Reply To A Charismatic Campbellite
Elder O. B. Mink
Retired Sovereign Grace Baptist Pastor

 


Dear Mr. H----;
    Thank you for your letter of 1/12/71. Your letter consisted mainly of caustic questions, nevertheless, while I resent the abrasive nature of your letter, I will endeavor to satisfy the interrogative aspect of it. Your letter provides me with the unsolicited opportunity to express my views on certain points of doctrine, for this much, I am thankful to you.
    By Divine enablement I shall answer your questions, and at the same time show kindness toward you in doing so. Let me say at the very outset, I am painfully aware that there is some of the old beam in my eye, and I am far removed from perfect understanding of the holy oracles of God (Romans 11:33; 8:2). Christ reserved His most scathing rebukes for the self righteous Pharisees who discerned the mote in their brother's eye, while utterly ignoring the beam in their own eyes (Matthew 7:3-5). From your letter it is apparent that you claim for yourself a high degree of spiritual learning and maturity. Could it be that you have become in some measure afflicted with the spirit of phariseeism? I ask this question, not to be harsh, but with the hope you will re-examine your doctrinal conclusions, for they are clearly impugned by the Scriptures.
    To add to or delete from God's word is a crime of the baser sort, and the penalty affixed for such unholy conduct is awesome and irreversible (Revelations 22:18, 19). Nevertheless, there are legions of men who claim a Divine call to the ministry of God's inspired record, who have never experienced the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit. With their intellectual pen knife they cut out much of the counsel of God, and with their desperately wicked heart they add to it whatever suits their emotional fancy. They are referred to as "Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever" (Jude 13). Paul warns of these self-styled preachers, saying: "From such turn away" (II Timothy 3:5).
    A man who is saved by the free grace of God, and called to preach the gospel of Christ, knows there is a "woe" pronounced on him if he in any wise alters the message which has been committed to him by the Saviour of sinners (I Corinthians 9:16). The God called man has the unfailing and heresy defeating promise that the Holy Spirit shall guide him into all truth (John 16:7-14). This promise is the antidote to preacher pride, and the preacher thusly blessed will not use his theological ability as a steamroller to run over people who take a variance with him, but being saved by the free and unmerited grace of God; will be gracious toward the would-be detractor. Ergo, the two thousand year history of Baptists is one of charity and long-suffering toward their brutal persecutors.
    Both sacred and secular history attests to the fact that Baptists have suffered more at the hands of the great harlot church than any other people. However, God in His gracious providence has kept Baptists free from the curse of a vindictive spirit, and has taught them that vengeance is His and that He will repay His adversaries (Romans 12:10). Therefore, Baptists will not resort to carnal means in order to force their convictions on others, but neither will they compromise with their enemies in order to appease their wrath.
    The Lord's preachers are called to propagate His word, and the Holy Spirit is the Overseer of God's callings and gifts, and has placed them beyond the need of repentance (Romans 11:29). To say a God called preacher can be perpetually inconsistent with Divine truth, is in essence to say: the Holy Spirit is ineffectual in His ministry, This blasphemous assertion Baptists carefully refrain from making, but they know the devil is a counterfeiter, and has meticulously copied every element of the Divine scheme of redemption, including the calling of preachers. So it is, his innumerable host of preachers are running to and fro over the whole earth with the beguiling message of self salvation, which is perfectly compatible with the depraved intellect of fallen mankind.
    The Biblical charge given to Baptist churches is: "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; ..." (II Timothy 4:2). That is preach the word when your hearers approve, and preach it when they disapprove. Baptists know better than any people that the pseu-do world of christendom is filled with malice against the Holy Spirit inspired word of God, but Baptists have incessantly and with vigor preached the whole counsel of God for two thousand years, and have suffered the vehement attitude of the world against them; counting it as a means of greater reward at the mercy seat of Christ (I Corinthians 3:14).
    Mr. Alexander Campbell said of the Baptists: "From the apostolic age to the present time the sentiments of Baptists and their practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced" (The Campbell - McCalla Debate on Baptism, pages 378, 379).
