The Grace Proclamator

and Promulgator

"To testify the gospel of the grace of God." Acts 20:24


May 1, 2000






Bouquets and Brickbats





By Wayne Camp

Was the church in Rome self-constituted? That is the position of George W. McDaniel, a Southern Baptist writer who lived from 1875 until 1927. I recently read an article on the church of Rome that was taken from his book, The Churches of the New Testament. In this article McDaniel makes the following interesting statement.

“At any and all events there are certainly enough of Paul's fellow-workers and former members in Rome in the year 58 to account for the house-churches and the central, local church there. Indeed, these Christians would naturally and inevitably form themselves into a church. They were sufficiently numerous and zealous. The natural thing for them to do was to organize a church” (The Berea Baptist Banner, P. 306, Top of Left Col., April 1, 2000).

I call the readers attention to these words. “Indeed, these Christians would naturally and inevitably form themselves into a church.” Again, “The natural thing for them to do was to organize a church.”

Bro. McDaniel had given several conclusive evidences that showed that Peter did not organize the church at Rome. In fact, he declares emphatically, “There is not a scintilla of evidence in the New Testament that Peter found the church or that he was ever in the city. The tradition that Peter established the church, moreover, is contrary to the known facts in the New Testament.”

One of the most conclusive evidences McDaniel gives that Peter did not establish the church at Rome and was not at Rome is based on the epistles of Paul. Here he says,

“Paul's epistles disprove the papal tradition. If Peter was the founder or bishop of the church, or if he was in Rome at the time Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, or at the time he wrote from Rome to the churches at Colesse, Ephesus and Philippi, and to the individuals, Philemon, Timothy and Titus, it is inconceivable that Paul would not have alluded to the fact in some way. Here is one letter addressed to the saints in Rome and here are seven letters written from Rome to the saints elsewhere and not a reference to Peter in any of them. This is more than an argument from silence. Paul sends salutations to twenty-six people in Rome by name and to others who are identified but not named. It is incredible that he should not have saluted Peter had Peter been in Rome.

Paul sends from Rome to the churches and individuals the salutations of seventeen people by, name and of others differently identified. If Peter was in Rome was not Paul's failure to refer to him inexcusable neglect? Was Paul guilty of intentionally ignoring Peter, or was it an inadvertence, or was it amnesia? Such questions answer themselves. The only rational conclusion is that Peter was not the founder of the church and was not in Rome during this time.” (Ibid., P. 305).

Is it possible then that Paul established the church in Rome? Not according to McDaniel. In fact he gives good and valid evidence that that was certainly not the case. He writes,

“Neither was Paul in person the founder of the church in Rome. He announced a purpose to see Rome about the time he left Ephesus in the year 57 (Acts 19:21). He had never visited Rome at the time he wrote the book of Romans from Corinth in the year 58 (Rom. 1:10), after the church had been in existence perhaps for some years. Often and long he had wished to go to them (1:13). Many times he was hindered from carrying out his desires (15:22). The vastness of his field of labors and the knowledge that the gospel had already struck root in Rome and kept him hitherto from visiting the capital (15:23). He intends to go to Spain and hopes to see the brethren in Rome in passing through (15:24). They are requested to pray that he "may come in joy to them (you) through the will of God" (15:31f). Therefore, Paul did not establish the church, he himself being the witness. He left Rome after his first trial. The idea of permanent papal primacy existing in Rome is contradicted by all the known facts.”

Peter did not establish the church in Rome. Paul did not start the church in Rome. McDaniel then asks who did start the church. He answers,

“Who, then, did establish the church in Rome? Answer: In all probability the converts and fellow-helpers of Paul's ministry in Asia, Macedonia and Achaia were the evangelists who carried the good news to the Gentile Romans and started the church in the then world's capital. Such an explanation is consistent with the known facts. (a) Much travel went on in those days. Splendid roads facilitated travel. The prestige of Rome drew travelers from afar. It was the most frequented of all the cities of the empire. The ease, safety, and rapidity of travel over the greater part of the Roman empire surpassed anything prior to the nineteenth century. Movement and circulation of people were unprecedentedly free. Roman officials and troops were constantly going and coming to and from the provinces. A constant stream flowed from the eastern provinces to Rome drawn by commerce, politics, pleasure and every motive of ambition and service. There were undoubtedly Christians among these crowds. Inevitably, converts from Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus—the three cities where he spent the longest time—would go to the metropolis. Did we have no definite data this situation is a strong presumptive argument for a church promoted by Paul's converts.”

