ConcernedMembers.com

Home

About

Links Library

 1. Change Agents
 2. Church Growth
 3. Oaths & Covenants
 4. New World Order
 5. Hitler & the NIV
 6. Hegelian Dialectic
 7. Do Elders Rule?
 8. Holy Entertainment
 9. Books
10. Watchman Database

Authors:
    Paul Proctor
    J.E. Choate
    Gary McDade
    Wayne Coats

Editorials:
    Secret Conversion
    NIV, Alert Level-5
    Sublett Exposed
    Some Call It Heresy
    Precious Moments
    Trick or Treat

Petitions
   1. Madison Church of Christ

Forums
    1. Churches
    2. SundaySchoolinExile

Chat Room

Quote of the Month

Mail Bag

POLLS - VOTE
See How Others Voted

Know Your Bible

New This Week
   ARCHIVES

Concerned Members
        Calendar

Interviews

Subscribe yourself or a
friend to our email updates.

Enter Your Email

HELP US
Get the
Message
Out

Spiritual Sword

A Special
Presentation
About The
Community Church
Movement

Place text ad here
See all text ads


Place your banner ad here.         See all banner ads




COME ONE - COME ALL, STEP INSIDE THE CHURCH CIRCUS TENT, get Your Babies, Pets, Dolls and Toys Affirmed, Dedicated, and Blessed.
by Wayne Coats


IT'S EXCITING - TOUCHING - TITILLATING

W. Wayne Coats

Some time ago I wrote a brief article in the Plumbline Paper about some Episcopal priest who was planning to hold a special service where pets would be blessed. I have not understood just how blessing pets would help them. Futhermore, I do not understand how getting the pet blessed would help the owner. There has to be some other purpose which would cause one to palaver over a pet with some sort of pagan or heathen rite.

Of course some folks will try any fool notion in order to get attention make people feel good and whoop up a bit of publicity. Some of my brethren cannot be still in matters of blessings. They seem to have a case of St. Vitus dancing and they seem to be afraid that they will be in arrears of the sects in affirming, dedicating and blessing all sorts of things.

Before me is a copy of a chruch bulletin from the Woodmont Hills family of God in Nashville, Tennessee. The Woodmont Hills family belongs to Rubel Shelly. In the bulletin, Shelly wrote an article which he titled "God Loves Babies." The article says: ...our elders approved a proposal that we have an annual New Arrivals Day. The idea was to affirm families in general and children in particular. It has turned out to be one of the most excitnig and toching days of the year for this church...Be with us Sunday to participate in New Arrivals Day at Woodmont Hills. Remember it was Jesus himself who said, "Let the litttle children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

There are several things in Shelly's article which need to be considered. Notice where he said, "...our elders approved a proposal that all have a New Arrivals Day". Considering all the proposals which the Woodmont elders have approved, one should not be surprised at anything those elders would approve. One thing is sure and certain. There isn't enough conviction in all the Woodmont elders, the preachers, counselors, staff and members combined - to make even the least attempt to defend the digressive proposals and practices which continue to pour faith from the Woodmont apostate church.

Anyone who is even remotely aware of what the Bible teaches and who has respect for the same can discern the gross heresy and flase teaching which is characteristic of the Woodmont family. I do not know what it would take to convince some people that Rubel Shelly freely admits that he no longer believes and teaches what he used to teach. Obviously the elders feel the same way. There is no telling what kind of proposals will be forthcoming from Woodmont Hills.

With the liberalism and modernism which Shelly espouses, "an annual New Arrivals Day" is extremely mild. When men become spiritually bankrupt, some new thing has to be inaugurated. The heathens in Athens spent their time hunting for some new thing [Acts 17:21]. Human nature has not changed since the Greeks were seeking for the new and novel!

One might as well quote scripture to a hound dog as to try to reason with modernists and liberals. Dealing with their sympathizers and supporters is no more successful.

