A BAROMETER OF DEPRAVITY

Berean Baptist on November 25, 2019

Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6)

            Last year, we began our Wednesday evening Bible study in the book of Romans. The method of our study was a change for us, since we have followed the traditional Wednesday night prayer meeting/sermon/teaching format for as long as I can remember. I call it tradition, but I do not mean an apostolic tradition since Wednesday night services did not become popular until the 19th century.

            Some confuse traditionalism with biblical practice insisting the way we do things must be the way Paul did in every little outpost of Christianity in the most obscure places. We will dispense with that thought quickly as being fantasy. If we introduce another way of study, it is not necessarily anti-scriptural. The Wednesday evening format has more latitude than the formal worship of the Lord’s Day. We believe it is scriptural for the word of God to be proclaimed by the pastor on Sunday. The pulpit is the place of authority to hear as God speaks through the written word. It is not a place of dialogue and debate, as we may discuss the word on Wednesdays.

            This little introduction is not my main point today. Rather, in preparation for our Wednesday night study in Romans, I read from Robert Haldane who made the point there are polarizing interpretations of Romans, especially in the areas of justification and the sovereignty of God in salvation. There are only two ways a person can be justified. He is either justified by faith in Christ alone, or he is justified by obedience to the law. The first is biblical—the second is impossible. Every person holds one opinion or the other, and regardless of the impossibility of the second opinion, it is the most common.

            Paul argues the depravity of man in the first part of Romans. He recognizes the objections, especially of Jews who refused to be put on equal footing with Gentiles in their favoritism with God. Both are depraved and all have come short of the glory of God. Haldane reasoned that if man is depraved, we can expect depraved interpretations of the Bible. This conclusion is inevitable. Therefore, the theological wrangling is set to dispute between the two ways of justification. Even a faith/works combo is only a variation of the second method.

            Human depravity was a hot button item for Paul. I’ve already mentioned the Jewish objections. Though plenty deny total depravity, the evidence of it is abundant everywhere. The comment by Haldane and the proof offered by Paul in Romans 1 caused me to think about the daily bombardment of profanity heard in common conversation.

Many people look at the use of language as a development of culture. The culture determines whether the language is good or bad. It is as if there is no objective standard that determines it. With our modern insistence on individualism and self-expression, we determine whether our language is right or wrong. The Bible disputes this. Culture is not a fluid determiner of right and wrong. The standard of righteousness is always one and the same. The Bible tell us the standard of speech in Colossians 4. There is grace speech that is defined by biblical morality.

Jesus said our heart governs the way we speak. Bad speech is an indication of a wicked heart. When you hear neighbors over the fence shouting profanities, or listen to young people in their normal conversations, or watch TV, or listen to popular music on radio—when you hear language laced with profanity, it is evidence of a depraved society. It is society losing its restraint and plunging into the outcome of Romans 1.

My simple point is this. Language is a barometer of our descent into final wickedness. There are certainly many other signs, but this one is noticeable without opening your eyes to see. There is no need to look for it. The sound of it reverberates throughout modern society. The filthy mouth is as Jesus said—the indication of a depraved heart. What hope is there for the world when Christians accept the world’s use of language? We are saved from their immoral speech, so that ours may be always seasoned with grace.

                                                            Pastor V. Mark Smith

How Do I Forgive Me?

Berean Baptist on November 18, 2019

One of the most common issues I encounter in counselling concerns guilt because of sin. As you know, I am never shy of preaching the horrible weight of sin that is against us, and that preachers ought never to let sinners off the hook by saying people feel too guilty already and we do not want to add to their guilt. No, if you are not a Christian, you do not understand how deeply guilty you are. If I can pound that point home clearly and without equivocation, only then I have done my duty to the gospel. You need forgiveness of your sins through the blood of Jesus Christ.

However, pay close attention. The Bible says nothing about forgiving yourself of sin. Much less does it speak of a person who trusts Christ as having any time in their life regardless of their sin that they must forgive themselves. The Bible never allows a Christian to think Christ’s forgiveness is not enough—that we need to take an extra step and work on forgiving ourselves before we are made whole.

