Month: July 2023

^[1] Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil. ^[2] Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.  (Ecclesiastes 5:1-2)

            Since beginning the Forum Class in 1998, it remains one of my favorite parts of ministry at Berean Baptist. I love to preach and understand it is my calling, but I also love to sit in conversation with brothers and sisters discussing the word of God. In an open forum, I am sometimes surprised by the questions. Many times, we hear the same questions asked again and again. I don’t mind these because I am most concerned the class reaches understanding of the scriptures. There are, however, the uncommon questions—questions of misunderstanding picked up during daily Bible reading in obscure passages of scripture. I am like most of you—I don’t spend extensive reading time in passages I am not likely to preach. Without fresh remembrances of them, answers to questions may be perplexing.  Nevertheless, I must answer those questions too.

            Some of the obscure questions can be answered by carefully observing the surrounding verses. The meaning works its way through by reading in context. I encourage each of you to stay within the context of each passage. A notable way for false teachers to confuse is to lift verses out of context. These questions are most humbling because they prove I don’t know everything I hope to know or as much as you think I do.

            With this introduction, I come to Ecclesiastes chapter 5. In God’s house, it is best not to answer quickly or say too much lest your ignorance be discovered. I do not think this applies to honest questions. Ignorance of a subject is not a fault, but speaking as if you know the subject when you don’t is a foolish mistake. I find some people love to speak to impress others with their knowledge. How do I know this is a problem? I have done it myself. Pride is the bane of every person and trying to keep it in check is as much a problem for the preacher as for the people.

            As a matter of confession, I recall an incident about ten years ago when visiting a church in Southern California. I am uneasy and ashamed each time I think of it. I sat in a Bible study class conducted by the pastor which was in form like our Forum Class. An attendee asked a question which I thought was not thoroughly answered by the pastor. When he was through, I raised my hand to add my thoughts. When I think of this, I shudder at the audacity of opening my mouth. My input was not intended to be helpful but to show I too was knowledgeable of the subject. I should have listened to Ecclesiastes: “Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.” Though I have opportunity each week to speak many words, sometimes it is best to listen.

            Despite my mistake, I enjoy discussing the Bible. Some of you have seen me sit for hours on Sunday afternoon discussing scriptures with one of our congregants. This is my “fun” activity. I am inquisitive about what others believe and always enjoy understanding their reasoning.

            If you don’t attend the Forum Class, I encourage your attendance. Come prepared to ask without shame. Our goal is to help everyone understand the scriptures. Class members are at different levels of understanding. Your question may be theirs too. We encourage questions and participation of class members in answering them. The common denominator among us is love for God’s Word.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

(Note: I wrote this article last year while recuperating from back surgery)

            I am writing this article on March 18 about the time I am in the first one-third to one-half of my recuperation. This morning was my first venture outside the house except for the day the staples were removed from my incision. This outing was a 250 ft. journey along the sidewalk around my house. I was guided and held on to by a physical therapist. I was not overjoyed to be outside because I did not want my neighbors to see me walking with a cane. What should have been a triumph of accomplishment was rather an egotist’s tragedy. The depression was made worse because Kentucky lost their first game in the NCAA tournament the night before. I was not much in the mood for celebrating an old man’s rehab. With this you are caught up on the “woe is me” statistics of my weeks’ long recovery.

            These are, of course, minor disappointments in a world of unbelievably shocking “are you kidding me?” moments. The world has gone mind bogglingly insane, which is much more apparent now that I have time to listen to and read more news than I normally do. One of the strangest events during this time at home was to receive a letter from a transgendered “woman”(?) who read one of my bulletin article blogs on the website. If I may quote the comment: “…the words you spoke there were the most Christian words I have heard spoken on behalf of what I imagine a loving God to be in a very long time.” I appreciate the compliment, but I think you can understand HIS (sic) comment sent me scurrying to find out what those words were. I will not repeat the referenced article here, but I imagine these were the most misunderstood words spoken on behalf of what I know the loving God to be. There is no meeting of the minds between God, me, and misgendered men.

            The only way to classify a biological male as an anatomically incorrect woman is to be ignorant of the definition of men and women. In a recent article by Carl Trueman, Professor Trueman begins, “The trans revolution reached new heights of absurdity last week when the BBC asked Anneliese Dodds, the Labour party’s shadow secretary for women and equalities, to define ‘woman.’ Dodds proved singularly incapable of doing so; after saying that ‘it does depend what the context is,’ she equivocated for several minutes and refused to give a direct answer. Trueman went on to say, “To be qualified for a job, one must have a basic understanding of the specific task at hand. The car mechanic needs to know what a car is; the brain surgeon needs to be able to recognize the brain. A politician tasked with safeguarding women’s rights should therefore know what a woman is and be able to articulate that understanding in public statements. ‘What is a woman?’ hardly seems an unexpected or unfair question to ask the shadow secretary for women.”

            This hairbrained type of nonsense was followed by USA TODAY naming Biden’s confused Assistant Health Secretary appointee, their “Woman of the Year.” Richard Levine only needed a name change to “Rachel” to qualify. It seems the best qualification for a woman to achieve public accolades is not to be a woman at all or to know what a woman is. Our only conclusion is we need not worry about defining a woman. We are all women, er men, or something. Women exist only in the mind and are not real anyway.

            Such are my musings after this morning’s 250 ft. walk. Sorry I must end here. I must go out to the car to wash my clothes.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

In the Challies.com post of March 13, Tim Challies made this observation: “You do not need to [search] extensively in Christian history or Christian biography to spot the connection between sorrow and sanctification. Though it is certainly not always the case, very often the people who are particularly used by the Lord are the same people who endure suffering.” From this statement, he continued by quoting from one of De Witt Talmage’s sermons in which he mentions the examples of several notable Christians among whom were John Bunyan, Richard Baxter, and George Whitfield. The quote from the sermon that especially caught my attention was this: “What is the highest observatory for studying the stars of hope and faith and spiritual promise? The believer’s sick-bed.”