There has developed a mania among some who have turned to the weak and beggarly elements and such is demonstrated by observing, "...days and months and times and years" (Gal.:10].

Such foolish actions were wrong for the chruch members in Galatia. Let someone explain how the identical practice is right today. Why was such observances wrong for the Galatia brethren? Is it not the case that God has instructed us in that which he wants us to observe? Are there scriptural matters which we must observe? Why must we observe such matters? Are there unscriptural practices which we must avoid? If so, why do we determine that such practices must be avoided? Are we at liberty to observe days, months, times and years as we please? With what spirit do we begin to observe special days? It is a presumptuous spirit. And where do we stop? How did the Catholics manage to arrive at all their holy days and seasons? How have the protestant denominations managed to have all there special days? Why are we having so many brethrens disposed to ape the Catholics and Protestants?

Rubel wants his special, " New Arrivals Day" and what will his elders do about Ash Wednesday, Monday, Thursday or Good Friday? When will they have a big occasion Palm Sunday? There are many folks who are not satisfied unless they are engaged in some sort of special event.

The carnal minds of Galatia were obsessed with that which appealed to the flesh. They were exactly like the modern pleasure seekers who have a veil of humanism covering their eyes.

Brethren used to be satisfied with observing the Lord's Day. Now some cannot be content with such a commonplace matter. The Lord's Day must give place to "New Arrivals Day." If John were alive today, I wonder if he would, "...be in the spirit" on New Arrivals Day? When all the huffing and puffing, pawing and scraping has subsided, the scriptures will still condemn the observance of special days, but the liberals couldn't care less.

Please notice that, "New Arrivals Day" is to, "affirm families in general and children particularly." If there is such benefit in affirming families and children, why in heavens name will the practice be limited to certain families and children? Why not affirm everyone? Why not do this every week? Will the affirmed families be closer to God than those not affirmed? Is there some benefit which comes to an affirmed family which does not come to a family which is not affirmed? Which family is better equipped to serve God?

If the affirmed receive some sort of benefit from getting affirmed, why not construct some sort of room inside a church building and set appointments for Catholics have their confessional booths and we challenge our brethren to please explain the difference in affirming and absolving. Will Shelly absolve the babies who get confirmed, affirmed and infirmed?

What is the purpose or idea of affirming families and babies? Webster defines the word, "To say something and be willing to stand by its truth; assert positively." An affirmative statement says that a given propostition is true. The opposite of the affirmative is the negative. The affirmative suggests a negative and the negative suggests an affirmitive. Are all those families to be affirmed living in the negative before they get affirmed?

The denominations use the word "confirm" but Shelly's church uses the word "affirm." There isn't hairs-breadth difference. The sad part is that the members repose in blissful ignorance about what is happening and some who know, do not care.

Whatever benefits might accure to families in general and babies in particular as a result of being affirmed, could said benefits be increased if the affirmed families went to a number of affirming churches? It doesn't make any kind of sense to stop at one affirming spectacular. Why not find out where all the affirming churches are and visit each of them and get affirmed several times. I'm serious in every question I ask.

If parents have twins or triplets, does the Shelly crowd affirm the parents once, twice or three times? I knew some parents who had two babies during the same year. I suppose such parents could be affirmed twice. It is amazing how much fermented ignorance I have accumulated about all this buisness of affirming babies and I am positive that my situation will not improve for no man will attempt to read my questions and give sensible answers there to.

Yes sir! That annual New Arrivals Day has become one ot the, "....most exciting and touching days of the year," for Rubel's church. It doesn't take much to get some folks excited. Any fool practice which brethren can ape will be introduced, if it is exciting enough. Some church members have a sound, sensible, scriptural purpose in worshipping God, whereas others want to get excited.

The whole purpose of the practice of brethren affirming babies is based upon the novel, the exciting, the trivial and has no relevance whatsoever to the word of God. Let some brave soul step forward and try showing Biblical authority for all the fool practices upon the part of far-out, left wing liberals. That will not happen.