The question, “How do I forgive myself,” was answered insightfully by H.B. Charles in a recent devotional. He said, “The most faithful response to this question is to reject it as an illegitimate question. The biblical teaching about forgiveness can be summarized in two main ideas: God forgives sinners freely, completely, and sacrificially. Ultimately, divine forgiveness is paid for by the cross of Christ. Christians must forgive those who wrong us, as God has forgiven us for the sake of Christ. That’s it. Sermon over. There is no third point. God has forgiven us, and we must forgive others. Period…the Bible does not teach that we should forgive ourselves. It does not explain how to forgive ourselves. It does not say anything about forgiving ourselves whatsoever.”

            Charles went on to say that self-forgiveness is self-centered psychology that suggests we are the ones who need to be appeased. In effect, it suggests that we are the God that is offended which he termed not just erroneous, but blasphemous. And yet, this concept is often found in self-esteem preaching. In self-help books, this is often part of their step program much like AA has a twelve-step program to wellness.

            Self-forgiveness betrays the sacrifice of Christ by proclaiming it less than sufficient. It is nothing less than one more self-righteous works religion that is the backbone of all false religions. Adam began this religion by grabbing fig leaves to cover his nakedness. Self-forgiveness is another fig leaf that is odious to God’s grace in the full and free pardon of sin in Christ. Self-forgiveness evidences a person does not understand the work of Christ. The same people who would never think of doing penance by working the beads of a rosary have in fact embraced the same religion by laboring to emancipate themselves from guilt figuring how they can forgive themselves.

            Charles also made this comment: “You do not need to supplement divine forgiveness with any self-forgiveness. Your forgiveness in Christ is complete. Receive it. Remember it. And rejoice in it. If your testimony is, ‘God has forgiven me,’ that is enough! You do not need to forgive yourself.” I submit this is the heart of the gospel. It is a gospel of grace that leaves nothing for us to do. Notice Charles said, “Receive it.” You are the recipient not the giver. As in your salvation, you do not “accept” it as if it must be evaluated and found to meet your approval. No, Christ approved it, you only need to receive it.

            If you receive the forgiveness of sin accomplished by the grace of God, it is enough. Nothing needs to be added. Indeed, God wants nothing from you nor accepts anything from you. Christ took care of it. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1)

                                                                                    Pastor V. Mark Smith

Purity in the Song of Solomon

Berean Baptist on November 11, 2019

Many years ago, a good friend of our family and a fellow pastor wrote a lovely song based on the Song of Solomon. His opening line was, “The Song of Solomon, it tells of Jesus and His bride; this wondrous message the Spirit will not hide.” Our friend’s first stanza stated very clearly what he believed the Song of Solomon is about. His interpretation was that Solomon wrote an allegory of the love Christ has for His church. He said the Spirit will not hide this truth.

Many Bible interpreters seriously doubt this is the spiritual message of the book, and to them, the Spirit has well-hidden its meaning. In fact, many argue strenuously against this interpretation with suggestions of many others. I can assure you that settling the question is not easy, but I believe our friend was right. The book is about the adoring mutual love between Christ and His bride, the church.

With this said, some of the imagery is surprising. I do not feel the need to point out specific words and phrases—you will see them as we go through the book in our congregational reading. Because of the imaginative writing, some believe it is not suitable for public reading. I do not see how this is possible since all the word of God is good for doctrine, reproof, and spiritual understanding. God’s word does not stir illicit thoughts except in those whose minds tend towards illicit thoughts.

Is it suitable that a preacher should preach this book in a way that stirs those thoughts? Several months ago, I listened to a sermon by an independent Baptist preacher who thought he was clever and wise and could unlock the meaning of certain words and phrases. His basic premise was the Song of Solomon is an erotic book, and being a self-proclaimed “expository preacher,” it was his duty to dig down into veiled references to put his spin on their meaning.

First, I want to say the Song of Solomon has been taught for centuries by some of the wisest men of God. They did not see it their responsibility to speculate on what the Holy Spirit meant. God can say exactly what He means. If these other things are meant, the Spirit would have told us. As our friend wrote, “this wondrous message the Spirit will not hide.”