Bro. McDaniel then proceeds to give a good list, with supporting Scriptural evidence, of Christians with whom Paul had been previously associated who were in Rome at the time Paul writes. After giving this list of Christian folks who were in Rome, McDaniel then says,

“At any and all events there are certainly enough of Paul's fellow-workers and former members in Rome in the year 58 to account for the house-churches and the central, local church there. Indeed, these Christians would naturally and inevitably form themselves into a church. They were sufficiently numerous and zealous. The natural thing for them to do was to organize a church” (The Berea Baptist Banner, P. 306, Top of Left Col., April 1, 2000).




Bro. McDaniel also gives a good history of the church in Antioch in his book, The Churches of the New Testament. He writes,

“The church at Antioch had its origin as follows Certain Syrian Jews were in Jerusalem and hear Peter's memorable sermon and were converted. Nicolaus of Antioch was one of the seven set apart to look after the tables. When persecution drove the brethren from Jerusalem some of them from Cyprus and Cyrene went as far as Antioch and preached to the Greeks also the good news of the Lord Jesus. The hand of the Lord was with them and a great number turned to the Lord.

The Jerusalem church, hearing of the happening; in Antioch, sent Barnabas to inspect this work among the Gentiles. Barnabas was a Hellenist and a man of high rank, distinguished presence, deep sympathy open mind, broad vision, liberal spirit, and keen perception. He was a good man, not full of prejudice but full of the Holy Spirit and of faith, faith in God and faith in his neighbors. He goes forth, a committee of one, without instructions. Spurgeon said "The best committee is a committee of three with two of them sick a-bed." Peter and John had investigated the situation in Samaria and now Barnabas is sent on a somewhat similar mission. It was the longest continuous journey taken thus far in the interest of Christianity, farther from Jerusalem than Joppa, Caesarea, Samaria, or Galilee. His sole instruction was to go as far as Antioch.

Arrived there, he heartily approves the work as being of the Lord. Not an alteration or amendment does he propose. Instead of returning to Jerusalem to report he stays in Antioch and carries on the work of grace begun by the men of Cyprus and Cyrene.

With earnest words he exhorts the brethren to cleave unto the Lord. Multitudes are converted. The meeting grows to such proportions as to require outside help. Barnabas has that remarkable and much-to-be-coveted gift of recognizing merit, of estimating character, of selecting the right man for a given task.”

I call your special attention to these words of McDaniel. He writes,

“Arrived there, he heartily approves the work as being of the Lord. Not an alteration or amendment does he propose. Instead of returning to Jerusalem to report he stays in Antioch and carries on the work of grace begun by the men of Cyprus and Cyrene.

With earnest words he exhorts the brethren to cleave unto the Lord.”

I have pointed out before that the Greek word translated cleave in Acts 11 mean to continue on in the manner one is already going. It does not indicate making any change. Note again McDaniel’s words, “Not an alteration or amendment does he propose.” And, Dear Reader, that is a very Scriptural statement.

Some have argued, without a scintilla of Scriptural evidence, that Barnabas was sent down there to organize this group of baptized believers into a church. I challenge anyone to show from Scripture that this was the case. McDaniel is right, as far as Scriptural evidence is concerned, when he writes, “He goes forth, a committee of one, without instructions.” He is exactly on target again, Scripturally, when he says, “Not an alteration or amendment does he propose.”

It appears to this writer, if one sticks to what the all-sufficient word of God says on the matter, Bro. McDaniel is right on the origin of these two churches. What he has described has been repeated many times in our Baptist history and there is probably not a church in existence today that, somewhere in its lineage, does not have a church or churches that were self-constituted as were the churches in Antioch and Rome.



