real Landmarkists. Men like B.H. Carroll and J. M. Carroll, and many other, influential leaders in SB life held to this view of ecclesiology. Landmarkism slowly died in SB life, and sadly, its departure also meant that SB seemed to slowly ignore ecclesiology; began to look upon it as seemingly unimportant; or started to give it just a passing glance. That’s the way it almost appears, anyway. So, a group of people out there began to talk about good, sound ecclesiology. And, it seems in this day and age, that there are some people, who claim that Landmarkism is not dead in SB life; due to this group known as the BI(Baptist Identity) fellas stressing sound ecclesiology. They say that Landmarkism is being promoted by a group of SBC purifiers, who want the SBC to be a Landmark fortress. And, these decriers of Landmarkism claim that the so called “BI” fellas, or the “Bapstist Identity” crowd, are the ones, who are promoting this ecclesiological view. And, there have been all kinds of accusations and misconceptions floating around about what the “BI” crowd is promoting; what they actually believe. But, are the “BI” fellas really Landmarkists? Could they really be classified as Landmarkists, or do they just believe in good ecclesiology? I want us to take a look at how some of these fellas believe about doctrines that surrounds the basic beliefs of Landmarkism, and compare it to real Landmarkism. I’m going to ask a series of questions, and I’m going to ask each, so-called, “BI” fella to respond to the Landmark belief, or to the misconceptions of some people out there, with his view of these things. Then, let’s compare that to true, real Landmarkism. Answering these questions are: Robin Foster; Matt Brady; Wes Kenney; and David Worley(Me).
Question #1: Do you believe that a Southern Baptist Church can trace it’s beginning to the Lord Jesus Christ? that there’s been a trail of blood? that a true, SB Church has been in existence from Jesus until now; as the Landmarkists believed?
Robin: I don’t believe that JM Carroll’s trail of blood is correct in its theory. I do believe there has been a “free church” tradition witness throughout history, whether or not one can call it a “Baptist” tradition as we see it today I question. Baptist churches, as we know them today, I believe got their start from Smyth and Helwys, while we have a spiritual connection with the Anabaptist of the reformation.
Matt: True churches have existed from the time of Christ and will exist until He returns. I believe my Southern Baptist church to be one of those true churches. I am not so concerned with the ability to list the particular name of every true church that has ever existed in historical and geographical order back to the church at Jerusalem as the Roman church tries to do with popes back to Peter.
Wes: If by that do you mean that the baptism of everyone in my church can be traced back through churches authorized to baptize in an unbroken line all the way back to the Apostles, then no, I don’t believe that. I believe that there have always been, since the time of the Apostles, faithful New Testament churches in existence, and I base this belief on Jesus’ promise that He would build His church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18).
David: I agree with the others that the trail of blood idea of J.M. Carroll is not correct. I do believe that there has always been NT churches in existence thru out history. I don’t believe that they were Baptist churches, and I know that they weren’t Southern Baptist churches. But, they were NT churches, which preached the Gospel.
Question #2: Do you believe in closed communion? that only the members of a local Church should take the LS together, as Landmarkists believe?
Robin: No. We practice “close” communion which to our understanding is inviting anyone to the table who has received Jesus as their Lord and Savior and has participated in believers baptism by immersion. With this, I do believe that communion is a church ordinance and should only be practiced among the gathered local church.
Matt: Our church follows close communion. Just as a family gathers together around the meal table, it is the church family that should gather together around the Lord’s table. If we have others of like faith and practice in attendance, we do not forbid them as I suspect that the believers at Troas did not forbid the Apostle Paul when he met with them on the day they celebrated the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). Occasionally we will have guests that will be invited to eat with us at the table.
Wes: While I am sympathetic to this view based on Paul’s warning against partaking without “discerning the body” (1 Cor. 11:29), I am also in harmony with the Baptist Faith and Message on this point, and have no problem serving in churches which admit anyone who has been scripturally baptized to fellowship around the Lord’s table.
David: I believe in a modified close communion view. I do believe that the LS is a Church ordinance. I do believe that it should be observed by the Church, with others of like faith being welcomed to participate. I do believe that baptised Believers should participate in it. I do not believe in being so rigid that we’d have the LS police making sure that only baptised Believers of like faith are taking the LS with us. I would not make a big deal out of who should, and who should not be taking it. But, when I preached on it, and when we begin the LS; I would gently remind everyone about these things.
Question #3: Do you believe that SB Churches are the only true Churches out there in our world today, as Landmarkists believe that Baptist churches are the only true churches?
Robin: No.
Matt: By definition a Southern Baptist church is one that gives money to missions through the Southern Baptist Convention. Giving through the SBC cannot possibly be the measure of a true church as true churches existed long before 1845.