Secondly, the eroticism the preacher imagined is not in the text. The expositors of the past did not concern themselves with arousing sexual tension in mixed company, because they never sought to attach meanings to words and phrases the Holy Spirit did not intend. The preacher I listened to left little to the imagination as he described activities reserved for the secrecy of the bedrooms of married couples. If a preacher preaches the book with this intent, he is guilty of mind pollution. He shames Christ, the church, and individuals who seek to purify themselves even as Christ is pure (1 John 3:2-3).

As we read through the book, it is not spiritually uplifting to try and make exact correspondence of metaphors with their reality. As one commentator on the text said, “There is no exegetical way to decide what the various jewels, flowers, scents, oils, and other sensual pleasures named in the poem represented in the author’s mind. He purposely leaves them vague. The symbols are therefore not necessarily meant to have any one-to-one relationship with corresponding realities; rather they are general emblems of beauty and desire.”

In today’s sexually charged society, a preacher should never use the pulpit to stir unholy interests. Read the Song with the beauty and holiness of Christ in mind. Satan seeks to obstruct this purity. A preacher ought never to be his willing accomplice.

                                                            Pastor V. Mark Smith

Oh, Dem Bones!

Berean Baptist on November 4, 2019

A few days ago, before leaving on vacation, I read an interesting article about the discovery of human fossils in Morocco. Scientists claim these bones are about 300,00 years old and I think they might have preferred they stay buried. Aside from the evolutionary bent of the article and the claim humans are this old, was the claim that this discovery, “rewrites the story of mankind’s origins and suggests that our species evolved in multiple locations across the African continent.” As Bible believers, we are thankful we do need not rewrite the story of human origins every time somebody digs up a bone. Our story has been the same since creation!

            I was fascinated by the dilemma this poses for evolutionary scientists which they somehow failed to acknowledge with their discovery. There is a glaring problem in their hypothesis. These fossils are supposedly dated to more than 150,000 years before the previous oldest ones discovered. Secondly, they are in a different place, and there are in fact multiple sites where these types of fossils were found. Formerly, scientists said homo sapiens evolved in one place—what they termed “the proverbial Garden of Eden.”

            The thing that puzzles me is that evolution of the species depends on genetic mutations. A mutation is an anomaly. In an article on genetic mutations from Cal Berkeley, this statement is made: “Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variations. Without mutation, evolution could not occur.”

            Now, in my ignorance, my question is how do the exact same genetic mutations occur in populations of apes scattered over multiple areas? How does the same anomaly occur in various places and times separated by thousands of years? How did humans in every place develop to be the same species? I would expect to see three eyes on some that evolved independently of the others!

            I am by no stretch a geneticist, a biologist, an anthropologist, and certainly not an evolutionist. Apparently, I am just a dumb old Bible believer who interprets the evidence in a way that keeps pointing back to the Bible’s narrative. My interpretation does not change each time somebody digs up a bone. I remember reading how scientists dated bones of Neanderthals (?) to be prehistoric only to find out later they were a hoax. How can they date bones to 200,000 years ago to find out they were recent and stained to look old? Carbon dating was supposed to fix this, but revisions in carbon dating are not uncommon.

            One reason for their willful blindness is that their predetermined narrative must be fulfilled. Do we believe fake news is a recent phenomenon? No, I believe it has been in our public schools for about 75 years. I still remember a book I ordered for school in the 3rd grade that explained the age of dinosaurs. My dad wrote scriptures and arguments on almost every page. He was good at spotting fake news!

            Every time a scientist digs up a new bone (sic), rather an old bone, his narrative changes. It seems he discovers much except the futility of disputing the Bible’s narrative. He seeks to verify his latest hypothesis (Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. – 2 Timothy 3:7). It is interesting archaeologists discovered this problem long ago. They have never disproved the Scriptures—but not for lack of trying. Evolutionary science is yet to learn it is useless to dispute Moses. 

            All of this reminds me of what God said to Job: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundation of the earth?”The answer for the evolutionist: still uncreated and thinking, how many steps from a slug to a bug?

                                                                                    Pastor V. Mark Smith