Links to elsewhere on this
Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html
/sermonettes.html /webmaster.html
For the home page, click here:
/index.html
For the history page, click
here: /newfile1.html
Why does God Allow
Evil? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why
Does God Allow Evil 0908.htm
May Christians work on
Saturdays? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Protestant
Rhetoric vs Sabbath Refuted.htm
Should Christians obey the
Old Testament law? /doctrinalhtml/Does
the New Covenant Abolish the OT Law.htm
Do you have an immortal
soul? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Here
and Hereafter.htm
Does the ministry have
authority? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Is
There an Ordained Ministry vs Edwards.html
Is
the United States the Beast? Click
here: /doctrinalhtml/Are
We the Beast vs Collins.htm
Should
you give 10% of your income to your church?
Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Does
the Argument from Silence Abolish the Old Testament Law of Tithing 0205 Mokarow
rebuttal.htm
Is Jesus God? Click here:
/doctrinalhtml/Is
Jesus God.htm /Doctrinalpdf/More
Evidence That Jesus Is God 08.pdf
Will there be a third
resurrection? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Will
There Be a Third Resurrection.htm
Should the
Sabbatarian Church of God Movement Accept the Baptisms of Sunday Observers?
How can you know if another person is saved? Does someone have to obey the seventh-day
Sabbath in order to be saved?
By Eric V.
Snow
Recently, some ministers in the Sabbatarian Church of God (COG) Movement have accepted the baptisms performed by Sunday-keeping churches as valid in God’s sight. Naturally enough, they could cite the personal example of Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA), who was baptized by a Baptist minister during the general process of his calling into the COG movement. This controversy naturally leads to the wider issue of whether someone can truly be a Christian yet not keep the Saturday Sabbath. Then, if someone can be saved as a Christian while attending a Sunday-observing Church, then why should he or she convert to a COG group? Here it will be maintained that only baptisms followed by the laying on of hands in a group keeping the Sabbath and Holy Days are fundamentally valid in God sight.
What makes a
man or woman a Christian? Does the
Bible itself define how someone is Christ’s or not? Perhaps the most central text is Romans 8:9: “Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of
Christ, he is not His.” For as Paul
goes on to explain, the Spirit is what resurrects a Christian, and gives him or
her eternal life (verses 10-11). The
Holy Spirit is a token, guarantee, or earnest payment for salvation (II Cor.
5:5). Its presence in a Christian gives
him or her eternal life conditionally.
But we can’t
directly sense the Holy Spirit’s presence in another person, for it’s of a
distinct, non-physical, intangible dimension that we can’t directly touch,
hear, or see. So how do we know whether
a person who says he or she is a Christian actually has it? For anyone could run around, label himself
(or herself) “Christian,” and then others would have to extend the right hand
of spiritual fellowship to him regardless of his behavior. Ultimately, decisions about someone’s state
of conversion have to be based not on words only, but on his or her deeds as
well. As the Apostle John wrote: “And by this we know that we have come to
know Him, if we keep His commandments.
The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His
commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps His
word, in him the love of God has truly been perfect. By this we know that we are in Him” (I John 2:3-5). The Fourth Evangelist also observed (I John
2:3-5): “Now by this we know that we
know Him, if we keep His commandments.
He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a
liar, and the truth is not in him.” But
whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfect in him. By this we know that we are in Him.” Someone who keeps systematically violating God’s
law shouldn’t be deemed a Christian, as John revealed: “No one who is born [or begotten] of God
practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is
born [or begotten] of God” (I John 3:9; cf. v. 7; 2:29; 5:18).
Does God give
the Holy Spirit, the presence of which is a requirement for salvation (II Cor.