Wes: No
David: No
Question #4: Do you think that only SB’s are going to Heaven? that they’re the only ones that are really saved? (This is a misconception that I continue to hear from people concerning the BI fellas)
Robin: That is just simply ridiculous. Salvation is by grace through faith and is lived out among the saints in a local New Testament Church.
Matt: Had the Conservative Resurgence not taken place, I probably would not be a Southern Baptist today, but I would still be a Christian. Salvation is determined by grace through faith and not by any organization of man.
Wes: No
David: I have to agree with Robin that it’s absolutely ridiculous that we’d even have to respond to this kind of a question, yet I keep hearing it from people. My answer is “NO.”
Question #5: What baptisms would you accept? In other words, what would be the bare, basic things that would have to be true before you would consider it a true baptism? that you would accept without asking the person to be baptised? (Landmarkists would accept only Baptist baptisms; baptisms done by another Baptist church)
Robin: Baptism by a local church, by immersion, as a symbolic representation of union to Christ, death to sin, and resurrection to eternal life, “never to die again.” Romans 6:3-11
Matt: A member of our church must be baptized by immersion after conversion by a church whose baptism is an ordinance of symbolism and obedience to our Lord’s command and not a means of grace.
Wes: I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message, which defines scriptural baptism as “the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the beliefer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.” The BF&M also identifies baptism as a church ordinance. So as long as someone’s baptismal experience fits this definition, and took place under the authority of a local church, then I believe it to be biblical and would encourage my church to accept it as such.
David: I agree with the Baptist Faith and Message, as well.
So, hopefully this will clear things up just a little bit about who these “BI” guys are, and what they really believe. Maybe? I hope so.
Baptist History
Posted by: | Comments“We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the Reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin was born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the Apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.”
Update: This is a direct quote from Charles H. Spurgeon. I add this update for any and all of you, who do not read the comment thread. I want you to know that I did not write this. Charles Spurgeon did. I was just having a little bit of fun with some people, who love Spurgeon, yet they don’t like Landmarkism, and they don’t seem to like the so-called BI guys. Spurgeon appears to be more of a BI guy than the BI guys!
What Happened to the Church being a Covenant Community?
Posted by: | CommentsI would like to thank SBCToday for allowing me to guest blog on the topic of Church Covenants. I miss the daily interaction and fellowship with these guys so allowing me to post is a tremendous blessing. The piece below is actually part of an article I will include in a church newsletter. Whether you agree or disagree, I hope that you all are in some way blessed after reading it.
What is a church covenant? A church covenant is a commitment to God among fellow brothers and sisters as to how they will conduct themselves under the Lordship of Christ in their mutual relationship as fellow members of a New Testament church. Baptist churches have used covenants since their beginning. As one Baptist historian stated, “[Baptists] have written and used hundreds and perhaps thousands of church covenants” (Charles Deweese). But why were church covenants used by our Baptist forefathers and are seldom used today?
Do Baptisms Matter Anymore?
Posted by: | CommentsIn our day and age of ecumenical awareness and knocking down the walls of denominations, are baptisms important to people anymore? to Churches? With all of the people saying that they would accept any ole kind of baptism, whether it be sprinkling, pouring, or whatever, is it important about the kind of baptism you have? With some people in Southern Baptist Churches saying that they would accept any baptism, as long as the person was saved, and the baptism was by immersion, is it important who does the baptizing? I mean, if momma’s can baptise their children in the backyard mudhole after they lead little Johnny, or Susie, to the Lord; and it be acceptable to a SB Church; does that not scream some things loudly about that Churches view of baptism? So, do baptisms matter anymore? Are people even concerned with a doctrine and practice that seems to be a very important one as you’re reading the NT.
I really believe that part of the problem today, which some people and some Churches have in some areas of ecclesiology, is that they have a John Wayne, rugged individualist, “I did it my way” mentality. And, this mentality rubs off on their view about baptism, and really, about the Church in general. And, we see this in the thinking of people when they say things like, “I ‘m satisfied with my baptism, so I don’t want to get baptised by a Baptist Church. I want to join your Church without being baptised again.” We see this kind of thinking when Pastors say things to the effect that it doesn’t matter if a new convert is baptised by an individual person in a hot tub, or if they’re baptised with the Churches presence and by the Churches blessing. It doesn’t matter to them that the Church is not involved in the baptism. Why? because it’s an individual thing, rather than a Church thing. In their view, it is a personal thing that happens outside of the Church.
