I don't have the time to get into an exhaustive explanation of this, but I can provide you with a cursory explanation that you should be able to study out further if it interests you. I would highly recommend Foundations of Social Order, A Study in the Creeds and Councils of the Early Church by RJ Rushdoony. If you've never read it you need to make it a priority. While it's not about the text of Scripture, it is about the development of the early creeds and the heresies with which they dealt and what holding to the orthodox doctrines means and has meant throughout history and the development of Christendom.

The issues were an attempt to synthesize Greek philosophical thought with Scriptural Revelation via Origenism and Arianism whereby the text of Scripture was altered, in the main, regarding the nature, person or work of Christ. (e.g., 1 Timothy 3:16, Ephesians 5:30, 1 John 4:3 et al.)

Please look up these three example texts for a frame of reference and compare them in the Authorized Version and the Alexandrian Text, any critical text version will do. The bulk of the main differences between the text all have to do with revelation concerning the body or flesh of Christ. In the first God manifest in the flesh is changed to the mystery who, of course the text says this is "without controversy" but there sure is lot of controversy over it today. Ephesians 5:30 the Church is no longer organically connected as part of the flesh and bones of Christ and in the last the flesh of Christ is not the identifying issue, on how to identify what is an antichristian teaching, in the critical text.

Greek philosophy was dialetical - meaning it tried to reconcile two basically hostile concepts and retain both of the alien substances or worlds within its system. These are held in tension and it finally resolves itself in favor of one or other concepts. In Greek thought two substances existed. On one hand was ideas, mind or spirit - the world of forms. On the other was matter, the flesh, of particulars. It is called a form/matter dialetic, soul vs flesh.

Neoplatonism developed in Alexandria Egypt where all of the schools were, for example, Origen was trained under Philo. In 529 the Edict of Justinian finally closed the last academy in Athens and there had been 800 years of continual teaching of Platonic philosophy. Neoplatonism, as a development of Platonism by Plotinus, offered men the belief that there was a common world of truths shared by all men as the foundation of thought. An universal truth that all men can tap into and know. Clement of Alexandria treated it as neutral ground which all men could use and it meant that the spiritual (e.g., non-material) alone was truly real, so the material and historical were depreciated. The development of monasteries, for example, is the result of trying to reconcile apostolic teachings with neoplantonic presuppositions whereby the spiritual (e.g., non-material) life is the higher way and the body is depreciated under a false denunciation of all of material life.

This concept was a basic truth in Hellenic thought and Octavius Caesar represented, as Augustus, not an incarnation of god coming down, but an ascension of man to deity. He provided the way of salvation whereby all men could follow him in the spirit and ascend to deity by and through Rome. Upon Octavian's advent and taking the throne Virgil sent the Advent proclamation, an official twelve day celebration, throughout the Roman Empire that the turning point of the ages had come, "for there is no other name under heaven by which man can be saved, save Augustus Caesar." Of course, you're familiar with that language, it is what Peter quoted in Acts 4:12 applicable to Christ, the next verse may make more sense in regards to the "boldness" of the Apostles as unlearned and ignorant men. They were not schooled in philosophical thought but were attacking everything that Rome meant in terms of Jesus Christ.

Paul ran into this with the doctrine of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, as well, which was "foolishness to the Greek." (1 Cor 1:23) He was teaching that the flesh and blood of Christ was making an atonement for sin - which was dismissed by the Greek's on an axiomatic level as utter and complete nonsense, I mean this was laugh in your face absolute "kookiness" to them. This is because Christianity is in reverse of what they held as truth, in this teaching God was manifest in the flesh, meaning God was coming down into human flesh and doing something in the flesh to restore man. Where in Greek thought all being was on a chain, man was a divine being bound up and inhibited by the flesh from his ascent to his true divine nature. In Biblical teaching man is not in a chain of being, the Creator is uncreated and immortal Being, and man is a created and mortal being with no divine nature - only Christ bridges the gap between Deity and man. He was restoring man to his rightful place on earth to exercise dominion in the name of Jesus Christ and promising to resurrect the flesh. Another just absolutely heinous idea in Greek thought. Everything Christianity taught denied the very nature of being that the Greek's held as true - an essentially evolutionary concept.

