Dictionary of Theological TermsAuthor: Alan Cairns |
![[Image: Dictionary of Theological Terms]](https://www.booksofthebible.com/stock/p3020d.jpg) |
| This book provides precise definitions of a host of theological terms in a readable and cross-referenced form. Explores the great doctrines of the Christian faith and gives Biblical answers to issues that are important to all Christians. * Pastors will find it a compact and dependable source of help for their pulpit preparation. * Students will discover a wealth of information about theological terms and movement, old and new. * All who love the great doctrines of the faith will find it a constant source of instruction and enjoyment. Physical Info: 1.51" H x 8.9" L x 6.64" W (2.26 lbs) 538 pages Carton Quantity: 20 Publisher: Ambassador-Emerald International US SRP: $ 29.99 US Binding: Hardcover Pub Date: January 2002 Cairns, Alan Dr. Alan Cairns is the senior minister at Faith Free Presbyterian Church, Greenville, South Carolina. Before that, he pastored a church in Northern Ireland, and for over thirty years he has lectured in Systematic Theology at the Theological Hall of the Free Presbyterian Church. His works include The Dictionary of Theological Terms, Throned in Highest Bliss, A Sure Foundation, The Chariots of God, The Fruit of the Spirit and The Lord's Prayer. CHAPTER PREVIEW A A POSTERIORI Latin ab, “from,” posterius, “subsequent, following”; argument from effect to cause, from particulars to general principles. It is inductive as opposed to deductive. It is the mode of argument employed in empiricism.* See Arguments for God’s Existence. A PRIORI Latin, ab, “from,” prius, “first”; argument from cause to effect, or from an original principle or presupposition* to its logical effects. It is deductive rather than inductive, from general principles to individual conclusions. The significance of the prius in its designation is that there are certain innate ideas that must come before, and furnish a basis for, experience. See Arguments for God’s Existence. ABBA A Palestinian Aramaic word that is found in three places in the NT to refer to God. It means “father.” It is the address of a child as distinct from a slave and denotes family intimacy. In Mark 14:36 Christ uses abba to address God in His prayer in Gethsemane. In Rom. 8:15 and Gal. 4:6 Christians use the same form of address to God. It is used in such a way that it both emphasizes our nearness to God and inculcates respect. Each time it is used it appears with the word pater, giving us the title Abba Father for God. Christians must never confuse intimacy with God their Father with familiarity and triteness. There is no basis in the NT use of abba to support the almost blasphemous references some make to God as “Dad” or “Daddy.” It is surely significant that the Aramaic abba is not translated into Greek as papa but is merely transliterated. ABBOT The head or superior of an abbey. The word comes from the Aramaic abba, “father.” At first the title abbot was given to every monk, but after the sixth century it was limited to the heads of religious houses. Later it was extended to the heads of other institutions. In the Roman hierarchy, abbots are usually subject to the authority of a diocesan bishop. In Germany the title abbot was given to some Protestant divines, especially if they received the revenues of former abbeys. ABECEDARIANS 1. An extreme German sect of the Reformation period, followers of Nicholas Storch, who considered that no other teaching than that of the Holy Spirit was necessary. They thus rejected all human teaching, refusing to learn to read and write. Their name originates from the A B C D ’s which they despised. 2. As an adjective, abecedarian may be used to mean “alphabetically arranged,” as Psalm 119. ABILITY Theologically, it means innate power to do the will of God. It is taught by Pelagians and denied by all Reformed creeds. See Inability. ABJURATION 1. The solemn oath by which Roman Catholics suspected or convicted of heresy deny or remove the charge. 2. In England, the Oath of Abjuration required every person who held any office, civil, military, or spiritual, to abjure the exiled James II and repudiate any right he or his descendants claimed to the throne. The justices of the peace could require any citizen to take the oath. Any who refused were liable to imprisonment for as long as they continued in their refusal. ABLUTION From the Latin verb abluere, “to wash off,” it signifies a ceremonial and symbolic washing. In the OT priests and Levites were required to wash prior to performing their religious duties (Lev. 8:6; Exod. 30:19–21; Num. 8:21). Various things rendered an Israelite ceremonially unclean and required an ablution: contact with a dead body (Num. 19:11–13); eating “that which died of itself or that which was torn with beasts” (Lev. 17:15); leprosy (Lev. 13:14); various skin diseases, scurf, mould in clothes, fungus in houses, discoloration of the skin, scabs, and inflammation (Lev. 14); discharges from