I raise the point for my brethren to consider and said point is, where shall we stop when we get so far afield as to be obsessed with the exciting, the thrilling, the titillating, the frivolous, the fun and frolicking attitude?

At what point do we refrain from the excitable? Who will be able to tell us? That which excites some families might not be acceptable behavior with other families. Baby day at worship is an exciting day for Shelly. People like to get excited. Why not have an exciting day for wives who enjoy having adulterous relationship with another man. Maybe brother Rubel would want to propose a day of excitment for such folks. Why not? If the object is to plan something for excitment, "A New Arrivals day" is extremely limited in the excitment which it can furnish for some folks. My argument is unanswerable. The road to hell is crowded with all kinds of folks who get excited, caught up into a state of euphoria, ecstasy, and even now the cult who, "giggles for God."

Some lady called me on the phone and she was extremely upset and asked what she should do about her husband who had been going to some sort of Pentecostal outfit. She said the people were hugging and rubbing each other and her husband just wanted to stay with those folks. This is but another example of the tomfoolery in which people participate when thy need to get excited. The old heathen temples had prostitutes which assisted with excitment for the hell-bound pagans. We have made a bit of substitution, [-maybe-]. We are well known for a herd of characters who are "destitudes" - of the truth.

Rubel tells us that the, "New Arrivals Day" is a "touching" event. Some folks like to get "touched." Again if getting, "touched" is the result of having a, "New Arrivals Day," then those who feel a physical and an emotional need to be touched can find fulfillment.

There are any number of ways to get touched and brother Shelly can tell you about that which is, "exciting and touching." What does Shelly propose for those in the Woodmont family who want to get "touched?" Of course the answer is to affirm babies.

Some people are so warped and twisted in their thinking that they will resort to all sorts of ludicrous things in search of excitment. If one church isn't exciting enough, another funny crew will be found. I do not think the Lord I serve died on the cross in order to furnish a bunch of wackos something called, "the church" so they could find an occasion to frolic.

We will have a "New Arrivals Day" because Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." For anyone who has an ounce of respect for the Lord and what he said, the Shelly ruse is ridiculous. The disciples were contending about who would be greatest in the kingdom [Matt. 18:1]. Jesus knew exactly what the disciples were complaining about. He called a little child and used the little one as an example of humility [V. 4]. The Lord told his disciples that they could not enter into the kingdom of heaven, unless they became converted and were as little children. When Rubel holds a baby before the church, does he use it as an example of conversion? It is used as a picture of babies entering the kingdom? What is his point?

Our Lord said that only such as are like little children in humility, would enter the kingdom. If we are not humble we will never be willing to enter the kingdom. The proud, haughty, puffed-up person wil not be such as will enter the kingdom. What in the name of reason does affirming babies have to do with what Jesus said and did?

GET YOUR BABY DEDICATED

A bit of information is gathered from a letter which Phillip Black wrote to brother O. B. Porterfield and which was printed in the Seibles Road church bulletin in Montgomery, Alabama. Over at the Carriage Hills church were brother Black preaches they were having a "Baby Dedication Sunday." Brother Black wrote: We ask parents of babies born during the past year to bring them forward. An elder says a special prayer on behalf of them, paricularly, that the parents, and all of us at church, will join together in bringing them up in the Lord. Then we present them with a Bible for the child with its name inscribed on it.

Please point out to me the error in this.
I certainly mean no harm but the foregoing sounds exactly what some Methodist preacher would write.

I wonder where brother Black got his ideas for a, "Baby Dedication Sunday." He did not find any such foolishness in the New Testament for observance among Christians. What is the source? The source is the denominational pattern. Anyone who is able to run around loose by themselves in Alabama should know that the "Baby Dedication Sunday" is nowhere taught in the word of God as an express command. There is no apostolic precedent for such frivolity and the practice cannot be sustained as a matter of being an expedient. There is no inference that babies should be dedicated. In the absence of direct command, apostolic example, or necessary inference, by what authority doest thou these things? More will be said with respect to authority at the close of this effort.

