Jason Stellman's Slide into Romanism

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James White.

Jason Stellman’s Claim That Rome Makes Sola Scriptura Unnecessary

If I took those things and kind of Teased out the logical ramifications it rendered imputation of alien righteousness unnecessary that if Jesus founded a Church an actual visible church, you know with a p .o box, you know, so to speak one you could find it.

You can say there it is not there but there. And if that church first of all if he did that He would have he never would have instituted sola scriptura as the only infallible way of Guiding that church because he wasn't an idiot.

In the face of in the face of What is just so biblically obvious and historically compelling and philosophically necessary. It just there's almost a no-brainer.

Now there you were listening to the voice of Jason Stelman a former PCA minister and now having swum the Tiber River a member of the Roman Catholic Communion in a podcast from the call to confusion website.

I Do that quite purposefully? I believe that called to communion is calling people to confusion. The reason I say that is they're not talking about communion with God and communion of the Saints are talking about communion only under the Leadership of the the Romans see so that's a different type of communion and you get that communion only by Engaging in confusion in regards to the authority of the Word of God, but be that as it may.

That is a podcast that was just recently posted from called to communion and We are going to be talking about Jason Stelman's claims in regards to his conversion to Roman Catholicism from the Reformed faith and Joining me on the program today to engage in this conversation and my sincere Thanks once again to him for taking the time out because it is a lot of time to do that is The great Turretin fan.

Are you with me, sir? I am with you, but I'm not great. Well, that is a matter opinion as the host of program I get to say whatever I want to say so anyway now You've been dealing with The call to communion folks for quite some time I was looking at your blog and Looking at which is Turretinfan .blogspot .com.

It's been What at least I'm looking at one here from 2009. So it's been a it's been a number of years that you've been at least responding to the Brian Cross. Is that correct? Yes, that's right.

He's I would for lack of a better term sort of the ringleader there of the group. There's there's other influential people within the group there, but he is one of the leaders most definitely. Yeah, I don't think I responded much to his writing when he had only his solo blog but after he started the Called to communion blog, which I think is taken from the name of one of Benedict the 16th's books but After he started this blog, I paid a little bit more attention to what he was writing and started responding in 2009.

Okay. All right. So this is a group that you're you're rather familiar with and they are certainly central to Jason Stellman's conversion. In fact, he himself says that. This all started with a 2008 Article by Brian Cross that we'll get into in a moment.

Let me let Brian Cross himself Introduce. Give Jason's brief bio here for folks who are not familiar with him because when he first contacted me Early this year. I was not familiar with him. So many other people will not be either but let's give them this information here.

Our guest today is Jason Stellman.

Jason was born and raised in Orange County, California. And served as a missionary with Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa in Uganda in the early 90s and then six years in Hungary. After that, he went to Westminster Seminary, California where he received an MDiv in 2004 Upon graduation.

He was ordained by the Pacific Northwest Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America and called to plant exile Presbyterian Church in the Seattle area Where he served as pastor from 2004 until resigning in the spring of 2012.

He is the author of dual citizens worship and life between the already and the not yet and The destiny of the species which is forthcoming from Wipf and stock publications.

So there is the bio that was provided as part of the podcast itself and That gives you at least some some of the background let me give my background in this situation because As we will note as we get into the podcast I am mentioned because I met with Jason Stellman in May of this year.

I believe it was the 22nd 23rd. It was a Wednesday. I think it was 23rd of May. I know I was speaking that evening at our at our church and we met for If I recall correctly an hour and 48 minutes, so it's almost two hours in my in my office he had contacted me, I believe it was in March and Had said he wanted to get together he was being given the opportunity to do this by his his session and that he was struggling with the claims of Roman Catholicism and I I Neglected I was gonna do this and I I got distracted recording a video on a completely different subject, unfortunately, but I when I wrote back to him I specifically raised the issues of authority with him and solo scriptura and One of the things that I said to him in my first email Was that if we're going to have a discussion I want to make sure That both sides are Represented both positions are on the table.