By Wayne Camp


One Brother wrote a few months ago, Baptist churches start Baptist churches, that's church succession!” Yet, in the process of the development of his article, he settled for less that what he insisted upon in the above statement. He took the position that just sending someone to help in the constitution of a church amounts to the sending church starting the church. He wrote,

Nevertheless, I have myself seen many examples of our churches of the last two centuries "sending helps" to see that new churches were "properly constituted." One should well ask himself, "What did they mean by that?" If one church "helps" in another's organization, and if the first church, as a church, votes to send such "helps" (as can be seen in the very minutes of the church which this writer is a member of, Bryan Station Baptist Church, Lexington, KY, in the early 1800s) then does that not constitute a recognition of the necessity of church succession?

I would ask the brother, “What if ten churches send help to a church organization, do they all start the church? Does the church have ten mother churches?

I would also ask the brother if a church sending help to a group organizing a church constitutes that church starting the other church. I have published accounts of such events in this paper. There were cases in the origin of some of the churches in the Philadelphia association where a Baptist preacher who was passing through would find a group of Baptists who were meeting together who wanted to form a church and he would help them in the organization of the church. But I am amazed how some who insist on a very strict and formal action of a church voting to start another church today, will accept much less than that if it is found in their own lineage. Let me illustrate.

Several churches with which I am familiar use a certain alleged link by link succession back to Christ and the apostles. One of the links is stated as follows: From 1751 on, the Opekon Baptist Church was connected with the Philadelphia Baptist Association of churches and was officially received into the association October 8, 1754.(Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association From 1707 to 1807 p. 71) Elder Abel Morgan was one of the messengers at the annual meeting when Opekon was received into the Association. Morgan came from the Welsh Tract Baptist Church in Newcastle county, Delaware (p.15) which was organized with 16 members at Pembrokeshire, South Wales in June of 1701 and sailed together to Philadelphia arriving September 8, 1701.

Does Abel Morgan from the Welsh Tract church being a messenger at the association form a link between the Opekon Church and the Welsh Tract church and thus back to Wales? Apparently some are satisfied with such a link for it is repeatedly published in a link-by-link heritage of some churches.

What this lineage does not tell us is that the Welsh Tract Church was self-constituted. From the records of that church comes this, “The following brief quotation is selected from the Bi-Centennial Celebration of the Church, October 19th, 1903.

"In the spring of 1701, sixteen Baptists, in the counties of Pembroke and Carmarthen, South Wales, resolved to go to America. They formed themselves into a church, with Thomas Griffith, one of their number, as Pastor. They embarked at Milford Haven in June, 1701, arriving in Philadelphia September, 8th, the same year."

"In the year 1701, some of us, who were members of the churches of Jesus Christ in the counties of Pembroke and Carmarthen, South Wales, in Great Britain, (professing believers in baptism, laying on of hands, election, and final perseverance in grace), were moved and encouraged in our minds, to come to these parts, namely, Pennsylvania. And after obtaining leave of the churches, it seemed good to the Lord, and to us, that we should be formed into church order, as we were a sufficient number, and as one of us was a minister, that was accomplished, and withal letters commendatory were given us, that if we should meet with any congregations or Christian people, who held the same faith with us, we might be received with them as brethren in Christ."

Neither of the churches involved voted to organize this church. They merely gave them leave to form themselves into a church. Furthermore, a few years later, this church reconstituted itself. From their records this comes,

In 1710, by reason of a great addition by letters from churches in Wales, and by admission here, they came to another consideration, and thought best to be constituted again. Without the assistance of any other church and without the vote of any other church, the Welsh Tract group wrote a covenant and entered into it reconstituting themselves as a church.

Yet, many who would reject such action by a group today, gladly claim the Welsh Tract Church as part of their heritage. If I am not mistaken, the church of which this brother is a member claims the Welsh Tract church in their lineage. But, it was self-constituted even though that constitution had the blessing of two churches. And, about 9 years after constituting itself, it reconstituted itself without any other churches being involved in the decision.

The brother said unequivocally, Baptist churches start Baptist churches, that's church succession!” Does a church recommending that another group form themselves into a church amount to the church making the recommendation actually starting the church.

Let me illustrate. A married couple calls me up and asks me if I would recommend that they have a child. I encourage them to do so. Does that make me a progenitor of that child? Neither does the recommendation of two churches that a group form themselves into a church amount to those churches starting the new church.

