Month: December 2022

            This week in our series on the church, the subject is church membership. I thought this aspect of the church would be the next logical step in our study since it was hoped the discussion of church ordinances would make it clear that participation in these cannot be enjoyed except in connection with church commitment. This is especially apparent with our understanding of the nature of the church. Many that have a universal invisible view would not see that it matters since their participation in church is not restricted to a particular local assembly. They enjoy privileges without responsibility.

            This is truly unfortunate because acceptable service to Christ is affected by this erroneous opinion. The Bible teaches church decorum in the ordinances and the effect of church commitment upon the everyday activities of life. The Lord has expectations that are impressed upon us through the interactions of people who agree to be governed and disciplined by the church.

            Recently, I read an article about a contemporary Christian musician who said he loved Christ, but he was not churchy. He explained he did not mean he disdains the fellowship of Christians in the church but that he did not want his life to be defined by what churches expect Christians to be. How he lived his life was a personal decision that may conflict with the expectations. I find this view to be unsupported by the New Testament scriptures. As such, they cannot be tolerated by the author of these scriptures.

            Submission and conformity to the church are not burdensome and are two of the chief results of properly understanding sanctification. This musical artist, though vague, seemed to object to the culture of Christianity that imposes lifestyle restrictions that limit the way we talk, dress, etc. Rather, this person was comfortable with his description of what makes him a Christian. We agree that the basis of being a Christian is the relationship we have with Christ through our faith in His cleansing blood. Rather than freeing us of constraints, however, it harmonizes our thoughts with the scriptures and with a lifestyle that is congruous with them. This tends to make us act, think, dress, and talk alike. It certainly will not result in our undesirable separation from our fellow Christians. It is Satan’s work to divide the church. There is no virtue or spiritual heroism by rejecting conformity in favor of the individualistic mantra of “be true to yourself.” Christians are called to be true to Christ.

            The pitfalls of conformity are found in the extremes of sanctification teachings. On one end are those we have just discussed. These are people who refuse to submit because they work their sanctification out of the satisfying influences of their subjective feelings. They desire to promote self and a Christ that is never convicting but always agrees with self.

            On the other side of the spectrum are those who are theologically confused and manifest it by reversing sanctification and justification. Rather than sanctification being proof of justification, they confuse the order to make sanctification the means of obtaining justification. They tend to be law-leaning Pharisees who never met a rule they did not like. Ultimately, both are hooked into the same satanic deception. They trust their ability rather than surrendering to the Lord’s authority.

            The least we can say about church membership is that it helps us plow straight rows in the middle ground of these extremes. Yes, we must submit and conform but not to our preferences. The scriptures are not vague about how Christians are expected to live. Every New Testament epistle teaches doctrine with a practical response to the doctrine. The practical is our sanctification. It is unequivocally clear what we must do. Submitting to the authority of the church is always a major step in the definition of what it means to love and serve Christ. Self-fabricated definitions will not conform to nor honor Him.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. (Isaiah 9:2)

            Although Christmas is a time of celebration and happiness, the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the coming of Christ were often born out of depressing times. When Israel needed some glimmer of hope because of oppressing conquering armies, God had the prophets remind them that He had not forgotten His promise to them.

            I have chosen as the subject for this article a passage from Isaiah that is quoted in the New Testament upon the beginning of Christ’s public ministry. Isaiah 9:2 says, ”The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.” This reference is to the land of Galilee where Jesus grew up and spent most of His time preaching, healing, and giving hope to a sin darkened people.

            At the time of Isaiah’s writing some seven hundred years before Christ, this area of Israel had been overrun by the Assyrian army and the people were living in a war-torn nation. There was great anguish and distress as we might well expect when people were completely helpless to remedy their ills. The northern kingdom of Israel had been warned by the prophets for many years what would happen if the people did not return to God. God would have protected them from these armies if they would repent, but they did not, and so now they were reaping the just reward of their sins.

            However, we must remember they were God’s chosen people and despite their sin, God was gracious to promise restoration. Verses 6 and 7 promised the coming of the Messiah who would deliver Israel from their oppression. These two verses form a sweeping prophecy that encompass both the first and second advents of Christ. A child would be born—this is the first advent—and this child would bring the light of the gospel to Galilee. This is the reason we find verse 2 quoted in Matthew chapter 4. The prophecy then moves forward more than two thousand years to a date still in the future when Christ shall return the second time to begin a kingdom upon the earth. At this time, the promise to Israel will be fulfilled that a king shall sit on the throne of David forever. King Jesus will be ruler of a kingdom no longer gripped in the throes of war, but one in which peace reigns over the whole earth. Israel’s oppression will be forever ended and God’s people will always dwell in peace and safety.

            This is a wonderful promise given by the prophet. It speaks of a loving and gracious God who is willing to forgive sin and restore the penitent to His divine favor. Though these verses are primarily a promise for Israel, we must remember that God has promised to make Gentiles a part of His kingdom. The light has also shined upon us and this is the reason we celebrate Christmas today.

            This is good news for us all because in our deepest despair when there seems to be no hope we can find refuge in our merciful and gracious Saviour. My hope and prayer today is that you have met your King and surrendered your life to Him. Christmas is far more festive when you truly know the one for whom it is named.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

            In this article, we make a brief examination of the second of the church ordinances which is the Lord’s Supper. The name of the ordinance is derived from the last Passover supper Christ ate with His disciples just before His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane followed by mock trials and His horrible crucifixion. This was the Passover meal that since the time of Moses and Israel’s deliverance from Egypt represented the sacrifice of Christ for our sins and His deliverance of us from our bondage of corruption. Paul affirmed this connection in 1 Corinthians 5:7.

            Throughout church history, the Supper has been variously referred to as the Communion (1 Cor. 10:16), the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 10:21), and the Eucharist. The last of these refers to the consecration of bread and wine in the observance of the ceremony. Eucharist means “thanksgiving.” It is celebrated in thanksgiving for God’s gift of His Son to die for our sins. As Baptists, we generally do not refer to the Supper as the Eucharist because of its connections with Catholicism and High Protestantism in which priestly intercessions are necessary attendants to making the elements themselves a means of grace or for changing them into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. We regard this practice as blasphemy as this supposed consecration is rehashed crucifixion each time the communion is observed. This Roman Catholic perversion of the Supper is called the Mass, one of the most heretical doctrines in false Christianity. The practice of changing the elements is called “transubstantiation.” It is the transformation of them into the flesh and blood of Christ with only the appearance of bread and wine remaining. With these connotations, I think you can understand the reason we stay away from the term “Eucharist.”

            In Protestant theology, there are various opinions largely differentiated by the Lutheran/High Anglican and Presbyterian Reformed positions. The Lutheran and High Anglicans support consubstantiation in which the body and blood of Christ coexist with the substance of the consecrated elements. The substance is not literally transformed but the bread and wine remain naturally bread and wine with Christ present in them. The Presbyterians and other Reformed churches favor a sacramental view in which the sacraments are termed “the means of grace.” This view says the sacraments are God’s appointed instruments by which the Holy Spirit enables the believer to receive Christ and the benefits of His redemption. In our understanding of the Supper, this requires difficult distinctions between the signification of the communion and the realities they signify. We deny God uses human activity to dispense His grace. Human actions such as observance of the communion, baptism, prayer, etc. are outgrowths of grace already bestowed. Admittedly, these distinctions are muddled and difficult to understand. In all my years of study on this subject, I am not sure I state their position correctly. It seems the give and take of grace and works gives grace but takes it back. I have yet to see the clear distinction between grace and works in this view. It is best to stop here on this point and leave it to some other time and better investigation.

            This brings us to our view of the Supper. We believe the Supper is a remembrance or a memorial. You often hear me read the scriptures in which Christ commanded the apostles to partake. He said, “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24). Indeed, these very words are engraved in the Communion table in front of the pulpit. Further, this symbolic representation is seen in Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11. He told the church that in the Supper they showed (remembered, symbolized) the Lord’s death until He comes. This supports the memorial view. While these verses to do not categorically refute the other opinions, the absence of scripture to tell us otherwise does. We cannot go beyond scripture to firmly establish our practices.

            These are just a small part of the controversies. Among Baptists and baptistic groups, other questions such as permission to the Supper and the proper elements also divide. One article does not suffice to answer all questions. This is not my intent in this article. Further investigation which I must mention reveals the church as the appointed administrator of the ordinances and is the only place authorized to dispense them. We stand firmly on the belief that only true New Testament churches may administer the ordinances. Take time to investigate which church is authorized.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

Psalm 23