You know, when you look in the Bible, baptism is a group thing; not a “lone Cowboy on the range, riding in the sunset as the coyotes howl” thing. The Lord set up the Church to be a fellowship of Believers. The Church is supposed to be where people are baptised, and taught the Word of God, and discipled, and encouraged. The Church is supposed to always be a group of Believers, who are seeking the Lord together. So, why would baptism not be a Church ordinance? Why would baptism be something that an individual could just do…out there… somewhere….apart from the Body? Why would the Church today let Western philosophy turn baptism into an individuals own personal possession, rather than something that the Church does and participates in? Could it be for convenients sake? Could it be to get more members in their Church, because they know that some people will not join their Church if they have to have a proper baptism? Could it a real reluctance to deal with controversy on the part of a Pastor? Could it be ignorance of the Bible? Could it be the desire to “fit in” with the greater, evangelical group out there? To accepted by the “cool group?” What do you think?
Well, baptism is supposed to be a testimony of the person’s conversion. Baptism is supposed to declare a message, the Gospel, to the people watching it. Baptism is supposed to be a symbollic picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. Baptism is a picture of the blood of Jesus washing away the guilt and punishment of our sins. Baptism is supposed to be a way of formally accepting a new born baby in Christ into the Church. So, why would people even think that it’s something that’s an indvidual thing? Why would they even want baptism to be an individual ordinance, rather than a church ordinance?
Folks, baptism is a time to celebrate the new birth. Baptism is a time to rejoice in the salvation of a person. Baptism is a very special thing, and it’s something that all the Church should have the privilege to participate in. Baptism is a time for the entire Church to join with the baptismal candidate in this wonderful ordinance given to the Church by the Lord Jesus. How much would be lost and missed if everyone was just out there baptising people in their own, private hot tub, or swimming pool, or local swimming hole in the creek? I think a lot would be missed. We would be missing much of what the Lord intended to do in the life of a Church, if the Church is not allowed to participate in the baptism of new converts.
So, who should get baptised? Of course, those people who get saved by grace thru faith. Acts 2:41. Acts 10:44-48. Acts 16:30-34. How should they be baptised? By immersion. Matthew 3:13-17…Jesus came up straightway out of the water. The very word for “baptise” in the Greek means to dip under, to immerse. So, if you want to do it right, the way the Bible clearly teaches, then it must be a dipping under; an immersion. What should baptism be about? It should be a declaration to the community that a person has been saved. It should be a testimony that the person has truly, sincerely put their faith in Jesus, and they’re willing to obey Him as their Lord. Who should baptise? The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Great Commission was given to the Church. Matthew 18:20. The beginning of the Church was standing before the Lord Jesus that day. The Apostles were standing there, who were commissioned to preach the Gospel to the world, and baptise the new converts, and disciple them. They were the men that God used to get the Church that the Lord Jesus founded going. The Church should be the one who baptises new converts, so that they are involved with a Church family; to be nurtured in the faith; encouraged; taught; loved; affirmed; accepted; challenged; inspired; and given much needed guidance. The Church is the one, who was given this task by the Lord Jesus, it’s Head.
So, what a Church believes about salvation and baptism does matter. Who is doing the baptising does matter. It says a lot about a person’s beliefs. I mean, if you get baptised in the Church of Christ, then you are identifying with their view of baptismal regeneration and works salvation. If you get baptised by a Mormon Church, then you are saying that you agree with them about works salvation, denying the Trinity, denying the atoning death of the Lord Jesus. If you get baptised by an Assembly of God Church, then you’re agreeing with them that salvation is not an eternal work of God; that it’s something that can be lost. If you get baptised in the Methodist Church, sprinkled on top of the head, then you were not properly baptised by immersion. And, these are not true baptisms. Now, I’m not saying that these people aren’t saved. They most certainly could be saved. But, their baptism is not a valid, proper, true baptism. They should be baptised for the right reasons, and in the right way.
Now, please don’t come into the comment section calling me a Landmark Baptist. lol. I don’t believe that Baptist Churches are the only true Churches, or that we can trace our lineage back to Jesus, or that SB’s are the only ones who can baptise. Puulease. Listen, if Muddy Creek Community Church believes like we do about salvation and baptism, then we should accept their baptism as a true baptism. If Possum Ridge Bible Church believes as we do about salvation and baptism, then I believe they have a true baptism. So, please don’t come in here with all the Landmark comments. I really don’t have the time, nor the energy to deal with that malarky. But, I do believe that baptism is important. And, it should be done right, and for the right reasons. And, I most certainly believe that it should be a Church thing.
Podcast Episode 22
Posted by: | Comments
This week on the podcast, we discuss issues surrounding the allegations made by a Dallas area television station against Ed Young, Jr., and Fellowship Church. Joining us as our guest to help define some of those issues is Dr. John Mark Yeats. Dr. Yeats is assistant professor of church history at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and author, along with his SWBTS colleague Dr. Thomas White, of Franchising McChurch, a book that deals with issues of commercialism and “branding” among large contemporary churches. We went over our self-imposed time limit of half an hour, but hopefully listeners will find the discussion to be worth the time.