In other words, I'm not going to if we're gonna talk about solo scriptura. Then we're going to need to deal with Rome's claims of authority as well far too often in the past solo scriptura has been the doormat and Rome's actual claims to infallibility and All the related elements of that don't get discussed or they get discussed on a very cursory level both both sides have to put their cards on the table to utilize that kind of language and I said that from the start I mean that was in that was in my first response once he told me he was dealing with issues regarding Catholicism want to talk about that that was in my first response now I'm I emphasize that because in this podcast he's going to Offer a mild criticism that all I want to do is poke holes in Roman Catholicism.

Well, I told him from the beginning We're going to apply the same standards to both sides and Rome can't handle that and I don't think the call to communion guys can handle that either. And I will get into that as time as time allows.

But we did speak for almost two hours. I did not schmooze with Jason. It was not possible for me to go out to dinner or anything else I was speaking that evening at the church. I didn't. I didn't do anything Other than meet with him and answer his questions and in that time period with him I did present a positive defense of solo scriptura, which does not come out in this interview but we'll talk about it when we get there.

I pointed him to the vast difference between church tradition and that which is they are new stars. I Challenged him on numerous issues and Jason would not engage in a defense of Roman Catholicism, even though he will say in response to questions from Brian Cross that well When you've got the truth, no one could come up with a good argument against it.

Um, he wouldn't put any arguments forward the primary argument well, it was it wasn't even an argument it was a question. How did someone? After the Apostle Paul, I'm sorry after the Apostle John died.

How could someone identify the true church at that time? And He was it was frustrating for me because Clearly and to this day. He doesn't get the idea that Rome has no answer to that. There at least it would have satisfied him.

There was no successor in Rome. There was no Pope. To say that there was a functioning papacy at the end of the first century is just pure historical Wish wish fulfillment and so When you Present arguments that you're the position that you are now seeking to adopt cannot answer.

There's something else going on. There's something else happening here. And I will tell everyone and I think I've mentioned this but I'll be straightforward. I Did not pull any punches with Jason it was not a it was not an acerbic conversation.

But I directly said to him That he was flirting with apostasy. I told him that the Gospel of Rome cannot save. That he was talking about abandoning the only true hope of salvation. I Told him I cannot begin to understand how anyone who has ever confessed that they truly stand before a Holy God clothed in the seamless robe of the spotless righteousness of Jesus Christ could ever trade that away for the treadmill of Indulgences and everything else in Roman Catholicism.

I don't understand it and I never will and I sort of preached to him and I even asked him at one point because he told me he met with Mike Horton and and Jay Ligon Duncan and and and all these people and I asked him has anyone been as passionate as I have in Warning you about these issues and he said no.

So I was last person he talked to that was May 23rd and exactly four months later He was received in the end of the Roman Catholic Church now I Provide him debates and I also challenged him to read a document called indulgent ERM doctrina.

I Don't get the feeling that he did. I don't get a feeling that he listened to the debates. I don't get the feeling that read the document maybe did I don't know certainly didn't have any impact on him.

That's for sure. But Since the conversation has now become public then we are going to respond to it and I think in the process will help you the listener to think through a number of issues and I think it is absolutely necessary that we engage these folks in this kind of in this kind of a dialogue before we get to the The arrow and painting target Story here Towards and fan.

Was there anything you wanted to? Add from your interactions. Have you had interaction with with Stalman himself?

Well, yes, I've had some interaction. Some of it was sort of in public on the blog some of it privately by email, but the and He hasn't talked about that and I'm happy not to talk about the you know, any any private correspondence but the you know in in public areas, I had been criticizing him back in 2009 for taking positions that were too sympathetic to Rome's position and so I was very sad to hear the news that he was leaving his charge and that he was Considering Rome on that level and then continued to be saddened when I heard that he actually did join the Communion of Rome, but Wasn't a shock and surprise to me as I guess it was to some people who just you know.

I hadn't seen his online interactions, right? Okay. All right. Okay, so there's the background now. He says that this journey is a two-stage journey. Beginning in 2008 with an article that he that he sent to Michael Horton and to other people at Westminster Seminary in, California.

It was an article that I believe Brian Cross had written where in essence, he says there is no difference between Sola scriptura and solo scriptura and I suppose it would be good if we defined our terms at this point.

Solo scriptura the concept of in essence me and my Bible underneath the tree in the woods. These the scripture is is Absolutely alone as a source of authority versus solo scriptura the scriptures as the sole infallible rule of faith of the church.