I continue to be amazed that some who insist that every church must be started by another church by either voting directly to start it, or by voting to send a missionary and giving him church authority to start other churches and delegate to them church authority, will accept some wide departures from this if they are found in their own lineage. Some will even accept the attendance of a person at an association when a church is received into the association as a link. How does a man attending an associational meeting when a church is received amount to church succession? Since there exists such a link in the Brother’s church’s lineage, I wonder how he squares it with his declaration, Baptist churches start Baptist churches, that's church succession!”



MILAN, Italy (Reuters) - An Italian housewife has gone into the prayer business to rescue the souls of people whose daily grind leaves no time to attend to their own salvation.

For 3,000 lire ($1.50) Monica Ballinari, 26, will say a prayer for a lost relative or perform the sign of the cross once a day.

The new "Paradise" agency which she has started running from her home in Varese, northern Italy, has a list of tariffs that go up to 50,000 lire for a rosary sequence of five prayers.

For a more personal service, Ballinari will recite a prayer in your home for 25,000 lire, excluding travel costs.

"Life has become so frantic that people don't have time to do anything beyond work or family. That's why people have stopped praying even though they feel a spiritual need to do so," the mother and former actress told Il Giorno daily.

To drum up clients, the Paradise agency's brochure exhorts its readers to remember they only have one soul. "If you don't have time to save it, call me; I'll take care of it."

The sinbuster service is already having some success in Catholic Italy. About 30 people have turned to professional prayer including two "well-known people," Ballinari said.



This letter was in response to an article on Stephen Haws WebSite. He has an article on the origin of various churches. 

Dear Sir:

If deceiver means one who uses a mixture of truth and error in order to lead someone to believe the false, you are certainly fitting that bill.

I will agree with you that churches founded after our Lord Jesus Christ founded His are not true churches. Thus we can start on a premise on which we agree.

You say: "If you are a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, you know that Our Lord Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year 33; the One True Faith, "outside of which no one at all can be saved." (The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the "two lungs of the body of Christ.")

Here I must tell you that your church was started too late also. Jesus established His church during His sojourn here on the earth. He said, "...upon the rock I will build My church." He did it while He was alive. You say your Catholic church was started in 33 AD. I presume you mean at Pentecost. There was no church started at Pentecost. Instead 3000 members were added to the church Jesus had already established. You say, "If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam, in 1606."

Again you have completely disregarded the fact that John the Baptist came with authority from God Himself and gathered a people and baptized them. He did this to prepare the way for Jesus Christ. Jesus then came and with those baptized by John, whom He named apostles, established His church. He did not call it a Baptist Church, but its members were baptized by John the Baptist. As the churches began to multiply they were independent or autonomous bodies in the various localities but all one in doctrine and practice. Then came the Nicolaitans. These were leaders who sought to elevate the clergy over the people. There still was no catholic church, but here were the seeds of it. As time went on some began to teach another new doctrine (that one must be baptized in order to go to Heaven). This gave rise to infant baptism. None of this was known in the Lord's church. Eventually the state of Rome and the Roman church united under one head. This gave rise to your Catholic church. It is far too late to be the Lord's church. All the while those independent or autonomous churches continued to hold forth the true doctrine and practice. Through these churches have come what is known today as Baptist Churches. Your Catholic churches burned our fathers as heretics because they held for the truth as taught in the Holy Bible. I dare you sir to put this on your page. It will show you to be the deceiving anti-Christ that you deny so vehemently.


Moody Roberts, a Baptist Preacher


Bouquets and Brickbats

CALIFORNIA: I recently read your analysis of the Promise Keepers. I found it well-written and thought-provoking. I just wanted to encourage you for what you are doing. I know it's sometimes hard to confront heresy. Thank you for having the courage to do it. Our family respects you deeply. God bless you.

TEXAS: The pastor at a new church I’m attending loaned me two old copies of your publication, The Grace Proclamator and Promulgator. Please add me to your mailing list if it is still available.

