Are you saying Jesus behaved in such a way that was radically different than the way he is not revealed in Scripture?
In my many years of discussing against OSAS:
I have come to discover that there are 4 different schools of thought concerning OSAS.
1. Classic OSAS:
You can live like the devil and still be saved (Ignoring any or all moral laws).
(I have talked with folks at TOL (Theology Online) who believes this and I have talked with one guy in person who believes it, too).
2. Mid Range OSAS:
One must generally live a holy life, but one or two unrepentant sins and then dying in those sins does not mean you are not saved.
(I believe most here holds to this view but the jury is still out on any final or complete analysis).
(For some here have even said you can commit suicide and still be saved. Like.... what?).
3. OSAS Lite:
One must be holy and righteous in order to be once saved always saved; If not, one was never born again. This is also false.
(Granted, I can call these individuals my brothers and sisters because they do not condone a sinful lifestyle or make any excuse for sin; However, it is still a false teaching, though).
4. Not OSAS (But it is hard to tell that they are not OSAS) type people:
This group claims they do not believe in OSAS but they hold to many of the beliefs pushed by OSAS proponents. They often side more with the OSAS proponents and they very rarely do not side with the Biblical Conditionalist.
If you want to talk about the fruits of OSAS.
1. George Sodini.
This man was the poster child for OSAS and he turned out to be a mass murderer.
So basically if you listened to this guy and was like.... Yeah, go Sodini, go Sodini. Preach the Word. Rightly divide! Oh, wait.... what did he do?
GEORGE SODINI
2. Former OSAS Proponent Audio Testimonies:
Testimonies of former eternal security believers
3. Suicide & OSAS:
A tragic story of an OSAS believer.
4. A Pastor's Testimony on OSAS:
A testimony about OSAS by a Pastor's wife.
5. Hooked on Sin & OSAS:
Out Of Darkness | NO Eternal Security | Christian Testimony
(In fact, most all OSAS propnents I have talked with have claimed that it is impossible to stop sinning; In fact, one person here has claimed it is heresy for a believer to say that we can stop sinning; Like doing good is somehow evil now? Whaaaat?)
valiant;2078134[QUOTE said:
I am sorry but that statement is ridiculous. You may know people (who are possibly not saved) who talk like that, but a true believer in eternal security sees it as being a consequence of the fact that it is Jesus Who is saving them (John 6.39; 10.27-28). They believe that God is working in them to will and do of His good pleasure (Phil 2.13). That is why they seek to work out what God has worked in them (Phil 2.12). They believe that God has made them a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5.17). They believe that if they slacken off in allowing Him to live through them they will be subject to chastening, even severe chastening (Heb 12.3 ff). You argue in favour of being able to sin and not surely die in this paragraph. The consequences for what you call "slackening off in allowing God to live through them" is "severe chastening."
The Bible teaches different. It says...
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Willful sin after having entered into the New Covenant and having therefore been sanctified by the blood reaps immediate condemnation. You don't believe that even though the Bible clearly states it is a fact in the above passage.
The chastening of Hebrews 12 is presented in the context of sins not unto death, ie. sins of ignorance, not the "willful sin" of Hebrews chapter 10. We cannot treat the Bible as a menu and pick little bits and pieces whilst ignoring other parts. The message of the Bible is a harmonious whole.
The "will and to do of His good pleasure" is a reference to growing in grace and knowledge to maturity, NOT sinning/rebelling less. There is no rebellion to God in salvation, none.
You assert that Christianity is a mere "belief" in being a "new creation in Christ" whereby one still "slacks off in allowing God to live through them."
"Slacking off in allowing God to live through you" = "Refusing to abide in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ."
It is to reject grace and trample the blood of Jesus Christ.
The statement of mine quoted above stands true and your response affirms its truth because you assert this positional/abstract notion of salvation.