But there are subordinate authorities there is there is the teaching authority in the church. There are elders. There there is much that we can learn from preceding generations. But all of that is subject to the ultimate authority of the scripture itself.

And in fact, it's worth is to be derived from its fidelity To what is actually they honest us. None of those subordinate authorities are They honest us. They are not God-breathed and I believe if I recall correctly Turd and fan that one of the articles I was looking at on your your your blog you really went into that and a discussion of subordinate authorities and issues along along those lines and The I guess the illustration that was used by Brian Cross was firing an arrow hitting a wall and then going over and painting the target around the arrow.

The idea being that no one can really know whether whether you believe in Sola or solo. It's all still just up to you that you have engaged in private interpretation and you have come to this conclusion and You're not really under any any particular authority because it's all you're the you're the final authority in all these things.

Anyways Is that how you would categorize the the article that that he was referring to.

Yes, I assume that it's the same solo versus solo argument Argument an article that eventually appeared on the call to communion site and I've actually had Several rounds of back-and-forth with both Brian Cross and I believe Tim Troutman another one of their contributors at least in the comment boxes there and the arguments that they're making Do have this fundamental problem that they're essentially saying that Sola and solo Scriptura are both the same because neither of them treats the church as an ultimate authority and on that level They are the same but who cares that they that's not The only difference and that's not the difference that makes the two positions meaningfully different right in its it's kind of a Game at best to say.

Well, they're they're exactly the same on this one detail. Neither of them makes the church the ultimate authority.

Well, there there are there are a lot of systems that deny solo scriptura. But they they can do so in many many many many different ways. So one similarity does not make identity in any way.

Yes, and the whole idea of you know, well My target I didn't go and paint that target. And you did you went and painted your target around your arrow, yeah, you know, that's a Very cute caricature of the position.

But of course, we are not appealing to the authority that we're a very good painters around the arrow. We're not appealing to our own authority. We are appointing appealing to a higher authority to the authority of Scripture and They may say well our church has a higher authority than you but it just pushes the debate back a level, right?

You don't get out of the debate simply by saying that I'm not appealing to the scriptures I'm appealing to a book to the church and therefore I trump you.

Right, it is interesting to me, especially because These these gentlemen are not part of the magisterium themselves. And it's interesting that that when you see their interpretation of these things It's different than other people's in the Roman Catholic Church Communion's Interpretation and it really makes you wonder.

Well, who gave you the authority to come up with these illustrations? There's there's always there's always this inconsistency when when I hear these folks saying well, you know We need to exegete these texts why you have an infallible authority but Your embracing of that claim of infallibility is no more certain than the process that took you to that.

And we're gonna I think hear that a lot in the words of Jason Stalman. He has not escaped that in any way shape or form. But I still don't think because he then raises the issue of the to Coco a fallacy saying Well, you all did the same thing and that's true.

They they do do the same thing. But he also makes it sound as if and I'm going to be playing other stuff but this is just a long section and we're gonna we're gonna be listening to a lot of the podcast, but I want to get into.

These these things. If I may insert a brief comment sure, please there is such a fallacy called the to corporate right policy in other words. It's you might say well, you know. If you confront someone say you committed adultery and they turn around say well you committed adultery also, right?

And and it would be fallacious to say well then adultery is fine because you both did it. It's not right. If one person does it it's not right if the other person does it right and you know. The fact that there's some recusal doesn't get you out of here, but that's actually not what we're.

We're getting at here. This is presented in a debate context as a what we would call a disadvantage to a plan. You know, if the plan is solar scripture and it supposedly has this disadvantage and that's why people should should not adopt it.

Well, if you're off your counter plan of Romanism has the same disadvantage. Your disadvantage lacks uniqueness. It's it's not a real disadvantage. And it's it may be a reason to adopt some third system.

But it's not a reason to decide the debate between Romanism and reformed theology. So calling it a fallacy labeling it as a fallacy is again. It's it's a rhetorical ploy, but it's not. It's not an accurate assessment of the situation and I think it also.

We need to recognize that there is a really a essential undercutting of The ability of scripture to speak for the spirit the in a really an assertion of the inability of the spirit to apply God's Word.

All of this is part and parcel of why I called this the called to confusion folks because they undercut the the not only perspicuity, but I would say the authority of the Word of God with this kind of Argumentation and that was one of the things that I raised To Jason directly was the the absolute uniqueness of the character of scripture as Being the honest us and the fact that that Rome in essence Arrogantly takes that authority unto herself.

We certainly could argue functionally in in her interpretive role but certainly historically in defining such things as the bodily assumption immaculate conception as being as being part of the What God has revealed to us?

In essence making the the written scripture is the servant of the church and That you know the the more modern Roman position tries to use less Direct language, but facts are facts. That's that you know there there are conservative Catholics right out there and open in how they they say that kind of thing but there really is I think a fundamental issue here in regards to whether you really believe in the authority of scripture and you believe that God has given it To us for a purpose or whether it's just a book that results in a tremendous amount of confusion.

And you should never read on your own. You should only read it with the inspired And infallible commentary that Rome has provided to us right next to it which of course doesn't exist, but Allegedly she can produce.

So that's that's what you have there Anything else in that section Other than just pointing out that you know Jason Stellman did come to Rome on the basis of his his own judgment. And that's gonna the funny thing is once we get farther into the interview That's basically what he's gonna say if you listen I don't know if he can hear himself saying this but as I'm listening to it.

He's going well. You know I Just figured that if Christ established a church it would look like this How is that not private? Private judgment private interpretation, how is that not? Painting the target.

I Don't I don't I don't get it. I I really don't understand that um now just briefly because this this took up eight minutes of the interview Jason Stellman was chosen by The the Presbyterian Church or whatever portion of the Presbyterian Church was involved in the prosecution of Peter Lightheart as the prosecutor and People have raised the question as to whether Lightheart should be retried because Clearly during this time Jason was already Entertaining Perspectives and positions favorable to Rome etc etc and And So they discussed that I guess the one thing that I would Ask you given that it's rather obvious from your blog that You're quite familiar with the Westminster Confession of Faith the Westminster Standards as you listened to that discussion What what struck you as to his arguments in regards to no, I don't think there needs to be a you know a Retrying or anything I think I did a good job and and what the Westminster Standards say is what the Westminster Standards say and Whether I was questioning them or not Doesn't matter as to what they say what what?

What did that prompt you to think? Well it stood in stark contrast to the way He seems to treat scripture as though it could mean a bunch of different things depending on how you look at it and which Framework or set of paradigms you apply to it the I don't think that Lightheart would Take the position that he can just look at the Westminster Standards.

However, he wants and I Can't imagine that he would ever argue that position and he actually I think came out around the same time that that Stillman announced his transition. He came out with some article about why he would never be the Roman Catholic.

Yes, that's right so I I Have some issues with with Lightheart and I don't I don't approve of the federal vision and I I've written a little bit about why? I don't but it is It does seem to me that it's very hard to imagine him as a zealous Advocate against the errors of the federal vision if he thinks that on certain points the federal vision is right in their interpretation of scripture and Whether or not they're there in accordance with the standards in other words maybe Stillman has been convinced that the the standards are wrong and And the scriptures are right and therefore the standard should be abandoned.

But he's just going to prosecute the trial based on the standards regardless. I mean, that's a bizarre Approach to take and it's kind of hard to imagine. He's giving it his all and and really really trying in that situation.

But you know, I guess he says he was and I can't read his heart. I can't it seems hard to believe but you know.

But it seems so contradictory to think that. Well we can know. To the point where we can prosecute someone what the Westminster standards say, but we can't know what Paul meant in Romans 5 1.

Yeah, right. It's like the scriptures stutter. Hey, exactly.

It's it's an amazing amazing double standard. Well, let's listen to a few minutes this is the next section where a discussion of Covenantal monism and the new perspective comes up and so let's let's dive into this.

I haven't meant to just skip over the first portion. But if we're ever gonna get this done because once we get into the section solo scripture and stuff like that we're obviously gonna be slowing down a lot and Getting into more of the material but here is the section on covenantal monism and and new perspective.

Covenantal Monism, the New Perspective, and Acts 15

He mentioned just now NT right in respect of the question concerning Gentile membership within the New Covenant Church.