WWW: To whom it may concern, I came across your site while surfing the net. I must say that I disagree with your statements about the pomise keepers organization. I have attended several conferences and have seen no evidence of what you call "heresy". I have been witness to the power of God revealed at these events. I have literally seen hundreds upon hundreds of men truly come to know Christ while in attendance. My heart has been spoken to in ways it has never been before while attending the conferences. I can only speak from personal experience at these events. I know that God is at work there. He has done some awesome, powerful work in friends of mine that were lost before meeting God at the PK event. There lives since have been wonderful testimonies and I see God using them everyday. I do not mean to insult your intellegence, but simply to encourage you, if you haven't already, to attend one of these conferences. Pray that God will have your heart opened to what he may say to you there.

WWW: I'm a Catholic and I feel that your description of us is terrible. Christmas is a holy time of year that celebrates love and joy, the things Jesus taught us. So if you are going to be prejudice then so am I. I feel Christians are gun toting, redneck, KKK, members. I'm sure some Christians are better than you are. But you are a fascist, and God would be disappointed in you. May God have mercy on your soul!

ARIZONA: Hi! I just wanted to tell you that I think that what you say here is wonderful. I am a Christian. I have been saved for approximately 5 years. I got saved in an independent fundamental Baptist Church in Beaufort, SC and am now a member of fundamental Baptist Church in Yuma, AZ. Both churches celebrate Christmas and I always have as well. My sister, who is also a saved, born-again, Christian doesn't celebrate the holiday and I always knew deep down that I shouldn't be celebrating it.

My mother-in-law is a Jehovah Witness and I am terrified to tell her that she is right in that aspect. I severely disagree with their doctrines and know that they are a cult religion, but they are correct about the Christmas thing.

I just wanted to write and say that I found your web site to be an inspiration to me and it has really made me realize that I shouldn't celebrate it....actually, God has made me realize a long time ago, my flesh just kept me from listening to him.

ILLINOIS: I thoroughly enjoyed The "Constitution of Churches" by Bro. Settlemoir. In addition, I have also greatly enjoyed your and Bro. Kohler's articles. My only question is, "Why can't so simple a proposition be understood by all the 'scholars'"? Keep up the excellent work.

WWW: Your all Idiots.... WOW...

USA: The GP&P is a great blessing in our lonely little world.

MISSISSIPPI: I just finished reading the article by Bro. Settlemoir in your paper of April 1, 2000. This is one of the best. I’m sure this is your position also. Keep up the good work.

OKLAHOMA: Thanks for publishing the article by Bro. Settlemoir. I just received it and read it. He hit a home run!

ILLINOIS: I want to thank you for your paper. It is a real blessing to me. I like your stand against the PKs., liberalism and even those on the other side that slipped over the edge and believe in the priesthood of the pastor and not the rest of the members. That is no different than the Catholics.

WWW: Obviously you aren't truly a christian no matter what you think!! TRUE christians don't bash other religions, whose to say you aren't going to hell instead of the roman catholics??? Maybe you should judge yourself and your so-called beliefs..... You need lots of prayers for your condemnation of a religion dating back to St Peter.


WWW: May i say that what i just read is so absurd, that i can safely say i am now more stupid than i was before i read it! First of all, i do not celerate Christmas, b/c of the name"Christmas", i celebrate Christmas, as a time of meditation and reflection on my Lord's entrance into the world! And your comment that our holiday of xmas(as you so affectionatelly call it) wreaks with idolatry is very narrow, and and quite unparalell with the rituals followed.

Just because, i put a tree up, does not mean that i am going to bow to it! In fact, I put a tree up as a symbol of the creator, entering the creation, hence placing the gifts under the tree. to me the tree is also a symbol of life as it is, but also a symobl of the death Jesus encountered!

Your history lesson was great, and completely accurate. But what is wrong with taking evil and making it good? Isn't that what Christ did for us? Are we to say that such a sinful race syould not be allowed in our churches, then the churches would be empty. Jesus does not split hairs on such matters, so what if it was wrong, that does not make it wrong to me. remember even paul says that some can eat food offered to idols, yet thers can not. same principle here. The pagans can use their lights, and trees, to worsip whatever tey may. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord! The trees or lights do not affect my salvation.

