Month: May 2026

               As I draft this article today, my heart beats a little faster because of a recent conversation with a local pastor. It is not unusual for me to struggle for hours deciding on a topic but then there are other times when my mind and fingers will not relax until I have banged my thoughts out on the keyboard. My conversation reminds me of the reason we are a strongly confessional church. It is necessary to define our doctrinal standards clearly for the purpose of ensuring there is no ambiguity in what we believe. Leaving doctrine to fuzzy statements and classifying them as grey areas is not biblical and neither does it reflect the Berean Baptist Church.

               I have written recently about requests to share space in our building with other groups/churches (?) who are unable to find, afford rent in industrial parks, or without resources to buy property and build. Pragmatically, we should consider this. However, pragmatism can interfere with faith when we do not focus on the number one option in problem solving. This option is to seek the Lord’s face in prayer. It is not truly an option since scripture says, “ye have not because ye ask not.” This forces our hand to consider only what lies within God’s will. I do not find it difficult to discern the Lord’s will on what is the biblical response to the question of what we would allow as proper use of our space.

               I have already detailed in another article the criteria for judgment which I had to use in the latest request. I do simple research on the groups who apply which usually rules them out without any need to return their phone calls. What do you do when you do not recognize the name and cannot be sure of a group’s doctrinal positions? The only practical course was to call back and ask. To give you a quick synopsis of the conversation, here is how it went. First, “Who are you?” Answer: “The pastor of…” (names withheld to protect the guilty). “Can you briefly outline what you believe?” It is unnecessary to detail this because details were like pulling teeth. Next question, “Can you briefly tell me about your soteriology?” Answer: Long pause… “Do you mean my background?” “No, your soteriology.” Longer pause… (huge red flag). I interrupted here with, “Your soteriology, what do you believe about the doctrine of salvation?” His answer was typical gospel tract info…with a splash of baptism added in.

               At this point, deeper dives were impossible. The air at the surface was sufficient. However, now I have become interested in pastoral qualifications (it’s a 1 Timothy sort of thing). I said, “Okay, do you believe baptism is a qualifying step in justification and conversion?” Answer: “Uh…, justification, umm…conversion…yes, I believe so.” Next question, “So, you believe in baptismal regeneration?” This question is one the aware never leave open. The person will always say, “No, no, no!” His answer was truly a surprise. The logic is as follows: repentance + faith + baptism = regeneration. Deduction: repentance and faith do nothing until you stir the drink with baptism. Thus, the operative act of regeneration is baptism.

               I said his answer surprised me. It was not “No;” it was “Yes!” I can only conclude he had no idea what baptismal regeneration meant, and he had just denied the cardinal doctrine of salvation! The scripture says justification is by faith. How many times is this repeated/demonstrated in scripture? Here, we concluded the conversation but not until I said, “We will not consider renting our building to anyone who does not agree with our doctrine. We are not compatible.” He said, “Goodbye.”

               Thus, you have read the anthology of suggested questions for false/ignorant prophets. It sounds harsh and no doubt my reviewer(s) will find it so.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

               At the beginning of this month, our afternoon class on the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith started the third chapter of the Confession. “God’s Decree” is the fascinating subject. Before my other comments in this article, you may wonder why I chose to study this confession instead of one of the other similarly highly regarded ones. One reason is because in the founding of this country this was the overwhelmingly prominent representation of Baptist beliefs in America. Here we call it the Philadelphia Confession of Faith (1742). The Philadelphia Association of Baptist Churches adopted it in 1742 making it the doctrinal standard among American Baptists. The name “Philadelphia Confession” is largely a past reference with most around the world using the Second London Confession name.

               When we began chapter 3 on March 1, it was difficult to stifle my excitement and enthusiasm for the opportunity to discuss this subject. I explained to the class that the Decrees of God are the heart and soul of the confession. If we fail here, we upset the worldview of the framers and upend the logical consistency of the confession and more importantly the Word of God. From the time I was eighteen years old, this subject has been the one I most strived for in my ministry. If you hear five of my sermons on any subject and you have a trained ear, you will not miss the foundational doctrine of Decrees. I remember a family who visited our church for the first time over ten years ago. Immediately after the sermon, the congregant asked if the sermon identified my position on the Doctrines of Grace. This was not the exact phraseology, but the essence was the same. Where I stand can sometimes be determined in only one sermon.

               This is true in the sermon you will hear today. I do not have enough time to touch on and explain the Decrees in the morning sermon. It will take additional weeks in the afternoon class to do this. This morning it is only a small part but surely an important part. Since all the Doctrines of Grace within the Decrees logically stand or fall together, it is difficult to say this one or that one anchors the whole. If you wonder if I stand for all without equivocation, the answer is a resounding and heavily stamped YES!

               I learned an important piece of information in the first class. This entire article may puzzle you even though for nearly twenty-four years in this church I have never wavered from the worldview I describe. You have certainly heard it in more than five sermons. Terminology is your hang-up as it was in the first class. I like to teach using theological terms because it is best for you to know them. Although unfamiliar with the terms for this theological position, when questioned, there were zero deviations of opinion among class members whether the Confession accurately reflects the doctrinal position of our church.

               My final comment is about a former member of the church who fell away and then moved away. Personal problems consumed him, which I believe was a sort of personality disorder as the root cause. It disappointed him that I could not solve his problems. His opinion was that I should spend less time on doctrine and more time on innerworkings of personal relationships. Perhaps this is my failing as a pastor. Surely, those things are important, but it is clarity of doctrine that moves me more. I hope not to leave you mistaken that my worldview has God at the center—the God who immutably decreed everything that happens by the perfectly wise and holy counsel of His own free will.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

               Every day as I sit at my desk writing sermons and doing various tasks for the church, there is a plaque above my desk that says, “IT IS WELL WITH MY SOUL.” This was a gift years ago after I made comments about my love for the song that inspired the plaque. Almost 20 years ago, I was in Jerusalem at the place where the author of the song lived for a time. Horatio Spafford experienced great tragedy in his life which led to the authorship of this song. Many of you know the story which I do not have space to explain here. The part of his life I am interested in for this article is known as cultish behavior. Spafford and a group of followers moved to Jerusalem to enter a life of communal living trying to emulate the first church at Jerusalem before its dispersion in the first century.