the human body (Lev. 15); copulation (Lev. 18); menstruation (Lev. 15); and childbirth (Lev. 12). There were special ablutions to be performed on the day of atonement (Lev. 16:24–28). Numbers 19 details the rite of the red heifer and the water of separation for those rendered unclean through contact with the dead. In other cases fresh, usually running, water was sufficient for ritual purification (Lev. 15:13). Exodus 19:10–14 records the ablutions of the children of Israel before the Lord came down to meet with them at Mt. Sinai. From 1 Sam. 16:5 we may gather that the act of ablution became accepted practice before the presentation of a sacrifice. A special ablution mentioned in Deut. 21:1–9 was the washing of hands by the elders of a village nearest to where the victim of an unknown murderer was found. The washing of hands declared, “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it” (v. 7). Pilate sought to employ this symbolic ritual to rid himself of guilt in the death of Christ (Matt. 27:24), but obviously inappropriately. The Jews in Christ’s day elevated the ritual purification produced by the washings of Judaism to ethical purification. Ablution could never remove moral defilement, but clearly the Pharisees held it in higher honour than ethical integrity (Matt. 15:1–9). Thus they multiplied their ablutions (Mark 7:3,4) and found fault with Christ’s disciples for failing to observe their rituals (vv. 2, 5). The NT epistles contain only two references to ablution, Heb. 6:2; 9:10. In 6:2 “the doctrine of baptisms” (lit. washings, ablutions) is said to be a fundamental principle of Christianity. It signifies “a statement of the nature and design of Christian baptism, as distinguished from the baptism of John and the ceremonial washings or baptisms under the law” (John Brown). Hebrews 9:10 specifically names OT ablutions as “carnal ordinances,” that is, ordinances that were merely of an external and symbolic nature. They served to cleanse the body from ceremonial defilement but could not cleanse the soul from moral guilt. Thus they were only a temporary institution, “imposed” (v. 10) until their shadowing forth of the truth of purification would give place to the actual substance of it in the atonement of Christ (vv. 10–14). That emphasis on the passing of all symbolic ablutions, with the sole exception of Christian baptism, renders the reinstitution of ceremonial washings by the Greek and Roman churches all the more objectionable. In the Greek church ablution is a ceremony observed seven days after baptism. It is to wash off the unction of the chrism, or, the oil used in baptism. The Roman Catholic church has introduced ablutions into its liturgy of the mass.* According to the Roman Missal,* the priest celebrating the mass washes his hands as an expression of his desire for inward purification. As he washes he is supposed to recite Psa. 51:2 quietly. Another ablution takes place when at the end of the mass the priest or deacon purifies the paten (shallow dish for holding the bread of the Eucharist) over the chalice, which he then washes with water or with wine and water poured over his fingers into it. Finally, he drinks this water/wine mixture. In this way Rome provides for the washing of the Eucharistic vessels while ensuring that any remains of what she holds to be the very body and blood of Christ are consumed and not flushed away, as would happen with normal washing. ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION In His Olivet discourse the Lord Jesus Christ said, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains” (Matt. 24:15, 16; see also Mark 13:14). Thus the key to understanding the term “abomination of desolation” is to be found in the prophecy of Daniel where there are three, or possibly four, references to it: Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; and possibly 8:13.The various Hebrew and Greek terms rendered abomination and abominable carry the idea of something abhorrent, detestable, disgusting, foul, horrible, and impure, and therefore repugnant and unlawful on that account. While abomination may describe a merely human prejudice or convention (Gen. 43:32; 46:34), it usually refers to something deeply offensive and repugnant to the Lord. Hence the Bible labels sodomy, bestiality, sacrilege, and idolatry “abominations” (Exod. 8:26; Deut. 17:1; 7:25, 26). One of the Hebrew words translated “abomination,” shiqquts, is most frequently used as a description of heathen gods. For example, in 2 Chron. 15:8 it is translated “abominable idols,” while in 2 Kings 23:13 it describes Ashtoreth, “the abomination of the Zidonians,” and Chemosh, “the abomination of the Moabites.” Since shiqquts is the term Daniel uses in 9:27; 11:31; and 12:11, the strong inference is that the abomination of desolation is an idol placed in the temple in Jerusalem. Desolation (the word is plural in the Greek of Matt 24:15 and Mark 13:14) signifies a laying waste. Abomination always causes desolation, disaster, and judgment. The presence of an abomination, an idol or anything else the Lord has denounced as repugnant to Him, renders a place unfit for the presence and service of the Lord. Though the expression of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matt. 24 and Mark 13 is eschatological, we must not overlook the timeless principle He teaches. Nowadays, it is becoming increasingly prevalent in churches to accept what God has rejected as abominable. In the name of justice and love, many churches have opened not only their membership but even their ministry to sodomites. The acceptance of the abomination of sodomy guarantees both the loss of the Lord’s presence and the certainty of His wrath. The same may be said of those interfaith services which are so often hailed as progressive and enlightened attempts to unite a divided world. Joint worship with what God has called abominable inevitably brings dire consequences. The entire phrase the abomination of desolation, then, obviously refers to an idol, or false god, and its worship, placed in the temple of God and causing desolation. Two of the four references noted in Daniel (8:13 and 11:31) are generally taken to refer to the pollution of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 b.c. Antiochus, with the help of some apostate Jews, set up a statue in the Temple, raised an altar to Jupiter Olympus on the altar of burnt offering, and sacrificed swine’s flesh. He dedicated the Temple to his idol and rescinded the Mosaic laws. Thus was the Holy Place desolated but not destroyed. Daniel’s other two references (9:27; 12:11) clearly cannot be to Antiochus. Some commentators argue that the case of Antiochus gives us a clue to the proper understanding of Matt. 24:15. As the Speakers Commentary puts it, “We should naturally understand [Matt. 24:15] as implying some pollution of the Temple by the Jews, to be punished by its destruction at the hands of the Romans.” Those who see “the abomination of desolation” fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans appeal to Luke 21:20. They hold that the wording “when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh” explains the desolation of Matt. 24:15. However, this argument misses the mark. Luke 21 does not record the same discourse as Matt. 24. It precedes the Matthew account. It was given in the temple (Luke 21:1), whereas Matt. 24 was given after He “went out, and departed from the Temple” (v. 1) “as He sat upon the mount of Olives” (v. 3). The discourse in Luke 21 coincides with Matt. 24 as far as v. 11. That is, Luke 21:7–11 corresponds with Matt 24: 3–8. Then the two portions diverge. Luke 21:12 specifically states that the rest of the discourse is a retrospect—that the Lord goes back to what happens before all the things He has just spoken about. Matthew 24:9 clearly indicates that in His second discourse He continues His prophecy of future events, without any retrospect. This yields two important conclusions. First, in view of this, it is impossible to equate the Roman armies compassing Jerusalem to destroy it with “the abomination of desolation.” Second, the prophecy of “the abomination of desolation” remained to be fulfilled after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. Some interpreters seek the prophecy's fulfilment in the rise of the papacy. Clearly the idolatry of the papal system has caused untold havoc in the visible church and is abominable, but it cannot be the fulfilment of Christ’s prophecy. The local and geographical data in Matt 24:16f. forbid any interpretation that fails to place “the abomination of desolation” in the Temple in Jerusalem. We are left, then, with a prophecy of the placing of an idol in the Temple in Jerusalem after the destruction of the city by the Romans in a.d. 70. That means the prophecy yet awaits fulfilment, for there has never been a temple in Jerusalem from then until now. The action of Antiochus foreshadowed the final abomination of which Daniel and Christ spoke. That final abomination is described by Daniel in 9:26, 27 as caused by “the prince that shall come,” a man who will confirm a covenant with the Jews and then break it. This is the “little horn” of Dan. 7:8, 24-26; 8:9–12, 23–25. He is the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, and Son of Perdition (Dan. 11:36 with 2 Thess. 