    Church historians have documented many statements of high ranking Catholics and Protestants wherein they declare that the antiquity of Baptists pre-dates the origin of all other churches, and in their statements have noted the willingness of Baptists to suffer for the faith once delivered to the saints. For verification of the claim made in this paragraph, all one need do is to make a cursory and unbiased study of church history.

So-called Holy Days
    I am glad to say that by the grace of God, I, my family, and the church which I represent reject pagan Rome's so-called holy days. Then too, we reject the good old USA's Thanksgiving Day, Labor Day, the Fourth of July, etc., as having any Biblical warrant for special observance. Baptist people are exceedingly patriotic, but they are careful so as not to let their national patriotism take on a religious nature. (Galatians 4:10).
    Our present day calendar (the Gregorian) was invented by the church of Rome, and named for Pope Gregory the 8th. That is the reason why we still have the days and the months of the calendar going by the name of pagan gods. We need a calendar tabulating the days and months of the year, and Israel with all of feast days, ceremonies and sabbaths needed a religious calendar, but God's people are no longer under the Mosaic covenant and neither are they to be religiously regulated by the calendar rituals of pagan Rome.
    Concerning the crucifixion of Christ, I believe a kindergarten student in the Holy Spirit's school of free grace will readily detect the error in the Roman Catholic hoax connotated "Good Friday" and that the  "Easter" lie is a flesh pleasing vehicle carrying all who are deceived by it further and further into the blackness of religious Egypt. To say the Lord was crucified on Friday as the day drew to a close, and that He arose from the grave early Sunday morning is to call Him a liar. It is emphatically stated three times in the books of Matthew and Mark that Christ would spend "three days and three nights" in the grave (Matthew 12:40, 27:63; Mark 8:31). The partial day theory concerning the entombment of Christ is a glaring imposture conjured up in an effort to support the "Good Friday" and "Easter" delusion.
    The thrice stated "three days" (Matt. 12:40, 27:63; Mk. 8:31), means three twenty-four (24) hour days, and not merely one full day and fragments of two other days. This God honoring truth is the death knell to the Romish "Good Friday" and "Easter" fraud, and it leaves Protestantism with no basis in Scripture for their beloved sunrise service. The devil has many soothsayers and would-be gainsayers, but none has, or will ever be able to make spiritually enlightened people believe there are seventy-two (72) hours between Friday 6 p.m. and Sunday 6 a.m. The Saviour was entombed by the gentle hands of Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57-59), as the day (Wednesday) drew to a close, and was resurrected on Saturday at the same hour. Simple math = 72 hours.
    The "Good Friday" and "Easter" lies are among the most glaring and fallacious inedibles in the Romish pot of death, but the natural man; be he ever so religious, never once questions the doctrinal Bill-O-Fare, for it looks good to his spiritually defunct vision; and thrills the taste buds of his intellectual palate. So it is, christian (?) America is following in the footsteps of rebellious and idolatrous Israel when that once God fearing nation was deceived by ancient Babylonian insidiousness. I am afraid our beloved America has fallen for modern Babylon's God debasing ecumenism, and is being led down the garden path to national oblivion. May God deliver our beloved U.S.A.
    However, I am happy to say, true Baptists have never symbolized with either Roamanism or Protestantism; nor are they in this late and critical hour soliciting the "God Church Keeping Seal of Approval" from the Ecumenical Movement. Every overture of the Ecumenical Movement toward scriptural Baptists has been met with the words: "Depart from us, ye that work iniquity."
Antinomianism
    Your statement: "We are responsible only when we hear the truth on a certain subject." (Copied verbatim). This assertion is as porous as a sieve, and will not hold the smallest gem of the precious word of truth. The most ardent advocates of this untenable theory are the Hardshell Baptists, but they were not the originators of this grievous error. Long before the Hardshells appeared on the religious horizon, the Antinomians of the early fifteenth century were unloading this wood, hay, and stubble wherever they could find a dumping place.