On the other hand they rejoice because He has made it possible for them to be accounted righteous in Christ (Rom 3.24-25). They are confident that there is no judgment on those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8.1). And the consequence of their being in that position is that the Spirit works in them to counteract and defeat the fleshly nature (Rom 8.2 ff).
Romans 8:1 says this...
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who WALK not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. You are disconnecting the WALK from the "no condemnation." Look at the next 3 verses...
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
It is the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ which sets us free from the law of sin and death. We are set free from sinning unto death via abiding in Jesus Christ. That means when we are WALKING according to the Spirit we are not in a situation where we are sinning unto death. This is how the power of God works, it is MANIFEST and we experience it as a MANIFEST REALITY. It is not positional or abstract at all.
The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who WALK after the Spirit.
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
The sons of God are only those whom are led by the Spirit of God. If one is not led by that Spirit then one is not a son of God. Remember the words of Jesus...
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Joh 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
Disobedience to God does not mix with being set free from condemnation. We cannot obey Satan and God at the same time. We have to choose whom we will serve and not be double minded about it.
Justification is connected to "redemption IN Jesus Christ."
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Being IN Christ is an abiding state. Being IN Christ means to be abiding in the Spirit of His life (Rom 8:2). There is no condemnation upon us if we are in that state. If we are willfully sinning there is most definitely condemnation. Remember Heb 10:26 specifically states that there is only a fearful expectation of judgement if we willfully sin, this is why the willful has to stop. Stop as in NEVER again.
Your problem is that you think in terms of 'OSAS' instead of the saving power of Jesus Christ. Salvation is not dependent on us (any more than our being cured in a hospital is due to us). You are wrong. The problem is with what you believe. Salvation is dependent on "working together" with God.
2Co 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
You have to completely ignore that verse or pretend that it doesn't mean what it says in order to uphold what you believe. Paul wrote those words immediately after...
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
We are only "made the righteousness of God IN Him" so long as we are "working together with Him" which means we are abiding in the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ whereby the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us. There is NOTHING positional about it, it is a practical manifest reality. It has to do with the true condition of our hearts.
"Workers together" from 2Cor 6:1 means this...
sunergeō
From G4904; to be a fellow worker, that is, co-operate: - help (work) with, work (-er) together.
Cooperation requires TWO not one. If we do not cooperate with God then we receive God's grace in vain.
Look at how James ties the forsaking of rebellion to God with receiving the implanted whereby an outcome of salvation can be achieved.
Jas 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
God leads the way with the word but we have to DO it. Salvation is dependent on us DOING.
Even Jesus said that it is the DOERS who will inherit the kingdom.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
How can you possible proclaim that salvation is not dependent on us? It is certainly not dependent on "us alone" for we cannot save ourselves apart from the grace of God, we cannot save ourselves apart from the implanted word, we cannot save ourselves apart from the Spirit of life In Jesus Christ. Yet that doesn't mean we have nothing to do with it. Jesus said we have to strive, dig deep, count the cost, die in order to live, keep his commandments, keep his words etc. You are denyiing the very words of Jesus Christ. Why deny those teachings? It is foolish.
It is a consequence of Jesus Christ being our SAVIOUR. It is a task in which He will not fail. It is He Who is saving us, not we ourselves. And warning passages are there like spurs to spur us on in our walk with Him. But they do not mean that He will desert us or fail in His task. If an Isrealite had refused to leave Egypt would they have been saved from bondage?
Well would they?
Jesus is only the saviour of those whom follow Him. Those who refuse to follow Him receive the grace of God in vain, that is what the Bible teaches.
WE have to build our houses upon the rock. God does not build our houses for us. You are asserting that we don't have to do anything and that God does it all. If you stick that that belief then obviously you don't really believe in the Jesus of the Bible, you believe in some other Jesus as twisted by the doctrines and rhetoric of men.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. That is exactly what Paul was accused of. Because he also taught that salvation was wholly the consequence of the gracious activity of God (Rom 3.24-29) he was accused of saying 'let us sin that grace may abound' (Rom 6.1). As he then pointed out (Rom 6.2-11) that was wholly false. He pointed out that because salvation was the activity of the unmerited love and favour of God the consequence was that Christians died to themselves and allowed Christ to live through them. They reckoned on themselves as dead to sin and alive to God (Rom 6.11).