In an announcement which appeared in the Nashville Tennessean we noted,
    Children's Day will be observed at Vine Street Christian
    Church and Hillsboro Presbyterian church Sunday morning
    At Vine Street parents will be present with their babies for
    prayer and dedication by the minister....
Among other things the notice informs us where brother Black has gone to get authority and information about dedicating babies.

When a Christian church pastor dedicates a baby what is the status of the baby thereafter? When the Carriage Hill crew gets through with a baby what is the status of the baby? What is the difference in a Presbyterian pastor dedicating a baby and using a little water and brother Black dedicating a baby dryshod? How and why would brother Black object to someone using a little thimble of water for dedication? Surely no one would be so mentally deranged as to think that two tiny drops of water dropped on a baby's head during dedication would harm the little tyke. Futhermore, who would say that refusing to put a little dampness on the upper end of the baby would be a serious neglect? So, why object to a bit of moisture during a dedication? The baby won't revolt. why try to defend a baby dedication and oppose sprinkling? I do not believe a sane person would even try to attempt such a ridiculous effort. I would not venture a guess that brother Black would oppose sprinkling for baptism. It wouldn't surprise me if he practicited effusion. If not, he might as well. The same source from which he borrowed his dedicatory rite will afford him a source for sprinkling a baby will not do any harm to the little one.

Would the folks who dedicate babies on Sunday declare that such is a mere expedient? I don't know what they would say. It looks as if they want others to do the saying, and just let brother Black do the doing. I'm sure all that hullabaloo and ballyhoo about babies could be used as a crowd-pleaser but would that make the event acceptable to God? When we start doing something in order to please a crowd of people, again to begin and where to stop?

Do we dedicate babies in order to swell the attendance? If that is the case since when does the end justify the means? When do the people of God condescend so low as to live by one of the most insane rules ever to be devised?

There were a number of things dedicated back under the old law of Moses. Such were solemn events decreed by divine law with specific instructions given for the performances thereof. To "dedicate" in its verb form comes from enkainizo and denotes "to make new, to initiate, to dedicate." The first testament was dedicated with blood [Heb. 9:18]. Does the Carriage Hills family burn a bull in the baptistry when they palaver over babies? When ancient altars were built by Israel, they were dedicated in ceremonial fashion [Num. 7:10-11]. Among other things incense was burned. Who slings the incense pot at Carriage Hills? Tell us please. We are trying to be serious and provoke a few thoughts instead of snarls.

A man could return from the battlefield and dedicate a new house [Deut. 20:5]. Will the Carriage Hill bishops begin dedicating all the new houses in Montgomery? That would be such a touching cermony and think of all the publicity which such stunts would gather. They could bless the house, present a prayer on tape by the Alabama Governor and give the blessed family a large family Bible.

How gloriously impressive!

Since the concept of "initiate" ingeres within enkainizo, the families under the Old Covenant practiced a dedicatory rite when they circumcised a little boy according to the command of God. The little fellows were given the initiatory rite of circumcision as a sign of purification. When this rite was performed one was a Jew outwardly [Gen. 17:10; Rom. 4:11]. He had been dedicated and initiated by cicumcision. When will brother Black dedicate babies by circumcision? I'm positive some Jew in Montgomery could explain how touching the initiation can be.

To dedicate/initaite in its noun form conveys the idea of commencement, inauguration, starting point, to cause. In its verb form we dedicate/initiate when we begin, commence, embark, usher in, launch, get going, break out, originate. In its adjectival form the idea of dedication/initiation is that of incipient, rudimental, primal, natal, in its infancy, from the beginning. Try to imagine what all a baby has, is, and will be when pastors and presbyters finish with their holy wow upon, in, to , and at the babies. No doubt the half will finally be told.