    Jesus preached the gospel to many who rejected His Word, but their rejection of His gospel did not in the least relieve them of their responsibility to obey it (Mark 7:9; Luke 7:30). Nothing in Scripture is more clearly stated or more emphasized than man's need to hear the gospel of salvation, and it is the God of all grace that opens the spiritually deaf ears of His elect people and causes them to hear and obey the gospel. David sang unto God, saying: "... Mine ears hast Thou opened ..." (Psalms 40:6).
    The gospel is the double edged sword of the Spirit, and He uses it in the emancipation of God's elect from the bonds of iniquity, and in conforming them to the image of Christ (I Thessalonians 2:13,14; Ephesians 6:17). Man's lack of spiritual knowledge does not alleviate his responsibility to know all that God has revealed in His word. Man's inability does not do away with his responsibility. "And the times of this ignorance God winked at: but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). May I ask, When Christ died, did He die for His peoples past sins; or for only their immediate sins? The Bible says He died for their past sins (Romans 3:25), and He surely did not die for sins they were not responsible for. Christ died for all the sins of His people, past, present, and future, and never remembers their sins against them (Hebrews 10:17).
    Your statement: "We are responsible only when we hear the truth on a certain subject," is a glorification of ignorance, for according to this premise it behooves all people to abstain from the first hearing of the gospel of Christ, and to cling hard and fast to what they believe is blissful and liberty giving ignorance. However, the Bible teaches that such ignorance is the foundation of damnation, i.e., "... The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (II Thessalonians 1:7,8). Inability to hear or understand the gospel does not negate a person s responsibility to both hear and obey the glorious and heavenly mandated gospel of Christ. Man's inability is the fruit of his own doing.
    There are multiplied millions of people in hell today who never heard the gospel while they were on earth, but they will never say, "We do not deserve to be here," for they know better than the most informed saint on earth, that without gospel repentence there is no remission of sins, and having sinned in Adam they know their damnation is just. "... He that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16), and that irrespective of opportunity to hear the gospel. That is one of the reasons why Baptists take their commission to evangelize the earth (Matthew 28:18-20), MOST SERIOUSLY. The commission mandate reads: "Teach them all things whatsoever I have commanded you," and is a commission of light, not of darkness, as you suggest.
    Adam's sin did not make void his covenant (Edenic) obligation, but brought on the threatened penalty (Genesis 2:17), whereby he became totally depraved, and utterly unable to please God. Adam lost his federal Headship, and all men being in him federally and genealogically, sinned in him, and was equally guilty as Adam and merited and received the same penalty as Adam (Romans 5:12).
    John 8:32 "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Let us note first: It is every person's inextricable responsibility of all who are blessed with truth, to put that truth into practice in their lives (James 1:21-25). It inevitably follows, the greater amount of truth we hold regarding Christ's redemptive work, the greater is our liberty from the power of sin. The word of God is like a double edged sword wielded by the Holy Spirit in the regeneration and sanctification of God's elect people (Ephesians 6:17). Christ said: "Therefore whosoever heareth these saying of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock" (Matthew 7:24). Note, Christ said: "Heareth" and "doeth". It is still true, "the tree is known by his fruit", and "every good tree bringeth forth good fruit" (Matthew 7:17). The fruit may vary in measure, but it will ever be sufficient to put the lie to antinomianism.
    The Christian is responsible to "Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (II Peter 3:18). The believer's incumbency extends to a hearing and doing of the whole counsel of God. This is not to say he will ever achieve this glorious end in this life, but it is to say; he has NO excuse for not pressing toward that prize and high calling of God (Philippians 3:14). Whatever the quantity of talents the saint may have, he is responsible to invest them wisely, so as when he appears at the mercy seat of Christ, he may hear His Master's "Well done" (Matthew 25:20-23). I would have you to understand, I lay no claim to any great degree of scholarship or faithfulness in the things of God, but the fault of my spiritual inadequateness lies with me, and not with God. Then too, I know if I would do all that which is commanded of me, I would yet be an unprofitable servant, for I would have done no more than that which my Lord has commanded me to do, and that is the Lord which hath wrought all His works in me (Luke 17:10; Isaiah 26:12).