Salvation is via grace THROUGH faith and that is speaking of the working dynamic of cooperation which produces purity of heart. Grace is not "unmerited favour," grace is the free provision of God provided to all men to direct them to life. Grace is the divine influence of God upon our hearts. We have to make grace effectual to the saving of the soul through a working faith. In other words we have to DO what God commands us to do.
We have to YIELD to God.
Of course salvation is the result of the gracious activity of God, the grace of God is the light directing all men where to go. Without grace there would be total darkness and we would be lost. When Paul spoke of "abounding grace" the context is that of how God's grace has remained available to men even when they are still in rebellion, thus grace has abounded when sin has abounded. Paul asks if we should continue in sin that grace abound even more? Certainly not he says, for if we have indeed experiences the cross then we ought not be serving sin anymore. Our old man is crucified, the body of sin destroyed, whereby we no longer serve sin. He who is dead is freed from sin. This has to happen.
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Believe what the text actually says and stop imposing rhetoric upon it. The law was used to set a standard which contrasted wickedness. Yet when wickedness was abounding the grace of God abounded even more. Does this mean we ought to sin magnify grace? NO!
Don't we realise that if we are dead to sin then how could it be possible to continue in that which we are dead to?
Paul connects being "baptised into the death of Christ" with "being dead to sin" with a cessation of "serving sin." Instead we WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE. We don't walk in the oldness of sin if we are Christians. We may err in ignorance and need correction (ala 1Cor in promoting one teacher over another or using human courts to solve disagreements between Chrisitans) but we don't SERVE sin, we don't sin willfully. We are slaves to whom we obey and obedience is related to how we exercise our will.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
There is no possible way you van believe what the above scriptures plainly state and at the same time assert things like...
Salvation is not dependent on us
The Bible specifically teaches that WE HAVE TO OBEY. Obedience from the heart to the doctrine once delivered is what sets us free from sin. That is Bible. Why oppose it?
Salvation is All to do with us being made perfect before God. Initially we are saved from the guilt of sin (Tit 3.4-7; Rom 3.24-29). We are ACCOUNTED as righteous and perfect in Christ (Rom 3.24; Heb 10.14). Consequent on that our Saviour works on us and in us to save us from the power of sin (1 Cor 1.18). His final aim is that we be presented perfect before God (Eph 5.25-27; Phil 3.21). Yes there is growth in salvation but such growth is not rebelling less or slacking off less. The growth is the purging of ignorance as we grow to maturity.
We are only accounted righteous so much as we have a faith that works by love which fulfills the law. God reckons FAITH as righteousness and faith has a corresponding walk because faith is ACTIVE not passive.
OSAS teaches that there is NOTHING a "saved" individual can do which can bring condemnation. Thus if a "saved" individual knowingly steals a lollipop they still remain justified. Likewise if a "saved" individual knowingly rapes and murders people they still remain justified also.
OSAS = Saved IN sin.
The Bible teaches saved FROM sin (Mat 1:21) and the Bible teaches that we are slaves to whom we obey. If one is obeying sin then one is still in bondage serving sin, they have not been saved from it.
The salvation of OSAS is not salvation at all, it is a mere descriptive term for some nebulous abstract position which people can find comfort in whilst they continue in their rebellion to God.
As far as Original Sin goes I have no beef with it.
Where does the Lust of the eyes, the Lust of the Flesh and the Pride of Life come from? Inherited from Adam?
I guess if you don't understand Original Sin you can't understand the dire predicament we are in.
Here is an article I wrote on Romans 5:12 where I clearly show its context by carefully comparing scripture with scripture.