            Through the years, I have preached many sermons about illnesses and God’s purposes for them. One of the most common objections is a complaint against God that I am sure is not intended to be as harsh as it may sound. We complain that God is not fair when we have done our best to be faithful and have lived our lives by the word as well as we believe we can. By comparison, it seems the worldly prosper far better than Christians hope to. This is the most troubling part of what I would call irrational Christian reasoning. 

            The reason I say these thoughts are not intended to be as harsh as they sound is because the Christian must surely be aware that our good health is not a sign or reward of payback for a righteous life. God does not love us and care for us because we are righteous people. If this were true, we would face the dilemma expressed by James in his epistle: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (2:10).I would encourage you to stay as far away as you can from any thoughts that you have done enough good things to merit special favoritism from God. I promise that if you intend to keep score, you will be buried so deep in a hole that you will never see the light of day.

            My second observation is not understanding that God sees and knows the whole picture of your life not because He has seen what you have done lately but has seen and planned the scope of the entirety of it from the foundation of the world. You make not one move without the plan and purpose of God as the reason you do. Your observatory for studying the stars of hope, faith and promise begins with complete dependence upon the sovereignty of God. There are so many directions for me to take on these thoughts that I feel as if a 600-word article is a straitjacket I cannot escape. To contemplate for even five seconds that God looks through time to decide and determine anything about us by what He observes we will do is another prospect not considered to be harsher than first thought. Without divine Holy Spirit intervention, we are destroyed before crying out at the first breath from our mother’s womb. There is nothing God sees in us but hopelessness and hell if not for the determinate counsel of His uninfluenced, unalterable will.

            My time and space are gone so I conclude with this last thought. Hope, faith, and spiritual promise are not understood by a life of ease. Dependence on God is rarely expressed unless calling on God for help is unmistakably necessary. To exalt myself as one who perfectly endures is to adjudge myself more faithful than the patriarchs, and more sanctified than the apostles. I pray that I understand as well as I should that every event of my life is a learning, sanctifying experience. My observatory is to watch what God does and to shutter the doors to the sky against any thoughts of personal worth.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

On the morning I am writing this article, I have just finished reading a story found on The Christian Post. This story is about a Catholic priest in Phoenix, AZ who had thousands of his baptisms over a period of 20 years invalidated by the Roman Catholic Church. His crucial mistake was that he used the wrong baptismal formula. As he baptized each baby or parishioner, he said, “We baptize you,” instead of “I baptize you.” In the many baptisms I have performed through the years, I have always said, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” This is referred to as the Trinitarian formula. My reason for saying, “I baptize,” is much different than the demands of Roman Catholicism that insist it must be “I baptize.” Rome says “We baptize” is incorrect because “I baptize” means that Christ baptizes. I want to take a moment to note some critical errors in the baptism of Roman Catholicism.

1. Infant baptism – the scriptures do not record a single incident of the baptism of babies and neither any without the expressed faith of the one baptized. The baptism of the scriptures is credobaptism not paedobaptism.
2. Baptismal regeneration – Roman Catholics consider baptism a sacrament whereby special saving grace is conferred. In their theology, baptism washes away original sin and brings the baptized into the grace of God. However, this baptism is not a guarantee of heaven. Other sacraments must be kept which neither in themselves give any assurance of eternal life. Pity those thousands who did not get the memo that their baptisms did not count. Roman Catholics are not uniform in their belief of whether a child dying in infancy without baptism is in the grace of God.
3. Sacerdotal salvation – This means the priest stands between the individual and God. His activity is required for the soul’s salvation. Thus, the priest incorrectly performing sacraments condemns the soul to hell. No priest at all to administer sacraments is hell-condemning or at least confers far less assurance of heaven than their already nonexistent confidence.

Secondly, the Catholic Church invalidated these baptisms based on “We” not “I,” saying it is Christ who baptizes, and “We” does not signify Christ. The “I” identifies the priest as standing in the place of Christ with the same power and authority over the soul. His activity is the same as Christ’s and has saving efficacy.

There are multitudes of other issues that flow out of this such as the priest having the power to give or withhold forgiveness of sin. Another is the purpose of baptism. Still another the work of the Holy Spirit as a technical aspect of the Trinity. I do not care to argue the point, but I am reminded of John 4:2 which says Christ did not baptize. At least the “We” vs. “I” argument suffers because the disciples did the baptizing. I wonder if on the Day of Pentecost, the twelve would have their three thousand baptisms invalidated by using the collective “We baptize you” in their formula.

• Affusion vs. Immersion –  Affusion is the pouring of a small amount of water on the head making sure some runs down further on the skin. This does not satisfy the scriptural mode of baptism. Baptize means “to dip” or “submerge (immerse)” the whole body in water. This symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The believer is also immersed to show his death to his old way of life and his resurrection to new life in Christ (Romans 6:3-14).

Here we have considered one small part of only one doctrine taught in Roman Catholicism. This well is deep and difficult to touch the bottom. Heresies and blasphemies abound that condemn souls forever. Our deepest sympathies and prayers go out to those mesmerized and entrapped by the perversions of Rome. If they stay there, they will meet their popes and priestly companions in the fires of eternal hell.

There is no salvation in the Roman Catholic Church or in any of its priests. All their works and sacraments are INVALID. Sad to say the problem is not for a thousand with invalid  baptisms but for millions worldwide who will die and meet those many, many millions more who through the centuries died believing their diabolical doctrines.

Salvation is in Jesus Christ alone.

Pastor V. Mark Smith