Author: Berean Baptist

            As a preacher of the gospel, I make many comments about the blessed privilege of having God’s word as the instruction manual for our lives. Though many dispute the value of the Bible for the modern world, few want to dispense with it entirely especially considering the teachings of Jesus. No one legitimately finds fault in Him. At least this view of scripture has been the case for American history for over four hundred years going back to the establishment of the first permanent colony in this country.

            Despite revisionist history, the purpose of the first settlers was to make a place where they could worship God according to their conscience. Lest we are historically inaccurate, theirs was not an open religious system but kept the goal of making their views of scripture the only view. Thankfully, they were mostly right, but were not interested in diversity of opinion. You may ask, “What were the main tenets of their religion?” They were theonomists meaning it was proper to establish a government that made laws according to scripture and enforced their obedience to righteous living. This tied to their practice of infant baptism and their misinformed interpretation of the church. They were unlike Roman Catholics who believe baptism regenerates by washing away original sin. Rather, this baptism is an expression of God’s covenant with His people. The inclusion of infants in the church thereby also seals them as citizens of the state. I will not take you into the long history of what this did to other societies in Europe that interpreted the same. Suffice it to say the ultimate result is governmental persecution.

            The practice of church/state relationships was present in all the colonies (with exceptions such as Rhode Island founded by Baptists) until and for a brief time after America won its independence from Britain. There is no denying the Christian religious part in the establishment of this country even though they wrongly enforced a church/state government. Those who lobbied intensely for a change to religious freedom were the Baptists who were the objects of much persecution. Our objection to infant baptism and belief in soul liberty was incompatible with church/state combination. In other words, to reject infant baptism was to be an anarchist.

            If you read Christian news, you are aware the issue of theonomy experiences a revival in current Christian thought. It is beyond the Christian right as it would make it our duty to elect officials who are only Christian and will make laws only as they are consistent with scripture. This may sound good, but giving more thought, you should quickly see a problem as the next consideration is the character of the enforcers and the interpretation of what they enforce. This is a return to the principles our Baptist forefathers fought against. We uphold the right to interpret scripture by our conscience, understanding that conscience is right only when directed by the Holy Spirit.

            Baptists cannot be theonomists and remain consistently Baptist in conviction. There is value in the debates and conclusions of our forefathers in adding the first amendment to the Constitution. We should recognize and appreciate the underpinnings of Christian influence in the establishment of our government. Do not reject it or the Bible. The outstanding issue today is the resulting licentiousness of rejecting our foundation. The lack of respect for Jesus’ teachings plagues our society. The answer is not theonomy. It is conversion. Theonomy will return in the righteous Kingdom of Jesus Christ. Until we have a perfect Ruler and Judge, the gospel sufficiently sustains us. Rely on the gospel for conversion of those who disagree with Christ and His word.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

            This week in our study of Mark’s Gospel, we return to the Sabbath controversy of chapters 2 and 3. The Sabbath was the heart of the Jewish worship system, and its rules were arduous and thus a badge for those who fully committed themselves to them. They were exceedingly odious in their ritualistic demands which made them a burden too hard to bear. In the church council at Jerusalem in Acts 15, the apostles and other church leaders gathered to discuss the necessity of circumcision for Gentile converts. Peter referred to this demand as a yoke of the law their Jewish fathers were unable to bear. In other words, their salvation came through faith not the law because their fathers proved their inability to keep it.

            The assessment of Sabbath Day observance by the Jews in Jesus’ time would as well fit this description. A law intended for the good welfare of the people became an unbearable yoke. The endless restrictions and requirements left all dissatisfied and even prompted the leaders who insisted upon them to improvise methods of circumventing them.

            Seven years ago, in our study of the Ten Commandments, we dug deeply into the fourth commandment in five sermons. My purpose was to explain its vital necessity for both them and us, and rather than abandoning its use, we should discover its usefulness. I remember in one sermon emphasizing the Christian Sabbath as a day to honor the word of God. I began explaining where the scriptures intend us to be on the Lord’s Day. We have six days to hear the word at home and one day for attendance of corporate worship to engage together in the word. It is for the enjoyment of the congregation.