The Pearl of Great Price: Spiritual Death
Augustine twisted Romans 5:12 because he fell victim to a mistranslation found in the Latin Vulgate in which it is "in whom" is used instead of "because of" or "for that."
Augustine took Hebrews 7:9 and read the Gnostic fundamentals he held to into that verse and thus concluded that all human beings were actually present in Adam when he sinned. Thus by combining his views of both Rom 5:12 and Heb 7:9 Augustine concluded that all human beings were actually guilty of Adam's sin and that all human beings also "died" in Adam.
The Bible does not teach what Augustine concluded. Augustine is the father of the inability doctrine (born a sinner) which pervades the nominal church today.
This is all the same crap that the Moral Government Theology people teach...Gordon Olson, Winkey Pratney, Harry Conn, Jesse Morrell. Most of it is just Charles Finney's theology repackaged..Pelagianism.
I am guessing you've drank from their toilet bowl.
Let us reason together please.
Please consider what I have written. Read it a few times and reflect on it. Feel free to ask any serious questions. Quote a section and use the Bible to demonstrate it false. I am happy to engage. Please do not resort to empty quips, name calling or empty rhetoric. Respond with substance.
I am not a proponent of Moral Government theology.
Please demonstrate exactly what is "crap" instead of trying to discredit by association. Post with substance instead with Ad Hominem.
We can only reason together if you present your opponent's case fairly and accurately. I repeat your portrayal of those who believe in eternal security was RIDICULOUS. It was a TOTAL PARODY. You set up a MAN OF STRAW. It had nothing to do with the truth. It is YOUR statements which are empty and pure rhetoric.
How about the teachings of Charles Finney? Do you think his positions are correct?
I am not a proponent of Moral Government theology.
Please demonstrate exactly what is "crap" instead of trying to discredit by association. Post with substance instead with Ad Hominem.
Charles Finney was a false teacher and I have written articles on his theology. Would you like to see one?
Originally Posted by valiant;2078134
I am sorry but that statement is ridiculous. You may know people (who are possibly not saved) who talk like that, but a true believer in eternal security sees it as being a consequence of the fact that it is Jesus Who is saving them (John 6.39; 10.27-28). They believe that God is working in them to will and do of His good pleasure (Phil 2.13). That is why they seek to work out what God has worked in them (Phil 2.12). They believe that God has made them a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5.17). They believe that if they slacken off in allowing Him to live through them they will be subject to chastening, even severe chastening (Heb 12.3 ff).
Originally Posted by Skinski7
You argue in favour of being able to sin and not surely die in this paragraph. The consequences for what you call "slackening off in allowing God to live through them" is "severe chastening."
The Bible teaches different. It says...
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Your problem is that you do not understand the Scriptures. The writer was writing to JEWS who were considering following Christ and were being deterred by the possibility of severe persecution. What he is pointing out here is that if they sin wilfully (as we all do) AFTER they have received the knowledge of the truth (after they have been made aware of Jesus Christ as their Messiah Who was sacrificed for their sins) they can no longer rely on Judaistic sacrifices. 'There remains no more a sacrifice for sins'. The Old Testament sacrifices are no longer valid.
Furthermore they will be crucifying Jesus Christ afresh, for they will be deliberately siding with what their fathers did.
Willful sin after having entered into the New Covenant and having therefore been sanctified by the blood reaps immediate condemnation. You don't believe that even though the Bible clearly states it is a fact in the above passage.
It doesn't teach what you say at all. YOU have sinned wilfully since you were converted (I will assume that you have been converted). Did that immediately result in your having no further hope? Of course not. You repented and God forgave you. That is why we pray daily, 'forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.' It is because we KNOW our wilful sins can be forgiven.
To be succinct, Charles Finney denied the fundamentals of Evangelical Christianity, including the following: Original Sin - Original Sin is a false teaching brought into nominal Christianity by Augustine of Hippo in the Fourth Century. This is very easy to establish as fact simply by reading the Bible, the Ante-Nicene Father and the works of Augustine.