You can use the player below to listen to the podcast, or you can click the image in this post (or the sidebar link) to be taken to our iTunes page. There, you can subscribe to the podcast, download past episodes, write a review, or give us a rating. All of the above are strongly encouraged. And please leave your comment here with suggestions for how we can improve future podcasts or for guests you’d like to see in the future. And as always, thanks for listening.
Links to some items discussed:
Enhanced Podcast: One Lord, One Vote
Posted by: | CommentsA good deal of discussion in Baptist life, even some on this site, has focused upon the role of elders in the church. How should those who hold this biblical office fulfill their role within the congregation, and how should they relate to the members of the church? Much of this discussion goes ultimately to the question of how the church is governed. Is it to be ruled by elders, or are the elders to lead, with the responsibility for making decisions remaining with the congregation as a whole? As Southern Baptists, we have clearly and, I believe, biblically, answered this question in our statement of faith.
Read More→
No Longer a Church
Posted by: | CommentsIn my most recent previous post on SBC Today, I discussed “The Unique Authority of the Local Congregations.” In the text of the original post itself, I mentioned my own uneasiness with Christ’s conferral of so much heavenly authority behind the actions of the local, gathered, covenanted church. In the ensuing comment thread, we discussed whether this local churchly authority could possibly supersede the authority of the New Testament or otherwise empower human believers to employ heavenly power to thwart heavenly aims.
The Danger of Self-Diagnosis
Posted by: | CommentsMany sons of the prophets have taken to pronouncing the impending doom of the Southern Baptist Convention. Pointing to falling baptismal rates, rising ages, and static churches, we have summoned the intervention of the successful to rescue the perishing and care for the dying. As the summoned practitioners meet in special session this week, the patients fight it out in the waiting room about the deliberations until we receive the prognosis and path of treatment. A possible merger of the IMB and NAMB, a possible partnership with Acts 29, or a restructuring of the Cooperative Program have all been prescribed as the solution to what ails us from the Web MD of Baptist blogdom. Not to be pedantic, but I would encourage us to look to the Great Physician for the proper diagnosis before we give the prognosis based on a self-diagnosis.
Standing before Jesus, Peter makes his confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus then responds with a gnomic principle, “Upon this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it” (Matthew 16:16, 18). I will make two presumptions. 1) We agree that the rock to which Jesus refers is Peter’s confession, and not Peter himself. 2) The existence of local churches is irreplaceably important to Christ. This leads me to deduce that, if the Southern Baptist Convention is indeed destined for the doom pronounced by the aforementioned prophets, it is not ultimately due to irrelevance, but to unfaithfulness. As the SBC stands on the brink of another time of transition, I would encourage us to remember two things.
First, let us not become so consumed with baptismal numbers that we forget that when all is said and done, baptism is not the goal, conversion is. Though baptism is our method of measurement for the effectiveness of our outreach, we must be careful that the method of measurement does not become the goal itself. In other words, if we increase baptisms without increasing conversions, we have settled for a lesser gospel, and indeed, a false gospel. A true biblical confession will involve baptism, but if we are not careful, we will separate baptism from a true confession.
The second truth we must bear in mind from this text is that the success of the futuristic, not -yet-existent universal church cannot be separated from the success of the present day local church. The activity of God is primarily seen in the local church. Not that God is dependent upon such, but God has ordained such. I pray that as we seek to return our focus to the Great Commission, that in doing so, our focus will return to the local church over and above the development of our own kingdom. Our investment to the Kingdom of God is an investment that is made in, with, and through the local church. When Jesus said His church will be built upon the rock of Peter’s confession, based on the rest of the New Testament witness, He certainly involved the building of the eternal church through the local church.
Of course, the promise of Jesus is that, given the proper confession of His people and the power of His word, the church will not be overpowered. So, need we fear the death of the Southern Baptist Convention? No, for life is a byproduct of Christ’s promise of the success of the local church built upon the confession of her members. Let us not fear the death of our beloved Convention, for upon it the Kingdom of God does not reside.
Rather, let us fear the loss of the New Testament confession of Christ as our Lord within the local churches. If we maintain the preeminence of the local church and a proper confession, our churches will flourish. If our churches flourish, our Convention will flourish. If we have healthy churches, we will have a healthy Convention. It is one thing to know the symptoms of the sickness. It is quite another to know the path to wellness. The Convention may be able to describe the symptoms, but they are incapable of producing the cure. As the Task Force deliberates today, let us pray for their focus not to be upon the programmatic and structural success of the Convention. Let us pray for their hearts to be focused upon the local churches and how they can be encouraged to maintain a healthy confession of Christ as Lord. For in Him alone is there life abundant.