2:4). The abomination of desolation, therefore, is the final and greatest eruption of idolatry, as the Antichrist sets up his abominable worship in the Temple in Jerusalem and proclaims himself to be God. As in the case of Antiochus, the Antichrist will be welcomed by some foolish Jews into their city. They will think they are opening their doors to a saviour. In fact, he whom they welcome will be a desolator, pursuing a course of persecution, terror, and deception that will be terminated only by the second coming* of the Lord Jesus Christ. ABORTION From Latin abortio, “miscarriage,” the term is used in two senses: 1. A spontaneous abortion is the act of miscarriage or producing a child before the natural time, with the loss of its life. 2. A forced abortion is the deliberate expulsion of an unborn child from the womb, thus depriving it of its life. Despite the fact that forced abortions are now legal in almost all developed countries, they are almost always scripturally unlawful. Historically, this has been the almost uniform Christian position, based, first, on the truth that man is created in the image of God, and second, that there is plain Biblical evidence that God views the child in the womb as a full person. In earlier times, some theologians believed that some time after conception—usually 60 to 80 days into the pregnancy—ensoulment occurred; until that time the foetus was not yet a true person. There is no evidence for such a belief, either in Scripture or in science, and the general belief of Bible believing Christians now reflects the ancient opinion of Tertullian (Apologia, 9) that to terminate a pregnancy is as unlawful as the killing of a full-grown man. The word of God allows for the taking of life only under very strictly defined circumstances, such as in a just war, or as punishment for crimes such as murder. An unborn child has not done anything worthy of capital punishment. The sole exception to this general rule is the case in which to continue a pregnancy would kill the mother. Because of her views on baptismal regeneration,* the Roman Catholic church usually places the life of the child above that of the mother, though church law accepts the principle of “double effect”—i.e., that if, for example, a woman with cancer of the uterus needed surgery to save her life, she may have that surgery, even though it would certainly kill her unborn child. Protestantism has always accepted that in cases in which it is impossible to save the life of the mother and that of the child, the life of the mother should have the first right to be protected; even an unborn child does not have an innate right to kill its parent. To say that forced abortion—whether as a form of birth control, or for some personal, social, or economic reason invoked by the mother—is scripturally unlawful is to say that according to God’s word, such abortion is murder. The popular claim that an unborn child is no more than foetal matter, without personal dignity or rights, that it may be disposed of according to a woman’s “right to choose what she does with her own body,” is as baseless biologically as it is scripturally. The killing of an unborn child is the deliberate taking of a human life, and that is a crime which God views with abhorrence. Mark Allison, a minister of the Free Presbyterian Church in North America and a theology professor in the church’s seminary, presented the case for the protection of the lives of the unborn as follows: “The Biblical arguments against abortion are very straightforward. First, God requires the same punishment for killing a child in the womb as He does for killing a man. In Exodus 21:22–23 we read, ‘If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.” Here is a case in which a woman with child is struck in such a way that she gives birth. If the striking results in the death of the child, then the man who struck the woman is to forfeit his own life. “Calvin comments, ‘Wherefore this, in my opinion, is the meaning of the law, that it would be a crime punishable with death, not only when the mother died from the effects of the abortion, but also if the infant should be killed; whether it should die from the wound abortively, or soon after its birth.’ Since this punishment is the same as that for killing a full-grown man (Gen. 9:6; Exod. 21:12; Lev. 24:17), it demonstrates that God considers the child in the womb as real and as valuable a person as an adult. “Second, there are passages throughout the Scriptures that describe the child in the womb as a person. For instance, we read concerning Rebekah that ‘the children struggled together within her’ (Gen. 25:22). The word for ‘children’ in this passage is the normal Old Testament word translated ‘sons’ (Gen. 5:4, 7, 10; Prov. 7:7). This is even true in the New Testament where we read concerning Elisabeth that she ‘conceived a son in her old age’ (Luke 1:36; compare with v. 57). Also, the word for ‘babe’ that is used in Luke 1:41, 44 in reference to the child in the womb is also used for newborn children (Luke 2:12; 2 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 2:2). Hence, God uses the same words to describe children before and after birth. Besides these words, there is also David’s description of himself in Psalm 139:1–16, where he uses first-person pronouns to describe his life as an adult (vv. 6–12) and as an unborn child (vv. 13–15). There is a personal identity between the child in the womb and the full-grown man. “Finally, the Scriptures also portray the child in the womb as one who can move (Gen. 25:22), respond to noises from the outside (Luke 1:41, 44), and be filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15). The weight of this Scriptural evidence indicates that God considers the unborn child a person and that therefore the child’s life should be protected as other people’s lives are protected. However, even an unborn child has no inherent right to kill. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Exod. 20:13) applies to it as to everyone else. Thus, historic Protestant theology recognizes that a woman may obtain an abortion only if her unborn child is actually killing her. “When the humanistic leaders of society justify the murder of unborn children, Christians should remember the standard raised in Isaiah 8:20: ‘To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.’ Believers must stand against those defending abortion, for Scripture makes it clear that God hates ‘hands that shed innocent blood’ (Prov. 6:20)” (American Revivalist, May 1989, pp. 2, 3). ABSOLUTION From Latin absolvere, “to set free,” it denotes the forgiveness of sins. Roman Catholicism uses it specifically to denote the forgiveness the church claims to have the power to bestow on those who make confession.* ACCEPTANCE The reception of a believer as well-pleasing to God, solely in the person, and through the redeeming merit of, the Lord Jesus Christ. See Imputation; Justification. ACCEPTILATION In Roman commercial law acceptilatio was a verbal discharge from obligation, an imaginary payment. “A creditor is an absolute owner of his own property, and if he pleases to discharge his debtor from his obligation to pay the debt which he owes him, he can do so by a word without any literal payment being made. He can call the debt paid, and it is paid. Or he can cancel the entire debt upon the payment of a part only. This arbitrary and optional acceptance of nothing for something, or of a part for the whole of a debt, is acceptilation” ( W. G. T. Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, 2: 348). In theology acceptilation was the term adopted from its place in Roman commercial law by Duns Scotus in his controversy with the followers of Thomas Aquinas. Scotus rejected their teaching that Christ’s atonement* was necessary and that it rendered to God a true and sufficient satisfaction* for sin. He laid down the proposition: “Every created oblation or offering is worth what God is pleased to accept it for, and no more.” From this Scotus argued that God accepts Christ’s atonement as a satisfaction for sin, not because of any infinite value inherent in it, but because He is graciously willing to accept a satisfaction that is not strictly infinite in value. Thus Christ’s atonement is sufficient to satisfy the law solely because God is willing to accept it as such. He accepted it as sufficient, even though it was not, just as a man may receive a portion of what is owed to him in full payment of a debt. In this view, salvation comes to us by a relaxation, not a satisfaction, of the law. The Roman Catholic church is still divided on this question, and no pope or council has established the church’s official position. In contrast, the Lutheran and Reformed churches have stood for the scriptural truth that Christ offered a true and sufficient satisfaction to God for sin. They teach that the merits of Christ’s atonement are real, infinite, and sufficient. Our salvation comes from the satisfaction, not the relaxation, of the law of God. ACCESS The entrance a believer enjoys into God’s presence and grace; he is brought into this position by the merits of Christ’s substitutionary sufferings (Rom. 5:2; Eph. 2:18; 3:12; 1 Pet. 3:18). ACCIDENT A term that the Roman Catholic church has borrowed from Greek philosophy and pressed into service in defence of its dogma of transubstantiation.* An accident is a property or characteristic of a substance that is not essential to it. For example, the roundness and redness of an apple are properties of an apple but not essential to its being an apple. They are not essential to its substance. However, when we note the presence of all the properties of an apple—form, taste, odour, specific gravity, chemical constituents—we conclude that we have an apple. These properties cannot exist apart from it. Properties do not exist apart from a subject to which they belong. That would appear to be self-evident. But that is exactly what the Roman Catholic church denies in its defence of transubstantiation. Rome claims that when consecrated, the Eucharistic* bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. They continue to look, taste, and feel like bread and wine. If subjected to chemical analysis, they have all the properties of bread and wine, and none of the properties of flesh and blood. If consumed, they have all the nutritive properties of bread and wine. Yet according to Rome, they are not bread and wine. They are Christ’s flesh and blood, indeed His entire humanity and deity. To deny that the consecrated bread and wine remain bread and wine is obviously absurd. Yet Rome defends the absurd by appealing to the notion that the properties of the bread and wine are mere