In Greek thought the soul was essentially good but held in the prison house of the flesh, so paganism would pray for delivery from the flesh instead of sin. Both Plotinus and Porphyry attacked Christianity for it's doctrine of the incarnation as a downward movement - later it made room for this descent in order to make possible man's ascent. The Biblical doctrine of the resurrection of the body prevented Christians from going as far as neoplatonism would demand, but they still pressed the doctrine as far as was possible within a facade of the faith.

The Alexandrian text comes from Alexandria - the center of neoplantonism and it's schools. Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism &c are all variant deviations of Greek thought syncretised with Scriptural teaching. So, when Erasmus was collating the various manuscripts and examined the Vaticanus which was sent to him by Paul Bombiasius he dismissed it as a corrupted text, Frederick Nolan explains:

"When Erasmus classified the texts into two classes, one representing the Complutenian edition and the other the Vaticanus, he specified the positive grounds upon receiving the former and rejecting the latter. The former was in the possession of the Greek Church, the latter in that of the Latin; judging from the internal evidence he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern church had not corrupted their received text as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians from whom the Western church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently provides that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the age in which the Vulgate was formed, the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted." An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, 1815, p 413ff

Of course, the Vaticanus is the "oldest, best and most reliable text" to modern criticism - it was the most corrupted and debased during the Reformation and post-Reformation era. If you get a chance ready Burgon, Revision Revised, he spent six years of his life collating Vaticanus and Sinaiticus - Wescott and Hort never collated anything, they worked from printed material - a lot of which has errors of it's own. What Hoskier calls the "trap" laid by Lachman and Tischendorf.

This Alexandrian philosophical text is the foundation of the Latin Vulgate and it's Greek philosophical form/matter dialetic became through Aquinas the nature/grace dialetic of the Church Magisterium of the Middle Ages. When Aquinas returned to Aristole then it provided official continuity between the Latin Vulgate (e.g. Alexandrian text) teachings whereby the errors of the Mass et al. developed centuries before now had coalesced.

Of course, critical text proponents argue that Christians altered the Byzantine text in favor of orthodoxy, which is the main tenet of Greisbach. So, anytime there are variant readings if it's orthodox, it is immediately suspect and dismissed, which is the main basis for rejecting the entire Byzantine text base. It's a "late text," which means that it is presupposed as being altered in favor of orthodoxy because it departs from the older texts which are less orthodox. The problem, of course, from our position is that they assert the same form/matter dialetic and hold the text of Scripture in dialetical tension between the autographa and apographa (e.g., original writings and copies, respectively). The result is a new Scientific Magisterium and a new priestclass that mediates the Word of God unto the Church, the textual critic.

The social affect in the United States is that the Supreme Court has become the equivalent of the Papacy, complete with a heirarchy of Bishops (the States under the 14th Amendment) and totalitarian control over the social order. The so-called "separation of Church and State" that was developed in 1949 rests on two legal precedents: a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses (Arians) in New York in the early 1940's and the same time period a case in Kansas where Roman Catholics sued a public school over the use of the King James Bible. On this foundation the compartmentalization and social segregation of orthodox Christianity officially began known as the "separation of Church and State", we all know the results of it. In 1946 the Jehovah's Witnesses began their work to publish the New World Translation which is based upon the same critical text as all of the other New Versions, they had went to the American Standard Version when it came out and then translated their own. Anyway, that is just to give you some relevance to what all of this really means to us today, as it's not just about the text of Scripture - but absolutely everything that Sola Scriptura means.

The issue today concerning the text of Scripture is the exact same issue it was in historic Reformed orthodox scholasticism defending the Reformation text. They defended it against the Roman Magisterium because they denied the nature/grace dialetic and we are defending it against the Scientific Magisterium because we deny the nature/freedom dialetic. We deny Christians altered Scripture in favor of orthodoxy, but rather that it is the Providentially Preserved original text; and we assert that heretics altered the Scripture in terms of heterodoxy. The Alexandrian text is the exemplar of that heterodoxy altered in favor of Greek philosophical presuppositions in Alexandria. Likewise we reject the Apocrapha on the same grounds, which is part of the Alexandrian canon.