               Though Spafford’s methods were wrong and he misinterpreted scripture, he was the father of special charitable endeavors still operated by his descendants in Jerusalem. These charitable works began at the place we visited now known as the American Colony Hotel. It is well known as a neutral site for meetings between worldwide diplomats. If I could add my touch to the story, this result contributes to the living legacy of the hymn. For it to be well with our soul, we must have the peace of Christ living in us by faith in His gospel.

               Looking at the plaque and considering my studies for Sunday Afternoon Confession class, spurred my thoughts today. At the time of writing, we are discussing chapter 3, “God’s Decree.” This section underscores the deepest of my thoughts on how and why I am a Christian. It emphasizes understanding of God and the reason I often say that understanding God’s Decree establishes a different worldview from the majority of Independent Baptists. Denial of this section affects proper understanding of nearly every part of Bible doctrines. To show how it overshadows our confidence in God’s salvation to ensure it is well with our soul, I take you further into the confession to section 17.2, “The Perseverance of the Saints.” Quoting the venerable authors: “This perseverance of the saints does not depend on their own free will but on the unchangeableness of the decree of election, which flows from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father. It is based on the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with Him, the oath of God, the abiding of His Spirit, the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace. The certainty and infallibility of their perseverance is based on all these things.”

               You can see what I mean that by striking God’s eternal immutable decree, the foundation of this section and the logic of it crumbles. Now we must look for another foundation which if not God puts the onus on the only other party. This is human will which clearly by scripture is impossible. Though most among Baptists who reject the Decrees do not understand what they do to the Bible’s assurances of salvation, they do in fact create a different worldview in which man is the ultimate purpose of the creation rather than the glory of God.

               I remember years ago upon becoming pastor of the church, I began to preach our Statement of Faith. I leaned in hard on the premise that everything that happens in the world is for the glory of God. The prevailing opinion at the time was that everything that happens in the world is foremost for the salvation of man. A church member came to me amidst these discussions to say, “I have never heard preaching like this. I never knew the glory of God is ultimate.” Thus, there is a clash of worldviews. My eyes light up when I think of this.

The first four chapters of the Confession lay the groundwork. First, “The Holy Scriptures.” What is our source of information about God? Second, “God and the Holy Trinity.” What is the essence of God and who is His person? Third, “God’s Decree.” Is everything determined by God? And then fourth, “The Creation.” This is the implementation of God’s Decree. We dare not make mistakes here. Semantics are not at stake. Clear biblical thinking undergirds the understanding of the entire purpose of life.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

               I am authoring this article in the middle of February which follows my normal convention of staying ahead to make sure the bulletin is ready to print each week. I do not count on sudden miraculous inspiration with either these articles or my sermons. “Prepare” is my motto which often avoids embarrassment. This early composition of articles sometimes means you have already heard me comment on the subject of the article. This article concerns doctrinal integrity and the unwillingness to compromise or confuse the public perception of the Berean Baptist Church.

               God has exceedingly blessed us with a beautiful building in a “to die for” location on this busy corner. I usually do not need to give detailed instructions on how to find us because Rohnert Park residents know where we are. Last year, we replaced our sign because of vandalism and during that time there was exciting speculation that our building was for sale. Quite honestly, most churches looking for a place to meet would never be able to afford the worth of what God has so graciously given. Let us suppose that we find ourselves in need of moving. Our building is oversized for the congregation, expensive to heat and cool, and is on the edge of expensive repairs. I may not depend on miracles to produce sermons, but for maintaining our place here, God must do amazing works. He has, and this is the reason this article will not turn into a slow introduction to shocking news.

               I pose the question of moving to dovetail into two same requests made within one week of each other. Both requests were for appointments to meet with me to discuss sharing our building with other congregations for Sunday services. These are not the first and I am sure not the last requests. I have at times considered the possibility of increasing our income and making our financial condition more comfortable. However, whether selling the building or sharing the building, there is a far more overarching concern than finances.

               I had not completely ruled out the possibility of sharing. There would not be a need to sell if there were suitable arrangements. This is the key to my article—what is suitable? To me, it is not figuring out time slots for who gets to have the building when. My concern is doctrinal compatibility. Oddly enough in the times I received inquiries about sharing, no one ever raised the question with me who we are and what we stand for. Before meeting with anyone, I want to know if it is a waste of time. I start investigating who they are and what they teach. I have no interest in helping to establish a preaching station in this gold standard location to promote what I preach against nearly every week.

               I will spare the details, but what do you think I would say about sharing with a charismatic church? What would I say about sharing with an affirming church? What would I say to the crew pulling their smoke machine behind them? The last interview I had with a pastor who wanted to use our building, I handed him our doctrinal statement and said, “Take this, read this, and come back with your answer.” We have nothing but solid, biblical, orthodox truth attested by scripture and Baptist history in our statement—and that sharing conversation was dead before the door closed behind him.

               Doctrinal confusion is Satan’s hallmark. Whatever I can do to help stop it, count me in. If your church must sit in the rain with your underwear soaked, I will not help Satan promote his lies. Is this a Christian attitude? This is what Jesus said to religious liars, “…ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves…” There are some things you just do not share.

Pastor V. Mark Smith