    Your statement, "We are responsible only when we hear the truth on a certain subject", invalidates the commission which the Lord gave to His church, wherein He said: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations ..." to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19,20). According to your premise, to declare the gospel of Christ to the heathen nations would be to do them the gravest disservice, for in your notion, ignorance of Scripture nullifies all obligation to it. However, Paul said that God "commandeth all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30), and Christ said it is either repent or perish (Luke 13:3). To contend that there is God blessed irresponsibility, is to make men think they are
safe in their sins, which is a damnable heresy, bordering on blasphemy.
    In an effort to prop up your claim that men are not responsible unto God's word until they hear it preached, you ask: 'How is it possible to receive something if you don't know what it is?" According to the natural intellect, logic, or reasoning a person cannot receive or approve of something before he / she knows in some degree what it is, but we need to remember the Scriptures are not addressed to the carnal intellect, for they can only be spiritually discerned, and all men have not the Spirit (I Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:9). To affirm that a person cannot receive something until he knows what it is, is to rule out faith altogether, which is to leave all men under the curse of God's displeasure (Hebrews 11:6). Until a person is born from above, that is, begotten by the Holy Spirit, they are not only destitute of spiritual knowledge, but their heart is desperately wicked, and is "enmity against God" (Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 8:7).
    I have never read nor heard where any saved person said that he or she understood what transpired in their regeneration, and more especially so at the time of receiving the new birth. The wisest of Israel's kings, said: "As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child, even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all." (Ecclesiastes 11:5). I respectfully ask: Did you know what you received at the time of your natural birth? How many years passed in your life before you understood the elementary or rudimentary facts concerning conception, gestation, liberation (birth), and lactation? All of these are indispensable to the physical birth and well being of every infant, and biological science admits of many insuperable mysteries connected with this process. Yet, you claim the infant while as yet in the womb, must understand all the mysteries associated with physical birth before he can receive it. I TROW NOT.
    I could go along with Billy Graham's decisionism if the Bible taught natural comprehension extended to the correct understanding of the first spiritual truth, but the Bible does not so teach. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that the world by wisdom cannot know God, and the Scriptures are termed "foolishness" by the natural man. The Arminians motivated by sentimentality and functioning under a perverted notion of God's grace, present salvation as an offer to the spiritually blinded intellect and enslaved will of the natural man. They make man's will despotic in attaining or rejecting salvation, which is utter and fearful foolishness, for man left to his native desire invariably says of Christ: "We will not have this man to reign over us" (Luke 19:14).
    No matter how eloquent or persuasive a preacher may be, he can never by his own power dissuade the sin loving rebel. Every attempt to do so, even with the lowest form of human intelligence manifests a gross ignorance of the way of salvation, and intensifies the darkness of both preacher and prospect. Salvation is not a question of man accepting Christ, God NEVER presents Himself for man's approbation. Salvational prerogative belongs exclusively to God, and He exercises it as He pleases; and no man has a right to ask Him, "Why?" Let us ever keep the Biblical distinction between the Sovereign Potter, and the lifeless clay (Romans 9:20,21).
    The sovereign, eternal, and immutable order is, God accepts all of His elect people in Christ His Beloved (Ephesians 1:6), and this acceptance is based on Christ's atoning and substitutionary sacrifice, whereby He merited the salvation of all whom the Father had given Him in the covenant of redemption (John 17:2; Hebrews 13:20). "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth (worketh), but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16; Titus 3:5).