accidents; they are not essential. The essence—the bread and wine—has been converted into a completely different essence, but the accidents of that now nonexistent essence remain. In the language of Thomas Aquinas, the accidents continue to “subsist in the sacrament without a subject.” They do not become the properties of the new substance (the body and blood of Christ), for as Rome admits, the same accidents cannot pass from one subject to another. The best arguments Rome’s apologists can muster to support their theory is that “transubstantiation is a real conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Now, in every conversion there must be something common to both substances remaining the same after the change that it was before, else it would be simply a substitution of one thing for another” (McClintoch and Strong). This is no answer to Rome’s dilemma. It involves an inherent contradiction, for the consecrated bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ hold no properties in common. Rome’s admission that none of the properties of the bread and wine pass over to the body and blood of Christ, or vice versa, is fatal to her entire argument from accidence. At best, that argument states what it needs to prove and cannot. Why must the properties of the bread and wine remain after conversion? Why would there not be a conversion of the properties as well as of the substance, if the bread and wine were converted? Indeed, would that not make the conversion complete? It would certainly settle the argument about transubstantiation! This notion of the continued existence of the discernible properties of a subject without the subject itself is a fallacy fabricated to support the insupportable. ACCOMMODATION The adjustment of language by a Biblical writer to meet the limitations of his readers, without any compromise of the truth of what is written. This has some legitimate uses (e.g., where God is described as having physical parts and passions—see Anthropomorphism), but it has been illegitimately used by liberal scholars, who claim (1) that Christ accommodated Himself to the prejudices and errors of the Jews of His day; (2) that Scripture writers adopted pagan ideas and then, after some polishing, incorporated them into the Bible; (3) that the early church and the NT writers placed a meaning on the prophecies of the OT which they cannot properly have, thus accommodating them to their own messianic ideas. ACCOUNTABILITY The responsibility and liability to judgment by God of moral agents for their affections and actions. The inbred sense of accountability is a strong indication that the just Creator has written His law on the hearts of all men (Rom. 2:15). See Arguments for God’s Existence. ACCUSER See Satan. ACOLYTE From the Greek akolouthos, “follower.” Cyprian (died a.d. 258) mentions the order of acolytes, and the Latin church made it one of the minor orders of the clergy. An acolyte, then, was a candidate for the priesthood with the task of assisting priests or bishops. His duties included such things as the lighting of candles and the preparation of the elements for use in the Eucharist.* The Greek church never recognized the order of acolytes, and the Scriptures make no mention of it whatever. The Roman Catholic church still retains it but since 1972 has allowed lay people to become acolytes. No longer must an acolyte be a candidate for priestly orders. In reforming the order of acolyte, Pope Paul VI said he was adapting it “to present-day needs, eliminating what is obsolete, retaining what is useful and determining what is necessary” (Ministeria Quaedam). In contrast to this claimed authority to determine the ministerial offices in the church, the Reformed churches hold that Scripture sets forth the offices the Lord has established in His church. These offices never become obsolete and need no others to be added to them for the proper functioning of the church. ADIAPHORISTS From the Greek word meaning “indifferent,” adiaphorists were those Protestants in Germany at the time of the Reformation, notably Philip Melanchthon and his followers, who were willing to accept a compromise confession of faith, strongly leavened with Roman superstition, on the basis that certain doctrines are of minor importance and may be taught or denied without damaging the essentials of the faith. Melanchthon, opposed by Matthias Flacius, confessed the error of his policy of deliberately veiling real difficulties by the use of vague forms of words and treating the concessions made thereby to Rome as matters of indifference, adiaphora. Continued. . . . |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Need Help? Call Customer Service at 608-723-5867 8:00AM - 5:00PM Monday-Friday 9:00AM - 11:45 AM Saturday Central Standard Time Need books or bibles by the case? Special discounts for churches or individuals by the case, ask for ext. 100 These WWW pages Books of the Bible Christian Bookstores ; 2008. All Rights Reserved. Books of the Bible Christian Bookstores |