Imputed Righteousness - The Bible teaches that faith itself is what God reckons as righteousness (Rom 4:5). The "Imputed Righteousness" commonly taught today is a reference to a forensic legal transaction whereby the obedience of Jesus is somehow credited to the believers account and serves as a cloak. Thus God pretends the believer is righteous when they manifestly are not. The "imputed righteousness of Christ" doctrine was invented by the reformers, in particular Martin Luther who termed it the "Blessed Exchange."
Justification by Faith Alone - The Bible says nowhere that "faith alone" justifies. In fact the only place where "faith" and "alone" appear near each other in the Bible is in James where it says...
Jas_2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement. - The doctrine of Penal Substitution is only 400 years old and was invented due to a "lawyer" view of the death of Christ. Penal Substitution actually denies that God forgives sins for it has the penalty being paid by another instead of being remitted. It is an absurd, illogical and unbiblical doctrine. It gives people comfort in their sins that they will inherit the kingdom due to some perceived cloak of righteousness and God's wrath already being satisfied.
Which of these do you deny? All of them?
Charles Finney was worse than a Pelagian. He out-Pelagianized Pelagius.
The problem with Moral Government is that it negates this...
Jesus died for the purpose...
Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
1. Redeem from all iniquity.
2. Purify the heart whereby one is zealous for righteousness.
The death of Christ presented a way to...
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
1. The death of Christ established the New Covenant as a reality.
2. One enters into the New Covenant via the blood of Jesus (enjoined into covenant by the blood).
The blood serves to purge the conscience of past sins whereby we can then serve God without a conscience defiled by guilt.
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
This cleansing by the blood is conditioned on repentance and faith, ie. approaching God in the correct manner.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
We can approach God directly (veil has been torn down). There is no longer any need for the Old Covenant sacrificial system.
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
There is a new and living way which is a reference to the heart as opposed to being rule regimentation. The New Covenant is purely internal, as opposed to external.
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
We draw near with a true heart in full confidence and our hearts are purged of guilt, our consciousness of sin due to our previous rebellion is removed and thus we can now stand before God without shame.
Instead of teaching the above the Moral Government present the death of Christ as a substitute for the penalty due sin. Thus they view the death of Christ in quite an abstract manner in which they "trust in the substitute" as opposed to viewing it primarily as the means to purge the conscience of sin.
Moral Government may sound good but it is not Biblical and that is why its proponents use philosophical musings to prove their doctrine which they then read into the Bible in much the same manner as a Calvinist will read the Penal Substitution model into scripture.
So whilst the Moral Government proponents will rightly contend that the sin must stop in order for reconciliation between a sinner and God to take place, it seems to me to be a very formulaic and mechanical theology which lacks the actual MEANS to do so. They look at the cross more as something to "trust in" (they trust in the substitution) as opposed to something to "partake in" THROUGH which we are made whole.
Thus I deny all those false doctrines. Now as far as what Finney taught and Moral Government, here is some of what I have written on the subject...
Thus I deny all those false doctrines. Now as far as what Finney taught and Moral Government, here is some of what I have written on the subject...
Here is an article I wrote on Romans 5:12 where I clearly show its context by carefully comparing scripture with scripture.
The Pearl of Great Price: Spiritual Death
Augustine twisted Romans 5:12 because he fell victim to a mistranslation found in the Latin Vulgate in which it is "in whom" is used instead of "because of" or "for that."
Augustine took Hebrews 7:9 and read the Gnostic fundamentals he held to into that verse and thus concluded that all human beings were actually present in Adam when he sinned. Thus by combining his views of both Rom 5:12 and Heb 7:9 Augustine concluded that all human beings were actually guilty of Adam's sin and that all human beings also "died" in Adam.
The Bible does not teach what Augustine concluded. Augustine is the father of the inability doctrine (born a sinner) which pervades the nominal church today.