Critical text proponents argue that no essential doctrine of the Christian faith has been altered by their work, of course, that makes one wonder what the purpose of it is if our doctrines aren't heretical in light of the WCF 1:8 that appeals to the original languages are made in controversies of religion. If it's not heretical to believe that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh as 1 Timothy 3:16 teaches, then why would one side with texts that teach the Arian doctrine, especially upon such shaky and faulty grounds as they do? Of course, the real problem for the Reformed today is that with the critical text the Arian can now explicitly find his doctrine in it too, which he prior had to twist through a rubric of interpretation in the Received Text. Now, however, it's just an opinion of textual emphasis between ancient catholic orthodoxy and the heretic, how can his beliefs be anathematized upon the critical text?

In the Reformation and Post-Reformation era the positions that were taken by both sides went like this:

1. Reformers affirmed Sola Scriptura upon Byzantine text theologically rejecting all others.

2. Rome was forced to defend itself, Council of Trent was the result.

3. Counterattack upon Sola Scriptura by affirming variants in the text of Scripture, hence, you can't know what the original autograph is. No Sola Scriptura, must have Church Magisterium and oral tradition maintained thereby.

4. Reformed orthodox forced to defend itself, high orthodox and reformed scholastic defense resulting in Providential Preservation of the text. Owen, Leigh, and Turretin, for example and the Helvetic Consensus Formula as the last and most explicit creedal defense of the Reformation textual and doctrinal position.

These two positions are antithetical and neither party can be fully understood without seeing both it's positive thesis and it's defensive clarification of that thesis. Likewise, the antithesis between a Reformed defense of historical Protestant orthodoxy and modern textual criticism can't be fully understood either without analyzing it's positive thesis and defensive clarification of that thesis. Today, we are just dismissed on the grounds that our defensive clarification of our positive thesis is presuppositionally rejected in the modern critical claim of scientific neutrality in it's anti-theological approach to the text.

This is very basic to us because we hold to the historic Reformed position where the accepted and received text form is part and parcel of the Regula Fidei of ancient catholic orthodoxy and thereby the text and canon are one. The modern critical position is contrary to this and maintains a philosophical construct and attempt to maintain one foot in Rome and one foot in Confessional orthodoxy straddling the text of Scripture. The result, however, has been the sharp decline of orthodoxy in the 20th century, the rise of the evolutionary-humanist state and the assertion of a Statist Magisterium over all of life. But they can't see that continually questioning the veracity of the Word of God is the problem whereby Authority has been transfered from Scripture to other places. Anytime you set up two disparate authorities that say something different, then the person that decides between them is the Authority.

Textual variants never posed the problem for the Reformed orthodox that they do for modern Christians because they never approached them dialetically - they never set up the autographa against the apographa and never sought to determine the Word of God independent of the text of Scripture.

The Reformed held to Scripture Alone as the absolute authority and principium unicum theologiciae (sole foundation of theology) with the Scripture as a prolegomena to Scripture in the formal absence of a prolegomena. The Romanists affirmed the Church Magisterium as the absolute authority and pricipium unicom theologiciae with Scripture as an adjunct to it.