The Methodists do not practice circumcision as an initiation but they claim to practice sprinkling "in the room of," or instead of circumcision. By sprinkling, a baby is thus initiated into the Methodist church. At least that's what I learned from the Methodist bishop when I sat in his classes and had to memorize sections from, "The Methodist Discipline." I beg, urge, implore and insist very strongly that brother Jack enlist the services of a Jewish Rabbi and the assistance of a Methodist District Superintendent to assist in those touching occasions when the "Baby Dedication Sunday" is held.

Of course the "Rabby" would need to attend to the circumcising on the Sabbath and the D. S. could hold forth with sprinkling on Sunday. How wholly holy and hallowed some brothers can be!

When Lynn Anderson babbled about the church of Christ being, "a big stick denomination," he was looking in the wrong direction. The Lord's church is not sick. There are some pygmy, dwarfed, caricatures around. Some church signs over the doors does not represent the Lord's church. The candlesticks are removed and Jesus had puked out such disgusting, disgraceful, and devillish circus outfits.

Our brother Black asks parents to bring the babies forward. So does the Methodist pastor. An elder says a special prayer. So does the Methodist pastor. The elder prays for the babies and the prayer is special. So is the prayer of the pastor at First Methodist. That special prayer includes the parents, "and all of us at church..." What is so "special" about that prayer? I have been instructed to believe that every prayer is very, very, very special. Am I wrong? For several months, I disciplined myself to study what the Bible teaches on the subject of prayer. A prayer to the infinite, eternal God is not made special when some babbling bishop is palavering to be heard for his much speaking.

We are living in a time when most everything has to be specialized. Church folks have to be fed special diets consisting of special events, special performances, special prayers, special solos with special persons being in charge. There is a specialist for every event.

I've heard preachers pray in legislative halls, and I've heard some holy-wow prayers at the one-gallus fox hunters show and not anything is as, "up on all fours" as an eloquent utterance of some frocked clergyman at the National Walking Horse Celebration.

The Carriage Hill elders could get some real pointers for their special prayers for babies by attending one of those coon-dog events at Cherokee, Alabama.

Can you stretch your imaginatioin to the point of attending and affirming, dedicating, ceremony where parents take their infants tho the front of a church building where some preacher or bishop takes a baby in his arms and breathes a blessing on it? So the preachers ape the prelates and do the sign of the cross? Why not? Do they take cotton, spit, and oil [with holy saliva of course] and get the babies dedicated? With enough hot air, the hour of dedication could be most holy to most people.

Brother Black tells us that the elder prey a particular prayer that, "...all of us at church, will join together in bringing babies up in the Lord." Now that sounds like a mighty fine prayer for all the church to join together in bringing babies up in the Lord. I never did know that it was the responsibility of the church to bring up my babies. I thought that was my job [Eph. 6:4]. We certainly missed out on not being brought up by the church. The nation is reeling and staggering under the burden of social welfare programs where irresponsible prostitutes and whoremongers of every ilk and strip can have babies at the expence of others. Brother Black and the world can smile or sneer at me if they please but it is not the obligation and responsibility of the church to bring up the children of parents. That is the responsibility of parents. A congregation can provide teaching, instruction, and that which is conductive to developing strong Christian families but the responsibility rests upon the parents. I believe brother Black will concur that I am right in this.

Presenting a Bible to be given to an infant is a wonderful gesture. I would be supportive of giving a Bible to every baby in the whole world. There are nearly five billion people in the world and most of them are lost and headed for hell. Many of them have never even seen or heard of the Bible. You draw your own conclusions. I believe brother Black needs to be given a Bible.

One other case will be considered ere we conclude this little epistle. The Stones River Church in Murfreesboro, Tennessee has scheduled in their church bulletin a notice about a "Baby Blessing" for Sunday, December 19, 1995. Some woman had questioned brother King about the event and he wrote and editorial titled, "Is A Baby Blessing Biblical?" The brother said, "Blessing is certainly a biblical topic." That should convince the inquisitive sister and silence her forever. I doubt not that brother King delved down as deeply as he possibly could into his storehouse of biblicism and now with great gusto he blesses babies because "Blessing is certainly a biblical topic." The implication of the above is but a lame attempt to justify the practice of that which is within the sphere of a biblical topic. "Is A Baby Blessing Biblical?" "Blessing is certainly a biblical topic." How can we respond to such wisdom and brilliance without being offensive? What would you say? Brother Shelly affirms babies, brother Black dedicates babies and brother King blesses babies. What else do brethren do to babies? How many parents will take their babies and get them affirmed, dedicated and blessed in these liberal churches? That would be some baby for sure.

Since blessing is a bible topic, let us get our babies blessed. Wonder which school brother King attended to become so brilliant?

I am dead serious and honestly desire to know. Have I missed the school of logic completely?

Would you take the position that one could perform a particular act or function upon a little baby based upon the fact that a specific topic is found in the Bible? In other words, when we find some biblical topic, can we take a baby and relate it to the topic? This means, we will do thus and so to, with and for a baby because thus and so is a biblical topical. It is worse than sheer nonsense for anyone to take such a baseless position but it is par for the liberal element.
I may miss the entire point but if we analyze the situation it appears that brother King is saying:
    1. If, since and when a topic is biblical - it may be practiced, observed or performed.
    2. Blessing is a biblical topic.
    3. Therefore, blessing of babies is biblical.
If the first statement in the above is a premise, it is as false as it can be. Just because a topic is biblical does not mean that the subject or topic can be practiced by Bible authority. There are thousands of topics mentioned in the Bible.

Julian Hunt wrote a little booklet in which he sputtered and prattled about instruments of music being mentioned in the Bible. He took a long leap and assumed that the mention of those things was sufficient reason to play those instruments during worship. Some things mentioned in the Bible can be observed, in fact they must be, however there are many things mentioned in the Bible which we are forbidden to practice.

Let's try another silly-gism.

    1. If, since and when a topic is biblical, it may be practiced, observed, or performed.
    2. Adultery and fornication are biblical topics.
    3. Therefore adultery and fornication can be practiced biblically.
Since cursing and swearing is a Biblical topic, why cannot brethren curse little babies during Sunday show-off occasions? The first premise is false and must not be observed.

We have saved the least until the last and it is absolutely too puerile for a reply but for the sake of helping someone who may be willing to receive help in these matters, we will at least put forth an effort.

Brother Black closed his letter to brother Porterfield wherein he had explained some of the events which occurred on, "Baby Dedication Sunday" by saying, "Please point out to me the error in this." There is the little end of the tap root in the entire fallacy of the brothers denominational practice and he resorts to sectarian jargon in the effort to escape his responsibility, by putting the burden of negative proof onto someone else. Cultic clergymen are so very familiar in using this escape mechanism. Ah, but it works when a false teacher gets tied and cannot run. The usual whine is, "Whuts wrong wuthit?" That is what the digressives ask when they are questioned about tooting their trumpets. They make a mountain which towers beyond the clouds by saying, "You prove where the use of instruments in worship is wrong." How does one answer such frightful, perplexing, vexatious, shocking, profound and dynamic observations?

Isn't it a bit trite for me to say, "I'll do my thing and you point out to me the error in this." I believe we might call that begging the question, but there is much more begging involved.

If I engaged in some religious practice and someone asked me about the practice, I would feel very ashamed to say, "Please point out to me the error in this."

Is it actually the case that my religious beliefs and practices are based upon the premise that no one has come to me and pointed out the errors of my faith? Must I continue in my ways until someone else points out my errors? Where does my responsibility begin? I do not object for a second when anyone points out my errors. I am saying that as a member of the church of Christ, I have some responsibility which cannot be thrown to others. I am responsible for the errors which I embrace. Why try to put the monkey onto the back of someone else?

A preacher nearby sprinkles babies and christens them. I ask for the authority and he retorts, "point out to me the error in this." A young Mormon elder [??] stops by and he has his speech memorized about the book of Mormon. I ask for some authority for that which he is peddling. He knows how to answer by saying, "point out to me the error in this." He would be delighted to get me in the position of affiming a negative. If you want me to deny your practice, then for heavens sake make some sort of affirmative statement or argument. All I need to say is, "Show me the authority for your belief and practice." I certainly have the right to ask and be asked about biblical authority for that which people believe and practice. Biblical words do no necessarily prove Biblical authority. If that were the case, we would have authority to follow the devil.

As a religious people, we have always been known for our insistence upon submitting to the authority of God's word. By following this rule, we have been able to meet every foe who would dare to assail the truth. Do the cults, sects, denominations and liberals not know this? Indeed they do. Jesus set the example by saying, "It is written" [Matt. 4]. It worked with the devil and it certainly works when one of his imps get a bit brave. Why did the Holy Spirit say, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God..." [1 Peter 4:11]? When Steven preached before the council he spoke about, "...our fathers who received the lively oracles to give unto us" [Acts 7:38]. It is a shame that we have brethren who refuse to give the word of God to those who need it.

The Bible still teaches,
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him"
[Col. 3:17].

I do not doubt that those who burn incense, listen to women preachers, attempt to absolve from sins, play on their musical instruments in worship, dedicate, affirm and bless babies, feel real good in those things, but the issue is authority. We keep asking people to produce authority for all the liberal practices and innovations which they are introducing. If there is Bible authority, it should be given without any hesitancy. The crux of the matter is that people have no respect for authority and secondly they feel no need to submit to or give Bible authority for any or all of their liberal practices.

An interesting parallel for all the blessing business of some of our spiritually bankrupt brothers can be seen in the following account of a Christian church pastor who blesses dolls. Read the account carefully as given by brother Steve Miller who sent the item to me.

BABY DOLL DEDICATION
Steve Miller
"The First Christian Church will hold a special baby
doll dedication for new dolls this Sunday. Children
may bring their doll to the 10:30 a.m. service
to be blessed."


The above appeared on the front page of the Moundsville Daily Echo, Friday, January 5, 1996. It is not surprising to read of a denominational church having a baby dedication which generally includes infant baptism. However, it is a rare sight to observe a baby doll dedication in the manmade churches. We view the above as being absent of Bible authority. We also view it as being near the top of the list of the foolishness and ignorance of man. Let us observe the progression of sin with the above illustration in mind. Occasionally one will hear of brethren having a "celebration of life," or a "new arrivals day" where special attention will be given to newborns in a particular congregation. Some are so bold as to call the occasion a "baby dedication." And while these brethren have not disagreed to the point of sprinkling infants,they are still practicing a doctrine of man that is not authorized by God!

Can we see the pattern of apostasy working in our liberal brethren? Yes! How long will it be until Shelly, Lucado, Walling Boultinghouse, or other liberals begin dedicating, blessing, or baptizing Barbie and Ken? "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further:
    for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was."
    [II Tim. 3:7-9].

35 Maple Ave
Cameron, WV 26033

I am most hesitant to mention the matter of dedicating those baby dolls, for without doubt this practice will be copied by the liberals within a forthnight. Can you imagine our preachers spending all their time blessing children's toys? It is my judgment that many of them would be as well off blessing toys as babbling in the pulpits. They do not say anything of value but parrot a bunch of nonsense.

Maybe brother Black and those who think like him would like to, "point out the error" in dedicating dolls. If the Christian church pastor and brother Black were discussing the subject of dedicating babies and dolls, would they be willing to exchange their blessings? Why not? Will brother Black dedicate dolls? What would he say to a Christian church pastor who dedicates dolls? I do not believe he would say anything. If the pastor should say to the preacher, "point out to me the error in dedicating dolls," what would Phillip the preacher say? If I was in that situation, my answer would be, "deponeth saith naught."



Please let me know when this page is updated

Place your banner ad here.         See all banner ads