Sinlessness In The Old Nature
    Your contention for sinless eradication of the flesh caused me to wonder if you played with copperheads, rattle snakes, and drank poison, for where there is no sin there is no death (Romans 6:23). When the Holy Rollers got rid of their snakes, they should have thrown out with them the deadly heresy of sinlessness in the flesh, for it is the rankest absurdity of all absurdities. I have personally known some
men, and have read after other men who have attained great heights on the mountains of free grace, but I have never heard a one of them say, nor have I read in print where they claimed to have lived one hour free of sin. They are not proud to acknowledge this truth, but with sadness they confess it. Did not the great Apostle Paul say that he was "The chief of sinners." "Wretched" and "Less than the least of all saints"? (I Timothy 1:15; Romans 7:18,24; Ephesians 3:8). Honestly, my Dear Sir, have you not often sinned since you first trusted Christ?
    You said in your letter: "If we still commit sin it is an evident fact that we are not born again of the Spirit." For support of this ill conceived supposition you refer to I John 3:9, which reads: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." It seems as if the practice of wresting a text from its context, and thereby try and make it say something God never intended it to say will never cease. By this kind of exegetical liberty every good rule of Bible study and interpretation is violated, and wildest and weirdest conclusions are drawn. By the hop, skip, and jump method the Bible says: "Judas went out and hanged himself, Go thou and do likewise" (Matthew 27:5; Luke 10:37). This example may seem extreme to you, but we are not dealing with mere peccadilloes, but with destructive heresies conjured up by mishandling of the scriptures, and in such cases it is needful to be direct and graphic.
    In the context of the epistle of First John we read: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1:8). "If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us" (1:10). These words are addressed to Christians, and John admonishes them, saying: "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (I John 2:1). There shall never be the briefest time in the life of the saint on the cursed earth wherein he does not need to pray, saying: "God be merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18:13), "For there is not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good and sinneth not." (Ecclesiastes 7:20).
    I John 3:9 does not teach absolute sanctification of the flesh, for our sinful nature is still with us, and the greatest war ever fought on any battlefield is fought within the bosom of the saint, between his old and new natures. Galatians 5:17 "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." Sin is condemned in the flesh, (Romans 8:3) is not dormant, but deceitful and dangerous (Hebrews 3:13).
    One of the great doctrines of the Bible commonly referred to as "The eternal security of the believer," finds great support in I John 3:9. Even the professors of sinlessness cannot honestly deny that the truth of eternal security is taught in this text, for as they say, they cannot sin, it unequivocally follows there can be no falling away, which amounts to eternal security. Christ, by suffering vicariously for His people redeemed them from all sin, past, present, and future. The redeemed person is saved from the penalty of sin (Romans 8:1), and through the Holy Spirit's application of sanctifying grace, he is being saved from the power of sin; but the best wine is yet to come, which is to be saved from the presence of sin. Then, (and not before that time,) the believer shall experience total eradication of sin, to wit, even from the body (Romans 8:23). Paul said: "Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof " (Romans 6:12). This statement cannot possibly have any meaning to those who claim sinlessness in the flesh, yet it is written to the saints at Rome (Romans 1:7). It is written to warn and alert the saints at Rome of the deceptive poser of sin, and its ruinous effects.
    Let us hear from Paul again: "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (II Corinthians 7:1). Note, in this text Paul includes himself as one needing perpetual cleansing from sin. The self styled sinless eradicationists are, as they suppose, far ahead of Paul, for this dear apostle died; a sinner saved by grace. What God determined for His people to see in I John 3:9 was not sinless
perfection in the old nature, but He is telling His people in this text that sin should no longer be the ruling principle in their lives, and every son of God, while not as yet perfect, is in a warfare against the tyranny of sin.
    The "seed" of I John 3:9 is the believer's new nature which is wrought in him by the Holy Spirit in regeneration, and it is this "seed" or new nature which God in the resurrection brings from the grave, all dressed up in its bodily suit of immortality, never again to sin.
Campbellism Critiqued
    Your contention for baptismal regeneration is certainly not a novel effort. This heresy is as old as Roman Catholicism, and Roman Catholicism has been around at least fifteen hundred years longer than Campbellism. Alexander Campbell's water salvation doctrine is a counterfeit copied from a counterfeit, that was copied from a counterfeit, i.e., Protestantism and Romanism. All counterfeits are designed to deceive, and the more subtle they are, the more abominable they are in God's sight. People of our time who fall victim to the Campbellite heresy of baptismal regeneration are historically speaking, four times removed from the truth of the all important matter: first by Romanism, secondly by Protestantism, thirdly, by Campbellism, and finally in themselves.
    When people commend themselves to God on the basis of their good works, they are pathetically and dangerously deceived; for no amount of creature works, be they ever so great can atone for the least single sin. Baptism is a good work when scripturally administered. It is then a work of righteousness. But the Scripture says: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy, He saved us" (Titus 3:5). Catholic pouring, Protestant sprinkling, and Campbellite immersion has never saved one soul, for the motive is wrong, and when the motive is wrong the amount of water is insignificant. All the oceans of water combined together cannot wash away one sin, but the blood of one man, the MAN Christ Jesus has washed away all the sins of His people, and He never remembers their sins and iniquities anymore (Revelation 1:5; Hebrews 10:17).
    After reading your nine page letter, written on both sides, and seeing you did not use the words "grace" or "blood" once; a heaviness of spirit overwhelmed me. I became fearful and wondered if you were not attempting to enter heaven's wedding hall with an ill prescribed garment. The grace of God provides the true penitent with the one and only covering acceptable unto God, and that is the robe of Christ's righteousness and his acceptance is based wholly and solely on the merits of Christ's shed blood.
    Your treatment, or more correctly stated, your mistreatment of Acts 2:38 is but the sewing of an old patch on the already threadbare garment system of Campbellism. In Acts chapter two, Peter is preaching to Jews (Acts 2:5). In Acts chapter ten, Peter is preaching to Gentiles. Peter, on both occasions was preaching in the power of the Holy Spirit, and it is certain he preached the same gospel on both occasions, for the Holy Spirit has only one message of glad tidings (I Corinthians 15:1-4), and baptism is no more a part of that gospel than a shadow of a tree is a part of the tree. Baptism is a "likeness" and a "figure" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:4,5; I Peter 3:21), but this glorious ordinance has no power, and no part in the salvation of God's elect people. The gospel which Peter preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, was the very same gospel which he preached to Cornelius and his household at Caesarea (Acts 10), and this Scripture makes it irrefutably plain that Cornelius and his household were saved before they were baptized (verses 44-48).
    Campbellism teaches that Acts 2:38 literally translated reads: "Be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ in order to obtain the remission of sins." I call your attention to the word "for" in Acts 2:38 (KJV). It is this word the Campbellites have translated "in order to". But this translation is a Campbellite expedient, and is utterly void of translative support from the Greek woprd "eis", which is translated "for" in Acts 2:38. The word "eis" is used over sixteen hundred times in the Greek Scriptures, and it would be embarrassing to the Campbellites to make an etymological study of the word "eis", for they would discover that the greater part of their own lexicographers denying the "in order to" definition of the term. Philip did not baptize the eunuch (Acts 8) "in order" for him to be saved, but because he had already, with all of his heart savingly trusted in Christ. Ananias did not baptize Saul of Tarsus "in order" for him to be saved, but because he was already saved, for he was praying to God and preaching in Damascus before he was baptized (Acts 9:11; 26:20), and Ananias greeted this recently converted persecutor of the saints with the endearing term "Brother Saul" (Acts 9:17). These examples are multiplied many times over in Scripture, for it is seen in every instance of baptism of God's elect, the prerequisite of saving faith was the experience of all those who were baptized. In salvation it is ALWAYS BLOOD, before water (Hebrews 9:22).
    In the last paragraph of your letter, you say: "There are many more truths hidden in the gospel, are you willing to receive them?" From the tenor of your letter, I believe you mean to ask: "Are you ready to receive what I deem to be gospel truth?" If what you had to offer in your first letter as truth, is an example of the balance of your suppositions, then I must answer with an emphatic, NO! I am not willing to receive error at any man's hand. AD HOC.
            Oscar B. Mink
            A sinner saved by the meritorious
            BLOOD of Christ.