John Owen, for example, was defending Sola Scriptura against Romanism because he believed, and correctly, that they were attempting to undermine Sola Scriptura which dealt them their death blow by demonstrating that no such things existed independent of the Church Magisterium. Owen believed they wished:

"to place themselves in the throne of God, and to make the words of a translation authentic from their stamp upon them, and not from their relation unto and agreement with the words spoken by God himself. And yet further, as if all this were not enough to manifest what trustees they have been, they have cast off all subjection to the authority of God in His Word, unless it be resolved into their own, denying that any man in the world can know it to be the Word of God unless they tell him so: it is but ink and paper, skin of parchment, a dead letter, a nose of wax, a lesbian rule, - of no authority unto us at all. O faithful trustees! Holy mother church! Infallible chair! Can wickedness yet make any further progress?" (1)

The Romanists, such as Canus, Lindanus, Bellarminus and many others all held the same position. Rome had one universal chorus - variants:

"that the original copies of the Old and New Testament are so corrupted ("ex ore tui, serve nequam") that they are not a certain standard and measure of all doctrines, or the touchstone of all translations." (2)

The latin there, I believe should be translated: "out of your mouth, worthless servant." Which is from the Latin Vulgate Luke 19:22

Owen, on the other hand, held that:

"Of all the inventions of Satan to draw off the minds of men from the Word of God, this of decrying the authority of the originals seems to me the most pernicious." (3)

All of the Reformed held that the copies (apographa) that they had possession of was the original text, so when he says "originals" above he does not mean autographa - citing Owen again:

"Let it be remembered that the vulgar copy we use was the public possession of many generations, that upon the invention of printing it was in actual authority throughout the world with them that used and understood that language, as far as any thing appears to the contrary, let that, then, pass for the standard, which is confessedly its right and due." (4)

Francis Turretin was a late high orthodox scholastic that defended the Reformation text and doctrine against Rome, in his Institutio Theologiae Elencticae in Locus 2, "The Purity of the Original Text" he sets out the issues:

"This Question is forced upon us by the Roman Catholics, who raise doubts concerning the purity of the sources in order more readily to establish the authority of their Vulgate and lead us to the tribunal of the church." (5)

And he says by the technical term "original text" he means:

"copies (apographa), which have come in their name (autographa) because they record for us that Word of God in the same words into which the sacred writers committed it under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit." (6)

and the basis in which the so-called "oldest, best and most reliable" texts were rejected is:

"Faithful and accurate copies, not less than autographs, are norms for all other copies...and for translations. If any discrepancy is found in these, whether it conflicts with the originals or the true copies, they are not worthy of the name "authentic," and must be rejected as false and corrupted, and there is no other reason for this rejection except the discrepancy." (7)

The Reformers and the Reformed orthodox scholastics following them all dismissed the Vatican as a proper repository of the text of Scripture and all dismissed their text as a corruption. They all, however, recognized that there were minor technical errors and variants, but it was in no way considered as the problem posed today to reconstruct the original autograph in an infinite regress filtered through a dialetical and humanistic presupposition of scientific neutrality. On the contrary, the Reformers were extremely biased against Rome and everything they stood for, including the Latin Vulgate and the texts that agreed with it. Today, the Reformed hold that the textual basis of the Latin Vulgate is the best and nearest to the original text. This is a great dichotomy, because they receive this text upon the doctrinal and canonical grounds of the Reformation - which is an internal inconsistency. If I believed the modern critical position, I would be questioning the veracity of the Reformed faith, because clearly if that is the best text, then on what basis do we reject the Apocrapha?

To the Reformers and to the orthodox the Received Text, for three hundred years, was the very word of God. This is no small matter, as Rushdoony says: "the Faith is at stake." (8)


Notes:

1 John Owen, Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture, Works, Vol 16, p 284
2 Ibid, p 285
3 Ibid, p 285
4 Ibid, p 366
5 Francis Turretin, The Doctrine of Scripture, p 113
6 Ibid
7 Ibid, p 128
8 RJ Rushdoony, The Problem of the Received Text

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana

I continue to maintain that the Reformers and the formerly orthodox were NOT on the "Traditional Text" page. The fact is, textual criticism was not advancing as a discipline until the late 18th Century and its resulting scholarship took over 100 years to advance through continued development and the introduction of new manuscript finds.

To demonstrate John Calvin's view of the text, read the following from one of my prior writings...