5:5; Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30; John 6:63; cf. Col. 1:27; I John 3:24; 2:27-28), to
those who systematically disobey intentionally major parts of His law? What did Peter and the other apostles say
(Acts 5:32)? “The Holy Spirit whom God
has given to those who obey Him.” Of
course, all Christians will sin (I John 1:8-10). But a distinction has to be made between two categories of
people: It’s one thing for people to
sin out of weakness while admitting (perhaps only later upon self-reflection or
hearing correction from others) that their conduct was sinful. It’s quite another for people to learn about
the major laws of God, such as the Sabbath, tithing, and the holy days, and deliberately
violate them as a matter of intentional course. For although a Sabbatarian may sin by (say) committing adultery
or neglecting the poor, he isn’t looking at the applicable laws of God in
question, and deeming them null and void a priori, which would amount to
deliberate rebellion in God’s sight.
Even raw ignorance of these laws won’t allow someone to have salvation,
for the ignorant can’t be deemed to be saved even if God may not always assess
the full weight of the sins they commit against them (John 9:39-41; 15:22; Luke
12:47-48; Romans 1:18-32). Someone has
to know God in order to be saved (John 4:22, 24; cf. I John 2:21-27). When proclaiming the truth of God to total
pagans in Athens, Paul said God wanted everyone to repent: “Therefore having overlooked the times of
ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent,
because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness
through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all [not
just some—EVS] men by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31).
Consider the main weight of the
statement the man born blind, but healed by Jesus, when replying to his
questioners (John 9:31): “Now we know
that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does
His will, He hears him.” Obviously,
someone that is unsaved, but is repenting after being called, God will hear,
and give him or her salvation. God heard
and justified the humbled tax collector, not the self-righteous Pharisee, in
Christ’s parable (Luke 18:9-14). And
undoubtedly God has been merciful, and helps uncalled people in the world who
know some of the truth by answering various requests they make. After all, He gives rain to the both the
righteous and unrighteous out of a sense of mercy and love (Matt. 5:44-45),
even if they may lack the requisite faith and obedience for answered prayer
(James 1:6-8; 4:2-3; Mark 11:23-24; I John 3:22). But it’s quite a stretch then to assume God will give the Holy
Spirit to those who have knowingly chosen a course in life that systematically
and deliberately disobey various major laws of His. True, it may well be, some Sunday keepers keep various of the Ten
Commandments or observe other principles of God’s law better than various
Sabbatarians do, except for the Old Testament laws they deem to be
abolished. Likewise, some Sabbatarians
who aim to obey the Sabbath, tithing, and the Holy Days aren’t saved, for they
are tares in God’s wheat field (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43). True Christians may routinely fellowship
with the former after they were baptized and received the laying on of hands
for the Holy Spirit, and even wash their feet at the Passover, but the “tares”
still aren’t saved.
Does Scripture ever recognize the
practice of rebaptizing people? Notice
that John’s baptism wasn’t enough for salvation, according to Paul: “John baptized with the baptism of
repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that
is, in Jesus” (Acts 19:4). After
hearing this, these people were then baptized in the name of Jesus (v. 5), for
they hadn’t known enough the first time they were baptized to be deemed saved
by God by it. These people also needed
to receive the Holy Spirit, which they had not even heard of (v. 2). So God gave them the Holy Spirit via Paul’s
laying on of hands on them (v. 6). And
not just anyone can be used to give others the Holy Spirit, as Simon the
Sorcerer perceived. After Phillip had
baptized people in Samaria, Peter and John had to be sent up to give the people
the Holy Spirit, which they did by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:12,
14-17). And besides the initial
spectacular miracles in which the outpouring of the Spirit was used to start
the Church of God with a bang (Acts 2:1-4, 16-18), and which showed a special
blessing was upon the first gentiles to come into the church (Acts 10:44-47;
11:16-18), the normal way the Holy Spirit was given was by the laying on of
hands (Acts 9:17; I Tim. 4:14; II Tim. 1:6).
So then the questions need to be asked:
How many Sunday-keepers today were baptized by immersion at a
responsible age (say, age 17 or older)?
How many underwent the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit
after baptism? How many lived a
committed, responsible Christian life after being baptized? Obviously, all those sprinkled as infants or
even dunked as young children need to be eliminated as having become
saved. But, again, can people who
deliberately violate God’s law as a matter of policy, not just momentary
physical weakness followed by repentance, be saved? Even if they were just ignorant of these laws, that doesn’t
appear to be enough of an excuse to allow them to be saved. If God is truly working with people, He will
lead them to greater and greater levels of truth if they humbly accept
correction at each level, which means He wouldn’t leave truly called people
permanently in Sunday-keeping, non-pacifist churches anyway.