And the comment about the name! Are we to stop using te term Christianity, b/c that links Jesus with a human religious belief? I realize that belief in Christ is more that just a humanistic religion, but still to say that the word mass, used in association with Jesus angers Him is quite absurd.

and the NT did not celebrate Christmas, true, very true. And i agree that the NT church belef systems should be found in our churches. So what about glossolalia? What happened to speaking in tounges/ We know the NT church did this until 300 AD, the writings of Tertullian, and Origen reveal that to us, as well as later written letters of Paul, in which he describes, tounges of angels, unknown tounges, and tounges(as in other understanable languages). I do not mean to be so blunt, but stupid stuff like this angers me! stop worrying about people honoring Christ birth, and start spreading the gospel. And to use the term XMAS, how blasphemeous! To take Jesus name out of anything is absurd. Al things should be done in reverance to Christ. In all things give thanks, yes that even means in a secular holiday! my spirit literally cringes inside of me at the site of such sacrilege.

OKLAHOMA: (RE: Church Organization by Bro. J. C. Settlemoir) Well, as always, you are a real troublemaker—but I suppose you know that by now. I don't know why you are picking on those poor people—it's like taking candy from a baby—you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I want to point out that it seems they are the real "neo-Landmarkers" since it seems they have gotten "new light" and are leading many out of the old paths of Landmarkism.

Anyway, I enjoy the paper as always, and as usual your argumentation is excellent. Keep up the good work, but try to be a little sweeter to the brethren, especially those that are weak in the faith and have to hedge themselves about with all manner of traditions of men. Remember we will spend eternity with them.

CALIFORNIA: It was a nice surprise. By just reading your site, and the comments that were posted greatly encouraged me. Sometimes I feel like I'm living in an insane asylum because there is so much heresy and confusion in the church world today. Just to know that there are people who do know the truth and proclaim it is so encouraging. Thank you. Have a wonderful week!

WWW: You write as a bitter man. You appear to know scripture but I'm not sure you understand it clearly. I pray that your eyes will be opened and your heart will be touched by the Lord.

WWW: Your writings about these false prophets the promise keepers is all true And is another trick up Satan’s sleeve to lead Christians down the path To hell, as the lord said we will be cursed for lack of knowledge It is your hard work and determination in the name of the lord that that True Christians can point out these supposed men of god. Keep going on Strong your fellow Christians like myself are fighting the war with you. And we in the name of Jesus will be victorious. Praise Jesus and may god bless you on your journeys.

WWW: I'm just dropping you a note about your article. I've gone to PK events over the last couple of years, and I agree that if the guys you mentioned (Dobson, Hicks, Ross..) say what you put in your article. Then they are teaching blasphemously.

However, I will say this...The men I've seen speak, Greg Lorrie, Tony Evans etc... I feel are filled with the Holy Spirit and do teach directly from the Bible. These men you've talked about I haven't ever seen at a PK event. I understand the concern of this kind of teaching, makes my skin crawl also.

The men I go with to the events, my pastor, a missionary, and a couple of deacons, are there to praise our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The missionary is a very suspicious man, in a good way. And would stand up in the middle of the event and tell the whole place that what they are teaching is false, if it is false.

I'm not sure, but maybe those fellows you mentioned are just trying to associate themselves with the PK organization. I don't know. I mean you no ill will at all. Thank you for making me aware of these men and the things they believe. If you'd like, e-mail me back.

I want you to know, that I simply interested in growing in my relationship with Jesus.

WWW: Thank-you for your insights and thoughts. Very good.

WWW: My name is Victor and it is a pleasure to exalt The Lord Jesus with you! I do appreciate your diligence in attempting to overcome what you believe is a lack of understanding on the part of Dr. Dobson. I do not have all the facts at this time, so it would be improper to comment on that situation, as I'm sure you'll agree. There is one thing I would like to comment on, however. I have known in my life many people who profess Chrisianity. For the most part, I have noticed there are usually two kinds of "Christians"; those who love and those who,like the Pharisees, are "Literal" experts. in most of my encounters with Baptist people, I have noticed that you are a group of very friendly people. I do also know that "Southern" Baptists have a reputation of being filled with hate. After reading your web page, I found your comments might very possibly be true, but in the way you have presented them seems more like to me that your main concern is not given in love, but rather in proving somehow that you are "not wrong",if that makes any sense.Remember, this is a totally un-biased opinion. I do totally agree with your understanding of the fact that the whore of babylon is more that likely the catholic church . Time is running out and I encourage you and your denomination to use your wonderful talents GOD has blessed you with to encourage those who need encouraging.I also encourage you to seek The Lord and ask him to replace in you your anger and frustration with the Holy Ghost. We are in a time of dire need to reach the lost. GOD will take care of those who are in error. I'm not saying you can't say anything, I'm saying, is it worth it vs. what tremendous work you could be doing instead? Only you can answer that question. Seek The Lord Jesus and seek his presence and his spirit and then you will see clearly to do better! I say that out of LOVE, not condemnation. Believe me, the Holy Spirit can really overwhelm you and give you an incredible Love.

 In closing,again,I want to encourage you to continue witnessing for the Lord. I will pray that The Lord will fill you with His spirit and that his gifts will manifest themselves through you.

WWW: Mr. Camp, I just read your article on limited atonement. You brought up many good points and your arguments were very clear and I would have to agree with you, if the verses you brought up were the only ones given in Scripture concerning atonement. Have you considered 2 Tim.4:10?It clearly states in this verse that Christ is the Savior of all men, in other words His death was sufficient for all, but only those who believe will be saved. I doubt this verse would be stating that Christ died for the elect and then say that He died especially for those who believe. The elect are those who believe! I hope you consider this argument.

FLORIDA: Landmark baptist churches are the only churches founded by Jesus Christ. What would have happened if the KJV bible had used immersed instead of using the Greek word in to English letters? There would not have been any baptist word listed, just the church that Christ founded.

WWW: I read this article and come to realize you forgot a word.....************ to describe you and your followers.

WWW: I have just read one of your articles--I think it was called "Is This Hatred"--I'm not sure of the exact title. You piqued my interest in Dr. Dobson, as I have listened to him for a number of years. I have only just recently begun to learn and understand the false doctrines behind such leaders as Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer--who is big in my area, T.D. Jakes, and others. Have you been to Hank Hannegraff's site ( He also has excellent articles available about the Toronto Blessing, the Vineyard, and more. Anyway, I'm wondering if you know of any other sites where I could learn more about James Dobson's theology? I am heartbroken over the new things I've been learning, but am determined to learn all that I can. Thank you for your honest articles.

WWW: You appear to base a lot of your hatred of Promise Keepers on James Dobson. I have been deeply involved with PK for quite a few years now, and I just thought that I would mention the fact that I have never read one of his books or heard him speak before. I can't make a judgement on him either way, because I don't know any of his beliefs and I don't really care. I do know this, the world hates PK. The Gay's, the feminists, the pro abortion crowd and so on. I also know I spend time in the word twice a day and prostrate myself before Him every morning. I love the Lord with all of my heart and soul, and I have watched thousands of men commit their lives to Jesus and begin leading their families and honoring their spouses.

The disbelief of the first 12 chapters of Genesis you mention is a Catholic/Lutheran belief, and I agree with you 100% on that. I would suggest praying for them. I have never heard a PK speaker endorse that erroneous belief. I have heard a couple of things I didn't agree with over the years, and have addressed them with PK leadership via writing. They have responded and even changed a couple of things. In closing I would say that If the world hates it, there must be something good there

TEXAS: I enjoyed your page. I am curious about a few things when it comes to the Bible that we know and read today. I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel (I think) and they said that other disciples wrote but were not included in the current KJV. The show suggested that this was because the priests or monks who translated the bible decided for whatever reason to not include the other books. In what language were the original books/scrolls written and how many times has the Bible been translated in order to get what we have today in KJV? Do you know who wrote books that were not included? I am very interested in other translations. I like to read from several and get a better understanding of the Word. Please respond.

WWW: I read your article with great interest. Here it is one month pass that hedonistic / commercialized "religious" celebration. It is interesting that fundamental religion does not condone Christmas for its commercialization but enthusiastically contributes to it. Nevertheless, my question is, do you know approximately when Jesus was born?

Since the calendar we live by (Gregorian) is different than the calendar during his birth (?Hebrew) I believe (by spiritual inspiration and logic) that "Christmas" - December 25 is not his birthday. I would appreciate any direction you can offer me in seeking an answer to my question.

WWW: As a point of aid, you must remember that the Bible was written by Jews and not Christians. Christian is a term that appeared after 90% of all writings were penned. It was not until the 10th chapter of Acts that a Gentile is even revealed as being an heir to the righteousness of God by Faith. The Elect to that point were the Jews. That is why there is so much controversy over Gentiles being saved. The issue in AD 50 was "Can a Gentile be saved?" The question today is "Can a Jew be saved?" This new paradigm of Gentile "Christian" imperialism is foreign to the text of Scripture and the initial audience of Paul's writings. What is not foreign, is Paul's desire to let the Gentiles and Jews know that "saving the Gentiles" was not some new thing that God wanted to do (as if He changes); but rather was His plan before the foundation of the World. All of these Predestinational type remarks are intended to comfort a generation that does not believe that Gentiles can be saved by Faith. That was the purpose of the First counsel meeting of Acts 15, to try to come to terms with God's newly revealed purpose -that had been hid in God from the foundation of the World. So before going off the deep end and ultimately making God the originator of Sin..., consider what I say. This misunderstanding can be revealed, but not fully understood without knowing the historical background of the Early Church. "Lord only knows" how many times a Jew told a believing Gentile that they were not the Elect, but rather that the Jews ONLY were. They believed it enough to persecute them and Paul even to the death. Paul constantly reaffirmed the Gospel to the Gentiles by telling them that they were not "afterthoughts" of God that were saved-only after most Jews rejected Christ. Romans bears this out in the Chapters 9-12. Paul said in effect "you were predestined from the foundation of the World all you who believe that are Gentiles." It is more that the Believing Gentiles were predestined, than individuals in particular. If you still insist on believing that God does not really wish that all come to repentance, but merely lied to humanity to show His sovereignty, remember first, that God's motivation in Scripture from Genesis to Revelation is His Love, not His Sovereignty. GOD IS LOVE, John told us many times. Jesus did not fake those tears when he wept over Jerusalem, they were real tears. Rat poison is 90% good corn,'s the 10% strict nine that makes it so lethal......and so it is with the T.U.L.I.P of John Calvin.

WWW: So then with all these things you believe and do not believe

What do you believe concerning something that is much more important.....Salvation?

I take it you are a Christian, so what religious group do you worship with?

WWW: I must say that I feel sorry for you. You have came to the point in your Christian life that mirrors were the Pharisees of old found themselves. You have the only true doctrine.

I have attend two PK's and I have never heard any false doctrine preached. I have heard them preach that Jesus died for our sins and that God gave his only begotten son. I have heard that if we believe in Jesus we will be saved, and I''ve heard a message of repentance. I have heard a message of inclusion of Jews and a coming together of all of the Christian denominations.

I am not a Catholic, in fact I started my life off as a Baptist back in Indiana. Today I belong to a non denominational church. I am currently working on a BA in Theology. You do spew hatred in you language in regards to "Roman." The Catholic church is also part of the body of Christ. You have allowed yourself to become hard hearted and you are only seeing things from your Mt High. You are a modern day Pharisees. That is what I call people who paint themselves into a corner and want to believe that just because someone has a few extra things added onto of their foundation of grace as being wrong. Some people like to go to a "Grand" church with all of its formalities. The feel God is grand and that is the way he should be represented. Others like to go to toned down churches with perhaps a wooden cross at the alter, and the congregation wears suites and ties. Still others don't even want a cross in their church. Others like a church that lets them wear jeans and pullovers to church. Some like churches that sings hymns others like rock and roll worship songs. They all believe in Jesus and they all practice baptism. You sir need to see that Jesus walked among sinners, prostitutes and tax collectors. He delivered the message to those who needed it.


Return to Index Page for Past Issues of The Grace Proclamator and Promulgator


Send E-mail to

This page was last updated Friday, March 04, 2011


free hit counters
free hit counters