---

I came across the following statement in Calvin’s Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

"Where I have rendered -- everything that is called God, the reading more generally received among the Greeks is, every one that is called. It may, however, be conjectured, both from the old translation and from some Greek commentaries, that Paul's words have been corrupted. The mistake, too, of a single letter was readily fallen into, especially when the shape of the letter was much similar; for, where there was written παν το, (everything,) some transcriber, or too daring reader, turned it into παντα, (every one.)"

This is very interesting...here Calvin argues for an alternate reading on the basis of a supposed scribal error or a 'too daring reader' (this deduced from an alternate reading from the Vulgate and some 'Greek commentaries'--not a variant in another Greek manuscript!). His rejection of 'παντα' in favor of 'παν το' here demonstrates that Calvin did not handle the issue of variants according to any 'Traditional Text' paradigm.

For the record, I think Calvin is wrong here (I would not argue for a reading not found in any extant Greek manuscript). I only intend to point out a place where a sampling of his approach to textual criticism is demonstrated. I find more and more of this sort of thing as I study the old commentaries.

This proves wrong the argument used by Traditional Text advocates that says the 'Traditional Text' approach to handling textual variants was the only known position until the advent of modern textual criticism.

Had Calvin had access to all of the manuscripts we have today, I think it highly likely he would have been an advocate for something like the Critical Greek Text.

__________________
Robert Truelove
Pastor
Christ Reformed Church
Lawrenceville, GA

Because it's Old Testament is a critical text - so you have the same problem just in the Hebrew.

The Reformed orthodox worked extensively in defending the Hebrew. So, the NKJV comes forth to provide an alternative modern translation of the Received Text to settle the dispute and then does a textual switcharoo in the Old Testament to Kittle's critical text.

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana

That's not altogether true. Kittle's edition is essentially the same Hebrew text behind the KJV but contains his critical textual apparatus (notes).

__________________
Robert Truelove
Pastor
Christ Reformed Church
Lawrenceville, GA

But why wasn't it "advancing" during the high period of reformed orthodoxy when every other aspect of biblical investigation was advancing at a high rate? The textual variants were there, had they been of a mind to utilise them in order to develop the art of textual criticism. But the true state of the case is that they were dogmatically aligned to an uncorrupted text. They possessed the word of God, and no discovery of new mss. would alter their conviction. This is the fundamental point of difference with the proponents of new texts.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

That's interesting that some of your members would like you to switch to ESV or NIV. I have a couple of members who would probably like to see me using the KJV. They are older members who love the Scriptures and their preferences are really more about the beauty of the language more than anything.

__________________
Pastor Chris Surber, M.A.R.
First Congregational Church
Peru, Illinois USA
[url]www.1stperu.org[/url]
"Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life." - Jonathan Edwards

Hello Pastor Truelove,

I knew I should have put this off to another day, I've got to be brief as I spent too much time in responding to Lady Flynt already.

Well, brother, you are maintaining something that is unsupportable.

The text for the Reformers is part and parcel of their return to ancient catholic orthodoxy and is received as a unified whole. That is to say Sola Scriptura is affirmed only in the context of the Regula Fidei of ancient catholic orthodoxy and it has never existed independent of it. Martin Luther's 95 Thesis of October 31, 1517, for example, rests absolutely upon his 97 Thesis of September 1517, and it cannot exist in its absence.

He affirms the doctrine of Grace in September and then sets out on an attack upon the doctrine of Purgatory in October which is derived from the Apocrapha. The Roman defense was in terms of the Greek Old Testament, behind the Latin Vulgate against the Reformers claim of Ad Fontes for the Masoretic Hebrew. In 1562, then, the Second Helvetic Confession is brought forth defending the inspiration of the vowel points of the Hebrew, because this is the locus of the defense at this time, not the New Testament.

It is true that the defense of the New Testament text didn't develop until after Trent (1563), but to argue that they weren't "on the Traditional Text page" because the cause of defending their position had not yet arisen while they were defending the Hebrew is contrary to all of their polemics against Rome. How can they receive Rome's text and deny the Regula Fidei of the Roman Magisterium, they cannot deny the Apocrapha on that ground.