Furthermore, can we honestly
believe that churches that allow their members to hate and kill fellow
Christians or other people on the battlefield are true churches of God? Did not John write (I John 3:15; cf. 2:9-11;
4:20-21): “Everyone who hates his
brother is a murderer; and you know that no murdered has eternal life abiding
in him”? Can men who kill other men in war really claim to love their neighbor
as themselves, to be practicing the Golden Rule, to be turning the cheek? Can they lawfully kill their enemies when
their enemies still wish to live themselves?
The mind boggles at the mental leaps and twists required. Just because a human government allows or
orders Christians to go off and kill total strangers who live hundreds or
thousands of miles away doesn’t mean such killing is without sin (see Acts
4:19; 5:29).
Now interesting counter-arguments
to the above reasonings can be presented from the life of Herbert W. Armstrong
(HWA), the spiritual teacher God used to assemble His truth together for the
Church of God during these end times before His Son returns, and to proclaim
publicly a non-Trinitarian Christian Sabbatarianism to more people than anyone
else has since the first century A.D..
After having been raised a Friend/Quaker, a denomination that doesn’t
practice water baptism, HWA was baptized by a Baptist minister. HWA also had a most interesting encounter
with a Sunday-keeper who was used by God to heal HWA’s wife, Loma. He later lost the gift of healing after
rejecting the Sabbath truth Mr. Armstrong revealed to him. (See Autobiography, Vol. 1, pp. 315,
319, 326-331, 340-344). But here we’re
faced with an interesting issue: How
much should we use history and/or personal spiritual experience and/or others’
spiritual experiences to determine doctrines, as a matter of theological
epistemology? We need to be cautious
about doing so. For example, someone
could argue that one can’t trace, using extant historical records, a holy
day/festival keeping set of Christians down through all the centuries since
A.D. 100. Therefore, someone may
conclude, God doesn’t require the festivals as any kind of condition for
Christians to be truly saved. But, of
course, what few records of their church history that were recorded and have
survived to the present for the period 100-1600 A.D. were largely recorded by
hostile outsiders. The Roman Catholics
who persecuted the true church obviously had little interest in making an
objective and systematic doctrinal account of their heretical Christian
enemies’ beliefs. Such a set of holy
day keeping Christians theoretically could have existed, but the records were
either destroyed and/or never written.
So historians, who have to work with what records are available to them,
can’t write much (or at least call it “history”) about what was never written
about in the past before their lifetimes.
So it’s best not to draw major decisive doctrinal conclusions apart from
what Scripture reveals to us.
Therefore, although God has directly answered the prayers of
Sunday-keepers, according to various stories I’m aware of, that doesn’t prove
decisively that they had the Holy Spirit and were saved.
The principle found in the parable
of the vineyard workers (Matt. 20:1-15) doesn't apply to fundamental Christian
laws and principles that are sins of commission to violate. Consider this sin list, one of many in the
New Testament: "But the cowardly,
unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and
all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and
brimstone, which is the second death" (Rev. 21:4). Sabbath-keeping (and Holy Day keeping, by
derivation) are in the same category as the other nine Commandments. They are fundamental laws Christians have a
duty to obey, or else their salvation is at risk if they are unrepentant about
their violations of these laws (compare I Cor. 6:9-11). Someone who routinely commits adultery and
denies that the Seventh Commandment is still in force is no more saved than
someone who denies the Fourth commandment and works on the Saturday Sabbath.
The vast majority presently aren't
saved, and haven't been saved throughout history, as per Rev. 12:9 and II Cor.
4:4. The great false church is a whole
lot larger than the small flock of God, as the Book of Revelation shows. What's so hard about saying all these nice
Sunday-keepers simply get their first chance at salvation in the next life,
after being resurrected? There just
needed to be a few people who knew the truth down through history somehow, in
order to maintain the continuity of the church's existence (as per Matt.
16:18). Long before there was a Strong's,
a 19th-century production, or even printed Bibles, some people figured out that
the seventh day was the correct Sabbath. In this context, consider the parents
of Seventh-day Adventist church historian Samuele Bacchiocchi. They strenuously searched to find a Bible
for sale in the city of Rome. After
eventually finding them sold at a Waldensian bookstore, they figured out that
the Saturday Sabbath should be kept after having read enough of it. Being ignorant of the SDA's at the time,
they thought that they were the only Christians in the whole world who kept the
seventh day, but they later found out about the SDA Church. I bet there was no equivalent of
"Strong's" in Italian at the time (c. 1930). The lack of availability of God's truth to
most of the world, such as to the unsaved pagans of India, China, Africa, or
the Muslims of the Middle East on to Indonesia, doesn't prove Sunday-keeping
Christians are saved while in willful or ignorant violation of one of the Ten
Commandments. (That one, like the rest,
He deemed so significant that He wrote it out with His own finger!)
There's a certain amount of
Scriptural teaching, whether it be doctrinal or concerning Christian behavior,
that can be figured out by average (uncalled) people reading it through, for
certain parts are or appear to be straightforward. But very few people in history have ever been like George Fox
(1624-1691), the founder of the Quakers/Society of Friends. After reading the Sermon on the Mount, he
concluded that swearing and bearing arms in war were both sinful, which
literally obeys statements in Matthew 5.
He and those who agreed with him endured terrible persecution and
societal pressure that makes what COG Christians experience in the USA today
look like a cakewalk by comparison.
Thanks to Fox, even so indirectly, we don’t have to swear (but just
affirm) to get a passport. His group's
example also helped to make conscientious objection status more available to
people in the COG in America and elsewhere.
Is it possible to detect the Holy
Spirit in another person? We simply
can't do it directly, for we can't read other people's minds and hearts, unlike
God. Likewise, there’s the interesting
philosophical problem called the problem of other minds. In order to know that people have minds and
hearts (emotions) like ourselves, we judge their thoughts by their body
language, facial expressions, and words.
Unlike Mr. Spock in “Star Trek” when he used the “Vulcan mind-meld,” we
have no direct way to contact someone else’s mind without the physical flesh
coming in-between. A similar issue has
arisen in discussions of computer-supported "artificial
intelligence." For instance,
during a Turing test, someone dialogs with a computer long enough until it
makes an obvious blunder that a human being with a mind (and emotions) would
never do. But this is a practical,
operational test: A person can't know
how soon the computer will blunder syntactically, etc., as it is programmed to
fake acting human before actual experience in having a dialog with the machine
occurs. We know, from Samuel's blunder
with Eliab, that appearances can indeed deceive us, even when (in this case)
the man was a righteous prophet of God (I Sam. 16:6-7), for only God can look
into a man's or woman's heart directly, or read their minds.
How can someone safely conclude
that he or she has discerned in Sunday-keeping Christians the Holy Spirit? This mistake results from assuming that
niceness or good interpretations of Scripture can only come from people who are
believers. I distinctly remember
hearing an agnostic professor of philosophy at MSU give an interpretation of
one Biblical test (John 1:1, if I’m not mistaken) that was very interesting. (If I remember right, he observed that this
verse starts off by mentioning the Word, not God, was in the beginning, which
by itself implies Jesus is God. This
professor could read Greek, unlike most of us in the COG or the world's
churches, which surely was generally helpful).
But obviously the Holy Spirit didn’t give him such insight. No doubt, if we routinely associated with,
worked with, visited the homes of, or had other social contact with various
Hindus, Muslims, agnostics, the unchurched, or other unbelievers, lots of them
would turn out of be nice people who do kind things for other people in their
families or for neighbors. If they know
anything about the Bible, which is sometimes the case even today with certain
high-powered atheists and agnostics, they might even have some interesting and
useful interpretations of Scripture even as they would presumably harshly
attack it. They could even obey various
commandments better than various COG Christians do, for we know that God calls
the weak of the world, not the strong, which may explain a lot of the
personality conflicts in the COG over the years (I Cor. 1:18, 26-29). It's the people who perceive their own
emotional, intellectual, and/or moral problems who are most apt to respond to
God's calling. They will say they need
to depend on God rather than try to go through life without using God's help as
(skeptics might say) a "crutch."