            Secondly, we are to read the word. We do our best to accomplish this in our church services. We read the word at the beginning of the service, and we end with it. In between, are congregational readings and exposition through sermons. This makes Sunday the chief day for God’s word. We have not met the requirements of duty to the word if it is not freely and frequently used in our services. We are aware of too many churches that have abandoned the Bible entirely and thus poor practice yields poor performance.

            Thirdly, we are to contemplate the word. I will defer more explanation as I hope in our reading together you do think about what we are reading and especially this would be true in hearing the word explained in the sermons.

            Fourthly, and a favorite of mine, we must pray the word. In my original message on the fourth commandment, I did not consider nor have in mind our current practice. I did not intend that we should make prayers of the word. It is not that the thought escaped me completely, but rather the use of the scriptures in this way reminded me too much of high church liturgy. After exploring further by reading the prayers of our good Christian ancestors, I discovered this was widespread practice. Because Baptists are not formal liturgists, we have lost this practice. I revived it for our church because speaking back to God the same promises He makes and the meaning He intends, increases our knowledge of the word. At least, it takes the selfishness out of our prayers.

            These are just a few thoughts gleaned from the former sermon series. It is too much for our purposes in surveying Mark, but good instruction, nonetheless. Praise God for your Sabbath attendance to engage the word of God.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

            Today in our study of Mark’s gospel, we begin a three-part miniseries on Jesus’ relationship to the fourth commandment: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. ^[9] Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: ^[10] But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: ^[11] For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:8-11). This is the longest of the commandments, which being longer than the other nine, necessarily gives more explanation to its observance. However, this commandment loses ground to the briefer statements such as “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “thou shalt not steal.” When we think of the commandments, we give greater weight to these than the fourth, and think we have more latitude to disobey the fourth than the others. Most Christians are callous towards the fourth while appalled at anyone who carelessly misbehaves with six through eight. This way of regarding the commandments is backwards from Jewish practices in the first century.

            The fourth commandment became the Jews’ test of faithfulness to the law. This command was at the center with the others revolving around it. It was the grand symbol of their piety, and thus many added restrictions were part of its observance which defeated God’s purpose of making it spiritually healthy. The Sabbath was their greatest burden not their greatest joy in worshipping the Lord.

            Most of us would not feel right if we posted the Ten Commandments on the wall only to discover with closer inspection, we left out the fourth. The Ten Commandments are not the ten, they are the nine. Surprisingly, many good Bible teachers are agreeable to this. They struck the fourth commandment from the law leaving us without a specified sanctified day to worship the Lord. I could call the names of these proponents who would be familiar to you, but I shall leave them anonymous. This temptation is detrimental to the church. The result of the missing commandment is the lack of shame for missing corporate worship. There is no shame for taking the Lord’s Day to use for us.

            In the early days of Christianity in this country, the expectation of every church member was to hallow the day by making sure they were present for worship. There were disciplinary measures taken for its neglect. The church will certainly act against murderers, adulterers, thieves, and an idol in the backyard. We are less likely to make a fuss or enact disciplinary measures because a member misses a few Sundays. In our defense, we do have a lenient time limit, but admittedly do not often treat it as seriously as the others.

            This failure to hold up to the standard leaves us where we are today. While you would not easily fornicate (I hope), you will easily absent yourself from worship. The double standard with the fourth commandment has gradually eroded the church so that we feel uncomfortable speaking of it. I believe most of you expect me to give greater attention to the others and leave number four alone. Thus, we have nine commandments not ten.

            The Jews of Jesus’ day were wrong in their perversions of the commandment. They were, however, correct in considering it as important as the others. Though Israel was guilty of breaking all the commandments, it was commandments one, two, and four that God held over their heads and sent them into captivity. By the time religious parties formed among the Jews in the intertestamental period and the memory of the captivities and their current occupation by a foreign power was on their minds, the benchmark of their piety was in place. The Sabbath Day was the pinnacle of their religion. We do not want to repeat their mistakes, but neither do we want to miss the mark and come short of the glory of God with disobedience to the command to reserve the Sabbath rest for public worship.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

             In this week’s message, we find ourselves delving into the subject of fasting. While this is the second part of a message on legalism, I choose to dive deeper into this one act that was a badge of righteousness for the hypocritical religionists of Jesus’ day. You might assume by my negative attitude towards it that I do not recommend it. My exact point and stated position are that it is a personal conviction for each believer to decide. It is not my business to criticize those who do. However, the announcement of a fast and to appear fasting is against Jesus’ teachings. The temptation to legalism is born out of it. This is true of any markers we purposely use to display an attitude of superiority over other Christians.

            In my studies, I find certain authors I respect more than others and consider them my trusted companions as I search the scriptures. I notice a difference in how my companions handle this subject. On one hand, there are those who insist we recover the discipline of fasting in the modern church. By way of example, one wrote: “…fasting has enormous benefits for the Christian’s soul.” Another wrote: “In my own life, I have not practiced regular fasting.” According to author one, author two misses a major (enormous) opportunity to be closer to Christ and obedient to Him than author one. Keep in mind that benefits of the Christian life are always primarily to make us closer to Him. Author two also wrote: “Whether fasting is a mandated spiritual activity for every Christian in the New Testament is up for debate.” We do not know if author one believes fasting is “a mandated spiritual activity for every Christian.” This is the point I seek to make. If there is a spiritual activity that has enormous benefits for the soul, yet not mandated in the scriptures, we are at loss to explain the reason.

            I cannot think of anything taught in scripture that has these implications for the soul without a mandate. It simply becomes a natural part of the Christian disposition. You may find fasting comes naturally in times of troubling decisions, or in grief or loss. I can identify with fasting this way. Author one claims that a growling stomach is a reminder to pray. For me, an alarm set on a particular schedule does the same thing.

            I do not mean to discourage anyone from the practice of fasting. I only want us to be mindful of the danger as well as the benefits. Criticism of those who do not and the claim they would be better Christians (enormously so) if they did, appeals too much to knowledge only the Holy Spirit has of the individual. When I first became pastor of Berean, I found some of the members wanted me to be their conscience. I refused to inject myself into their personal lives at this level. It makes me have God-like power over them. I cannot and will not declare a fast for you or for Berean Baptist Church in general. If you must, do it in the quietness of your spirit.

            One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. (Romans 14:5-8)

Pastor V. Mark Smith

            I often derive the bulletin articles I write each week from subjects that pique my interest and help encourage me in my walk for the Lord. All do this in some way whether they are positive affirmations or negative rebukes. Knowing what to do and not to do have equally encouraging effects. Other articles are like the one today. This one comes from the frustration of the degradation of truth that we as Baptists should stand for.

            Let me set the stage. A few weeks ago, on the observance of the Lord’s Supper, I authored an article referring to a 19^th century work by Edward Hiscox titled The New Directory for Baptist Churches. Most of you have never heard of it, but it had widespread circulation for many years around the turn of the 20^th century. My article commented on the remarkable consistency of our liturgy in the Lord’s Supper compared to Hiscox’s description of Baptist practice in his time. In conversation with members of the church, we discussed Baptist practices in which I commented that I am unashamedly Baptist. I am convinced the biblical principles we observe should not change.

            You may wonder where this is leading and why I am fidgety with a burr under my saddle. With limited space, I must get to the point. In my renewed interest in Hiscox’s book which I have owned for many years, I discovered a rewrite and updating of the book by a contemporary Baptist pastor. The apostle Peter wrote:  “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23). Most of us would agree this verse sets the standard for an immutable, infallible word from God. If our practices were biblical and valid in the 19^th century (and before), they are, according to the word, still biblical and valid today. It was disheartening—no, a better word is disgusting—that a modern pastor would insert unbiblical practices into Hiscox’s work and pretend that Hiscox would sanction them as if he had written them himself.

            These changes included the possibility of membership in a Baptist church without baptism, the acceptance of infant baptism if circumstances warranted it, the sanction of private communion, the possibility of membership association for those noncompliant with church discipline and doctrine (in other words the sanction of individual conviction over the agreed doctrines of the membership under the guise of soul liberty) among other irregularities. These were troubling enough and are factors that undermine and destroy the church. However, added to this was ecumenical cooperation with churches that are not of like faith and order. The topping on this mishmash of the devil’s concoction came in the section on ministerial ordination. This Baptist (?) sanctioned the ordination of women to the pastorate. In my experience this heresy is the last step before the acceptance of homosexuality in the church. Indeed, the approval of the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches followed. These two groups are heretical and accepting of the previous issues. They defile the meaning of church.

            My extreme disappointment is the attachment to Edward Hiscox with the title, The New Hiscox Guide for Baptist Churches. New indeed! My further discovery was the author’s affiliation with the American Baptist Churches USA, a group we do not recognize as Baptists, and neither would we accept their baptisms as valid. Baptists face the degradation of faith and practice with groups such as these that dilute the name and disguise the truths Baptists died for. We will remain historical Baptists believing we are the same with the church Christ founded. We will earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude v. 3).

Pastor V. Mark Smith

^[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

            Now that we are past most of the terrible effects of COVID, most of us think little about it and have gone back to our same habits of the pre-COVID days. Occasionally, I still see people riding alone in their cars wearing a mask. They may have a special reason for it due to some other illness, but I believe many of them are people still living in fear. There are strong differences of opinion about whether COVID is a “thing” any longer to be concerned with. I mention it today not for the talking points of illnesses, vaccines, or mandates. My concern is the excuse it offers many Christians not to gather with God’s people. Of course, I am speaking of those who are not sick, have not much fear of getting sick, but need an easy way out when confronted by the pastor. I also mention this problem in its connection with Lordship salvation. These may seem to be an unusual pairing, so read on to follow my thought processes.

            When Christians look for excuses to miss the assembly, it is troubling to the pastor as it signals a much deeper spiritual problem. Commenting on 1 Cornithians 6:9 which begins, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?”, Alistair Begg wrote: “We must take note that Paul is not referring to isolated acts of unrighteousness. No member of Christ’s Kingdom lives a sinless life this side of eternal glory. Rather, Paul is referring to someone who persistently pursues or tolerates sin. He has the mindset the kind of life that declares, ‘I don’t want God to interfere in my choices, but I do want to live with the notion that I actually belong in His Kingdom, and I do want all the benefits of that.’”

            Begg continues, “God sets the kingdom borders. It is simply not the case that everybody is in, no matter what they are, what they believe, or what they want! That notion my sound palatable, but it is simply not what God’s word teaches—God, and no one else, decides who is in the Kingdom.”

            Reading the rest of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and verse 10, you will see various sins mentioned—fornication, idolatry, sodomy, thievery, drunkenness, etc. This is quite a list of depravity and are what we consider the worst sins we can commit. In the context of Paul’s statement about the Kingdom of God, he chooses these heinous sins as examples from which many of the Corinthians were delivered.

            We ought not to think that sins we consider lesser do not figure into the apostle Paul’s or Alistair Begg’s point. If you met someone who claims to be a Christian and each time you talked with them, they spoke bitterly and filled their language with cursing and gossip, I dare to observe that on the third day of the same, you would be convinced they are not Christians at all and thus not in the Kingdom of Christ.

            Transfer the same logic to the pastor who sees members of the church constantly, persistently absent themselves from the assembly. I would give the latitude of more than the third consecutive time, but I am highly suspicious of the third month. If you do not want Christ to rule your life, to interfere with your life, and understand that you are accountable to Him, it is highly doubtful that you belong to the Kingdom and that the benefits of it are yours.

            In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul did not accuse the Corinthians of living in the sins he mentioned. Rather, he says they were cleansed from these “worse sins” and his subject is that they did not treat brothers and sisters in Christ as they should be treated. This is likewise unrighteousness and the unrighteous do not inherit the Kingdom of God. Salvation brings us into the family of God with new attitudes towards those who are believers. My point is we must reason about sin as Paul reasons. Disregarding Christian fellowship is a sin on par with the worst you can do. You may not think this way. However, remember this quote: “God, and no one else, decides who is in His Kingdom.”

Pastor V. Mark Smith