Now I'm gonna stop just for a moment and I'm gonna pick up the speed. Just a little bit. Just simply so that we can get through it a little bit faster. I want. I always want to announce that so no one accuses me of trying to make people sound like Mickey Mouse or something like.

That I'm just gonna pick up the the way the speed of the playback so that.

We can get through this a little bit faster. Peter remarks that Gentiles should not be Saddled with standards that the old covenant Jews themselves couldn't bear and in previous times You've viewed this remark as evidence against covenantal monism.

The new perspective on Paul and so forth since satisfying mere boundary marker conditions does not seem overly burdensome. How do you now understand this remark of St. Peter?

Yeah acts 15 the Council of Jerusalem, right? You know, I think I think I think that. There's more to what Peter is saying than simply circumcision. Not now. Let me just stop just for a moment.

What struck me as odd here is? Why ask a new convert? Why not just go to the inspired interpretation of these texts? Well because there isn't one. It just amazes me as so many people talk about all the certainty and the unity we can get from the Magisterial authority and you've poor Protestants.

All you're stuck with is solo scriptura. Why don't you all tell us what it means? Where is the inspired commentary? You've got this infallible leader Robertson. Genesis assured us that if Rome wanted to determine every single textual variant if Rome wanted to interpret every single text They could do that.

You think you haven't had enough time yet? It just it just strikes me as so odd that if Rome had The insights and had the authority she pretends she does. That so much this conversation would be moot.

It would be irrelevant, but I digress.

That that was the the issue that brought the council together there an axe. There were certain Christians certain believers among the among the Jews were saying unless you unless you receive circumcision.

You cannot be a full member of the church and so they came together to discuss it and what I was saying. You know in the thing that you're you're you're quoting. I was kind of getting at the idea that You know how hard is it to be circumcised?

I mean, how hard is it to still be circumcised if you were a Jewish person circumcised on the eighth day? And now you're 30 years old. Like how burdensome can that be. You're just you know continuing.

In the fall of oh, I didn't mean to do that. I apologize.

You click at the wrong place then simply circumcision like how burdensome can that be. You're back to where we were. Apologize continuing to be What you are. And how hard is it not to eat pork chops, you know?

But then I think that they're. I think that that issue of circumcision and dietary restrictions. It's it's sort of an abbreviation for a whole lot more and. What helped me understand this a bit better was reading Scott Hahn's doctoral dissertation that was published I think by Yale.

It's called kinship by covenant right. And he. He goes into some detail about the fact that there's this pattern in Salvation history with respect to Israel in the Old Testament according to which Israel sins and God heaps laws on them and then Israel sins again and God heaps more laws on them as kind of penances.

Let me just stop right there. Do you have any idea what he's talking about?

Well, I'm I Have looked at Hans Judas, but I can't. It's the actual Judas not that book that was published based on it. But the the That particular aspect of the treatise it was not what I was looking at at the time.

And I certainly don't recall that it sounds to me like he's adopting one of these source theory views where the the text of Deuteronomy reflects amalgamation of bits of law that came down over the centuries and eventually got Compiled sometime around the time of Ezra as opposed to being actually.

Mosaic. Wow, see silly me was sitting here trying to go. When did God ever? pile more laws upon Israel because of her sin as a form of penance. I I've just tried to think of any example of this. So I guess if you have some complex source critical theory I Guess I could see how you could, you know, theorize something like that.

But as the text stands I'm unaware of any situation where Israel sins and then God gives them new laws as penances for having broken the old ones and.

I couldn't think that I had to go somewhere outside of the text because that I. There are cases where like. The only two I can think of are. One of them was the man who was found Gathering sticks on the Sabbath and they put him in in basically in jail until they knew what to do with him.

And then God announced what what should be done with him and there was another Another case like that where they they found someone doing something that seemed to be wrong. But they didn't have a law directly addressed it.

But these are not those were.

Civil laws those weren't ceremonial. Yeah, and I I was just trying as a penance and and to hear that from someone Who's talking about their conversion to Rome and Rome's used the term penance. I'm just like Wow, I have no earthly idea where that's coming from.

Um, and so the.

Circumcision itself it is hard could hardly be viewed that way. It's a sign of the faith that Abraham received and it was viewed as a blessing a sign of blessing not a curse. It wasn't a penance on Abraham.

He must be circumcised.

Of course exactly and so the the by the time you get to the book of Acts the Mosaic system Wasn't the the much simpler system that you would have expected in there, you know, the book of Exodus for example.

It wasn't as much a filial and familial arrangements, but it was much more, you know, a suzerainty arrangements, you know a master-slave relationship. That's what Israel's relationship to God had devolved into.

Because of the fact that they would sin and God would add add more restrictions and then they would sin again and he would add More to sort of burden them, you know by way of of penance. And so I think that you know what what Peter's saying there When he says that we were not nor fathers able to bear This yoke. I think he's referring to a lot more than just circumcision and a lot more than just Refraining from eating certain foods, but it's the entire book of the law as the book of Deuteronomy had come to be called the entire Levitical and and Deuteronomic system of Sacrifices and offerings and annual pilgrimages and everything else that came with it.

That certainly I think Peter had that in mind. He may have had more in mind as well, but I think he had At least that much in mind when he made that remark and now again, I'm just left going.

Why not just go to the infallible authority here, or why hasn't the infallible authority interpreted Acts chapter 15? I mean, this isn't how Robertson Janice handled Acts chapter 15 the debate I did with him in Santa Fe.

A Why is he any more or less of an authority than Jason Stelman? He's been a Roman Catholic a lot longer than Jason Stelman has. I Don't understand that but one thing we didn't cover was he mischaracterized?

The issue in Acts chapter 15, he said this was merely a matter of church membership. But it was not church membership in Acts chapter 15 that that in fact, the only person who would say What acts of teen was about was church membership.

Was NT right and the new perspective, which he said he didn't have any Love for and yet what he looks at Acts chapter 15. He defines it in a new perspective way. Conflating justification and church membership is the same thing.

Did you want to comment on that? Yes.

It did seem bizarre to me. It seemed bizarre as well because if you look at other commentators within his own communion, they they Openly acknowledge it. I just As an example grabbed it. Hey docs Catholic Bible commentary, which is a 19th century Commentary and you know, I've read first one.

It says Many who had been converted from Judaism held that none not even converted from paganism could be saved Unless they were circumcised and observed the other ceremonies of the law of Moses. So, you know even It's not it's not like you if you're in the Roman Communion you start thinking automatically.

This is about membership it's something that you know Stelman personally holds to but It's it isn't what the text is about and it's strange that he has this idea that it is What the text is about and it was really puzzling to me that he had it had ever occurred to him that this was merely about The right of circumcision itself or about the right of circumcision and specifically the issue of work They that it was the whole ceremonial law and in this huge ceremonial law full of many different Cleanliness laws.

Having to wash yourself at certain times if you happen to touch a dead body you have to do this you can't eat Not just pork, but you have to be careful not to eat things that are Not not just things that are offered to idols, but they have to be We could call it just kosher in general the food has to be kosher.

He Peter had In the vision you remember he had never eaten anything Unclean, but it clearly was a matter of effort and something yet He spent time focusing and concentrating on but there's lots of other things like this woman.

If you remember in the Gospels, there's a woman who had an issue of blood. Yeah, that's how the King James Describes it and she touches Jesus garment and is instantly healed. But remember if she had just touched his garment and not been healed Jesus would have been rendered ceremonially unclean by virtue of the fact that she had this particular condition and Yeah, you know if the woman was a relative of yours and you you were around her all the time you'd be frequently washing yourself to to address this ceremonial uncleanly, you know lack of cleanliness and it wasn't.

You know, he calls the penance that scripture doesn't call it that so It's a very bizarre set of comments from them.

Yeah, and I really wasn't certain where that was going to be perfectly honest with you I wasn't sure why the question was asked. But anyway, we will continue on from there and I'm actually going to do something unusual.

I'm gonna see if if rich can can fire up a brief break because I have a section of the interview here and I don't have any notes on it. So I'm not sure if it was something that I wanted to play or not play and rather than just simply skip through it And go and not while live I think it would be better just to take a quick break.

Let me cue this stuff up and We'll be we'll be right back with turrets and fan and our response to Jason stuff.

This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 30 a .m. And the worship service is at 10 45. Evening services are at 6 30 p .m.

On Sunday and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7. The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 grace. If you're unable to attend you can still participate with your computer and real audio at prbc .org.