(Likewise, a disproportionate number of psychology majors have
significant psychological problems themselves:
They choose that subject academically while hoping to fix their own personal
problems practically). If everyone in
the COG was as smooth socially as the great French diplomat Talleyrand
(1754-1838), there would be a lot fewer splits and divisions in the COG
movement. (This leads to the
interesting distinction between EQ and IQ, that social skills and intellectual
ability don't necessarily correlate tightly, but that’s yet another
digression).
Consider now the problem with this
kind of reasoning: "There are all these nice Baptists, Catholics,
Methodists, etc., I know. Judging from their behavior, which often is be
better than certain COG members I know, they must be just as saved as the
COG members." Notice that this reasoning assumes "salvation by
works": Outward behavior is judged proof of salvation
regardless of specific beliefs or faith. Of course, this reasoning in
principle can be extended to people of other religions:
"Look at all these millions and billions of nice Jews, Muslims,
Hindus, Buddhists, ancestor worshipping pagans, etc..
Since God would be a monster to torture them
for unending trillions of years in an everburning hell fire
for not accepting or even not hearing the name of Christ, God will save them
also." Well, that reasoning is "salvation by works" also:
Good behavior saves, in this case, regardless of belief! Of course, Scripture teaches that people can
only be saved by the name of Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).
It’s a good general principle that
we shouldn't try to figure out what we can "get away with" in God's
sight, and yet still be saved. For
example, should single Christians see "how far they can go” (i.e.,
concerning physical contact), before getting married? Instead, we should maintain positive standards of holiness and
righteous conduct even when they cost us X amount of physical pleasure in this
life. But this principle also can be
misapplied when it’s used to argue people who are better behaved must be
saved. It's one thing to say that, all
other things being equal, that a person who sacrifices 10% of their income to
help the poor is doing better spiritually than one who merely gives 5%. Similarly, someone who spends 50 hours a
month preaching the gospel door-to-door does better than one who spends merely
25. But neither person, when it comes
to doing additional good works, is necessarily more "saved" than
another. True, an exception arises when
a Christian becomes so utterly negligent (and faithless, as per James 2:14-26)
that he is in the position of the man who hid his one talent in a napkin (Matt.
25:24-28). After all, good works
fundamentally don't determine whether one enters the kingdom of God, but how
high or low one's position will be (see also I Cor. 3:10-15). But we shouldn’t use good works to discern
that some someone is saved when their beliefs are still wrong.
It's also necessary to make a
distinction between having the Holy Spirit and being led by it, as per John
15:17. Various Sunday-keepers really
could be getting some help from God as they interpret Scripture and live their
lives personally. God also likely used
various remarkable individuals among them to do major historical works that
eventually benefited average Sabbatarians in later centuries. Without doubt, God used the Protestant
Reformation (and its major leaders such as Luther, Calvin, Wycliff, Zwingli,
Hus, etc.) in order to break the power of the Catholic Church and thus
eventually set the historical stage for the true church receiving the religious
freedom to preach the true gospel publicly to the world generally. More specifically, ponder the case of
William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536), who was martyred basically for translating the
Bible into English from the original languages against the will of the Catholic
Church. I myself benefit greatly from
the insights Sunday-keepers have on issues of (say) dating and family
relationships. What Henry Morris and
others in the scientific creationism movement have done in attacking evolution
has been very valuable. Some of what
Morris wrote on this subject was what persuaded me to give up belief in
evolution when I was about 17 in 1983 (or perhaps 1984), not something by HWA
or any WCG literature. We depend on
these people to translate the Bible and do background historical research and
linguistic/language work for us. But
just as the Jews aren't saved, despite they were used by God to preserve the
Hebrew Bible and the sacred calendar (Romans 3:2-3), neither should we believe
the Sunday-keeping Christians, Catholic or Protestant, are saved, despite doing
many admirable things, like Mother Theresa's in helping the poorest of the poor
in Calcutta. But once again, all these
nice things they do, or great works they have done, don't prove they are saved
or have the Holy Spirit or are called, for true faith requires correct belief
(cf. John 4:21-26), not just good works or being nice to other people.
Raw ignorance, in this case, won’t
excuse Sunday-keepers when it comes to fundamental laws of God. Suppose someone was ignorant of the command
to not use pictures when worshipping God, such as many Catholics would be ignorant
of the Second Commandment (by the normal, non-Lutheran Protestant
enumeration). Does that let them off
the hook? I doubt it. A certain amount of basic spiritual
knowledge is required by God for people to be saved. Observing the Sabbath, keeping the Holy Days, avoiding military
service and police work, and not using violence in personal self-defense are
all part of this required package.
It’s a crucial duty for people who
are called to leave a false church (or assembly of people) that is denying doctrines
crucial to salvation. Charles
Pickering's book, "Biblical Separation," influences my thinking some
on this subject. Pickering, a staunch
conservative Baptist, cites such texts as Rev. 18:4 or II Cor. 6:14-17 in order
to make the argument that conservative Protestant Christians should leave a big
denomination (e.g., Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.) when it allows
religious liberals to remain in positions of authority. But this same principle
of separation is also valid when it comes to analyzing what doctrines we in the
COG should determine our standards of fellowship by. That’s why Sabbatarians should
rebaptize people who didn’t have the correct fundamental beliefs when
they were baptized the first time.
In conclusion, we should require
the rebaptism of all people who God is calling from churches that didn’t keep
the Sabbath and Holy Days, and which allow their membership to serve as armed
combatants in wars (or as police officers).
A spiritual line based on Biblical standards has to be drawn somewhere
between Christians and non-Christians; we can’t just accept as “brothers” and
“sisters” all those who wish to label themselves “Christian.” And this process inevitably involves
Sabbatarian Christians exercising some level of spiritual judgment based upon
others’ outward behavior (cf. I Cor. 5:1-5, 9-13; 6:1-11; John 7:24) and
beliefs, not just accepting others’ proclamations about their inward
faith. Just because many Sunday-keepers
have done good works or made impressive sacrifices in serving God in one way or
another, including even dying as martyrs and serving as missionaries in
primitive, hostile lands, or obey various commandments or Biblical principles
better than called Sabbath-keepers, doesn’t prove they are saved. A number of these people, who ridiculed
literal obedience to the Fourth Commandment as legalism even as they obeyed
other commandments literally themselves, may well find these verses applying to
them (Matt. 7:21-23): “Not everyone who
says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the
will of My Father who is in heaven.
Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in
Your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many
miracles?’ And then I will declare to
them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me , you who practice lawlessness.’”
Click here to access essays that defend Christianity: /apologetics.html
Click here to access essays that explain Christian
teachings: /doctrinal.html
Click here to access notes for sermonettes: /sermonettes.html
Does Islam cause terrorism?
Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Moral Equivalency Applied
Islamic History 0409.htm
Is the Bible God’s Word?
Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Is the Bible the Word of
God.htm
Why does God Allow Evil?
Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why Does God Allow Evil
0908.htm
Is Christian teaching from ancient paganism? /Bookhtml/Paganism influence issue article
Journal 013003.htm
Which is right?:
Judaism or Christianity? /Apologeticshtml/Is Christianity a Fraud vs
Conder Round 1.htm
/Apologeticshtml/Is Christianity a Fraud vs
Conder Round 2.htm
Should God’s existence be proven? /Apologeticshtml/Should the Bible and God Be
Proven Fideism vs WCG.htm
Does the Bible teach blind faith? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Gospel of John Theory of
Knowledge.htm
Links to elsewhere on this Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html
/sermonettes.html /webmaster.html
For the home page, click here:
/index.html For the
history page, click here: /newfile1.html