Muller explains the continuity:

"Both the language of sola Scriptura and the actual use of the text of Scripture by the Reformers can be explained only in terms of the questions of authority and interpretation posed by the developments of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Even so, close study of the actual exegetical results of the Reformers manifests strong interpretive and doctrinal continuities with the exegetical results of the fathers and the medieval doctors. (1)" Richard Muller, Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol 2, p 52 citing James Preus, From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther, 1969

From the earliest reformatory arguments of Luther and the Swiss disputations and theses, the point was consistently made and dogmatically held forth that Scripture judged tradition and the church, rather than tradition and the church judging Scripture. At the same time, moreoever, the increasingly textual approach and literal hermeneutic of their theology affirming both the high view of inspiration and authority of Scripture, makes it impossible for them to receive the subjective text of the Roman Magisterium and deny the authority of that Magisterium. That would be nothing short of Revolution, not Reformation.

Textual criticism, as a discipline, arose under Richard Simon at the end of the 17th century for the sole purpose of carrying forth the Tridentine attack upon Sola Scriptura. In the 16th century Rome simply didn't have the philosophical and critical tools at hand to deal a stronger blow to the Protestants other than to assert their arguments. Simon, however, provided the tools - the discipline has been counter-Reformational since that time and worked in relative obscurity until Wescott and Hort brought forth Griesbach's text under the guise of updating the translation of the Authorized Version. Ever since then textual criticism has operated covertly under the guise of "translation" as if they are standing in the Reformed tradition when the opposite is true.



While I certainly appreciate your opinion, you've just misinterpreted the data. Calvin was a theologian and exegete, the textual work fell upon his protege Theodore Beza, who corrected Calvin's critical method and to whom Calvin acquiesced. It is true that Calvin had an affinity for Colines (1534) edition and utilized it in part of his Institutes of 1540, which is a departure from the established textual tradition of Erasmus and Stephanus, but it is also true that Calvin returned to Stephanus third edition (1550), and then updated subsequent editions of his institutes away from his utilization of Colines text.

However, it is important to understand, that for both Calvin and Beza, and even while Calvin utilized Coline's text he continued to base his critical decisions upon primarily external criteria. It is precisely this aspect of 16th century text criticism that causes modern critical scholars to foam at the mouth. Parker, for example, criticizes Calvin but does so from his position of supporting post-enlightenment methodology which places primacy upon internal evidence. Letis points out that Calvin's critical equipment wasn't faulty as Parker alleges, but that it merely followed a different criterion - a criterion consistent with the established textual tradition but applied to Colines text in his 1540 commentaries.

Nevertheless, the scholastic defense of the New Testament doesn't arise until after Calvin and Beza's work had solidified the "Received Text" as not just a publishers advertisement but as an objective reality. Tregelles notes:

"Beza's text was during his life in very general use among Protestants; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis....After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based." Samuel Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles, 1854, p 33 - 35

Cordially,

Thomas

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana

Upon re-reading my responses in this thread, I think another important note needs to be added to my post above, # 47, of February 20, 2008:

I think it is important to make another note of Colines 1534 edition, as it applies for defenders of the Authorized Version, as it would very much fall into the schematic of today's critical text. We are often given the revisionist position that our Protestant father's, such as John Calvin, had no other option but to use the Received Text. That simply isn't true as I've demonstrated above, on the contrary, they abandoned a text that would later become the fountainhead of that recension.

Beza said of this text:

"I have found many things in it emended on sheer conjecture by someone who was in other respect most learned in the Greek tongue." Theodore Beza, Responsio as translated by THL Parker in Calvin's Commentaries, 1971 p 101

Coline's text, after Beza, was never used by Protestants again and fell into obscurity, it didn't come to the forefront again until Mill and Griesbach, which would be the father's of the critical text. Turner says of this notable and important fact:

"It [Coline's text] had no influence on the history of the text, and it was first by Mill and then again by Greisbach that it was rescued from oblivion." C.H. Turner, Early Printed Editions of the Greek Testament, p 25

Anyway, I thought this was an important point to bring out as I didn't know if readers were aware of what Coline's text even was.

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana