Author: Berean Baptist

            This week’s article concerns the office of deacon. This is the second of the two offices the Lord ordained for His church. Although it is secondary, the office is good for the welfare of God’s people and can be especially beneficial for the pastor who learns to depend on them.

            The selection of the first deacons is recorded in Acts 6 during the time of phenomenal growth of the Jerusalem church. Three thousand were saved and baptized on the Day of Pentecost which was followed by thousands more in the next few weeks and months. The care of these many people both physically and spiritually was more than the apostles were humanly capable. Above the shear numbers, the church was poor and persecuted. Christians were outcasts from the hub of Jewish social order which was the temple and were unwelcome in the outlying spokes of the synagogue system. Jewish leaders demeaned them to the point that many lost their jobs and were without means of support.

            Reading Acts 6, we learn that the care of widows was an acute problem and precipitated an urgent action by the apostles to alleviate their dire economic distress. The office of deacon was born out of the necessity to supply the physical needs of the people—a need that consumed too much of the apostles’ time and limited their ability to teach, pray, and evangelize. Despite the fact the office was first developed for the supply of physical needs, we find the qualifications for it had much to do with each man’s spiritual health. They were to be above reproach in reputation and be men who had proved themselves to be faithful.

            The qualifications for the diaconate are remarkably like those of pastors. Two of the first six chosen were men who could teach and preach and were active in sharing the gospel. We can assume the others were likewise qualified. We may also assume that years later when Paul detailed the qualifications in 1 Timothy that he still had these qualities in mind for the type of men who would be chosen to fill the office. It is sad this ability has been neglected in most churches, and in many the office is downgraded to those who may take care of the physical plant but have no spiritual oversight.

            In the next few weeks, we will see our deacons actively helping with spiritual duties. They are always active but not always as visible as they will need to be as I recover from my surgery. At times, you will hear them from the pulpit preaching God’s word and relieving my burden of being unable to tend the sheep. This is the most stressful aspect of my recovery time. In a measure, my mental health will be much improved by knowing the pulpit is in good hands.

            The deacons derived the title of their office from diakonos, a word that means servant. Some pastors fear deacons and refuse to have their churches appoint them. This fear arises from improper authority given to deacon boards to run the church including censoring the pastor as they felt needed. They became the de facto office of singular authority. This is unscriptural and should be rather remedied by pastors teaching the people the biblical order of the offices.

            I thank the Lord that for twenty years the deacons and I have enjoyed a close working relationship in which they respect my authority and I resist acting unilaterally. Pastors and deacons must work together so that I do not fear an unspiritual coup and neither do they fear being marginalized. A healthy spirit of cooperation is best for all as we serve the Lord together.

            As always, I pray you will support all the leadership and be thankful for their willingness to be used as the church requires.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry (1Tim 1:12)

            In the organization of the church, our Lord placed significant emphasis on those who would be leaders of His people as He personally trained the apostles for the task of building upon the foundation He laid with their selection. Ironically, one served as an ominous example of everything leaders should not be as Judas Iscariot was a false professor, a liar, a traitor, and a cowardly, greedy robber of the poor who was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Jesus was not fooled by him but rather chose him as fulfillment of the prophecy of His betrayal. The eleven, however, were fully invested in the commission Jesus left them with as His resurrection sealed their utmost confidence in Him as the Messiah He claimed to be. This unwavering trust changed their fickle natures to follow Him unreservedly even to their deaths.

            Despite the historicity of death threats, it is not disconcerting in my thinking how the pastors of the Lord’s churches are successors to the work of the apostles. We are not successors of the apostolic office because it ceased upon the death of John. We are successors to the leadership of the Lord’s churches. If there is any part of the pastoral office most personally agonizing, it would be the poor comparison of my performance to theirs. I need the mercy and grace of God to withstand the fear in my soul of my woeful inadequacies.

            As I think through their perspectives of pastoral leadership, I wonder how I would instill enough confidence that God’s people would follow me. Why should I require the obedience demanded in Hebrews 13:17 and the expectation others should be concerned how joyful my ministry should be? I only claim this because the word says I may. The Lord offers no excuses for my weaknesses, yet He understands all my frailties. My abilities are less judged than my motivations when they arise from a sincere desire to serve Him. A pure heart has weaknesses perfected in the power of the Holy Spirit.

            As I was contemplating these thoughts for this article, my mind was drawn into the close camaraderie experienced among the membership of the church. This gathering of people is my responsibility. These are the same who have covenanted together in the gospel and have made a commitment to each other and to the work of the church. Hebrews says I must give an account of their souls. Surely, nothing more plainly teaches church membership. The Lord does not hold me accountable for others, although I am happy to feed them when they visit our pasture.

With church membership, a better relationship is established in which I know my people as they know me. A shepherd recognizes which sheep belong to his flock and likewise the sheep know their shepherd. I suspect the sheep will accept many flaws in the shepherd if they are satisfied with the food he offers them. Through many years of pastoring, I recognize the flaws and am more aware than any of where I fall short of expectations. I may not be sure what to do to make up for the shortcomings, but I hope the food is nourishing and wholesome and you are able grow thereby. If so, perhaps you will look past me to the one who providentially enabled me for the ministry.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

Each time I preach on the office of the pastor, the obligatory questions about women in leadership are always a part of the discussion. It is rare that biblical research is done first before these questions are asked. It is as if the answers are difficult to find. Rather, the noticeable absence of women in pulpits is first observed with the certain impression that something is seriously amiss. It does not seem to cross the mind that two thousand years of church history might have long ago established a pattern that has been fleshed out by countless discussions during these twenty centuries. When all these discussions are done, it is men who stand in pulpits and church leaders are men who are scripturally qualified.

            We might think this matter was hashed out with intense argument before finally settling on the proper protocol in the New Testament church. This is patently wrong as there was no council that finally put a stamp on the accepted practice. The issue was settled on the sixth day of creation when God created Adam first and then took Eve from his side to be his helper. The order of creation established the authoritative preeminence of the man in the creation. This preeminence has nothing to do with intellect or natural ability (that is, beyond physiological differences). It pertains to the role each is to have in the societal order.

            Lest we fail to make the correct authority connections in the establishment of the church, the apostle Paul addressed this issue in 1 Timothy 2. In verses 11 and 12, he is unmistakable concerning the subordinate nature of the woman’s position in teaching and authority. He solidifies the woman’s subjection to the man by reinforcing it in verse 13 with the created order. “For Adam was first formed then Eve.” No lengthy discussions are needed. No excuses are made because the subjection of the woman to the man has always been a principle of the created order.

            To impose a new subjective standard, the contestants for women pastors must find a way to alter the most ancient of human relationship principles repeatedly emphasized throughout the scriptures. There is no motive for change except the satisfaction of a society that desires and insists upon it. They seek an elusive, unbiblical, undesirable equity that is nothing less than the shackles of sin. It is reprehensible enough to put a woman in the pulpit by twisting and ignoring the creational principle that rules men and women for the good of all society, but what of that which desecrates the divine order? Does not Christ model the godliness of the subordination we are discussing?

            Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:3, “But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” If the headship of the man over the woman is undesirable in the carnal relationship, then it is equally undesirable in the incarnational subordination of the Son to the Father. 1 Corinthians 11:3 is meaningless chatter if any of these three subordinate positions is overthrown.

All this twisting is done to satisfy the subjective feelings of women who want authority! No godly, God honoring, God fearing, respectful, holy woman would dare entertain such wicked thoughts. If she does, she disqualifies herself from the pulpit she attempts to stand in as a representative of Jesus Christ. This is a catch-22 of overwhelming proportions. No wonder our Lord had no other name for women preachers than Jezebel!

Pastor V. Mark Smith

            Last year in our study of the New Testament church, I taught a three-part series on the office of pastor. Since our expositions of the church were comprehensive, it was necessary to examine the positions of leadership which are pastors and deacons. The pastor is the foremost leader as he is the undershepherd of the Chief Shepherd who is our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the pastor’s job to represent Christ and to lead the flock as He would lead them. With this description, you can see the weight of responsibility the pastor carries especially when the scriptures tell us he must give an account to the Chief Shepherd of his stewardship.

            Because of the pastor’s visibility, everything he is and does is scrutinized. This includes his personality, knowledge, oratory, and many other qualifications extending to his family as well. The pastor is to be circumspect in all these because of the one he represents. Satan throws many stumbling blocks in the paths of God’s people. Surely, the pastor must not be one of them! Before I am through with this series, I believe these many areas of the pastor’s ministry will become clearer to you.

            From many years of experience, I can testify the pastor’s work is rigorous and demanding. Any pastor who has been at this for a while will not fail to tell you that meeting the many expectations of the office is spiritually, physically, and mentally exhausting. I choose to focus on only one aspect in this article which is preaching. Hours of work are put into preparing sermons which I believe should be the greatest singular focus of pastors. We must give God’s people His word and we must deliver it accurately and in the power of the Holy Spirit. At times, the preparation can feel too repetitious, and the pastor becomes worn out from the many hours of prep to deliver 45 minutes of exposition. Much material is fed into the sermon hopper before the finished product compactly emerges.

            This job is week by week with little relief. Forty-hour work weeks are an unimaginable luxury. For me, sermon preparation starts on Monday and ends when the finishing touches are applied just before leaving home for church on Sunday mornings. When the 45 minutes of delivery are done, the cycle starts again on Monday morning with the same schedule. And yet with all the time preparing, there is often the sense it has not been enough. When it is far too late to change, an anxious feeling usually arises on late Saturday afternoon. It extends into the few minutes before walking into the pulpit that something will go wrong. The delivery will be poor and the reception of it even poorer. This anxiety lingers until the first few words are spoken and the sermon text begins to flow. At the end, the congregation analyzes what they heard, and the pastor awaits the results. Most comments are polite and perhaps not too much to be trusted. It’s the silence of no comments that usually tells the most.

            What I have just described cannot be the ultimate test of the success of preaching. The real test is, do they come back? Will they be there next week to hear another in the same series, and will they faithfully attend do show that what they hear has been received and recognized as integral to their spiritual growth?

            My discouragements in ministry are often cojoined with departures. I do not want people to leave. I too often evaluate this as failure when more often I am lifted from discouragement by a note of appreciation from the departing that says they learned more of the Bible at Berean than they thought possible or had experienced in other places of their Christian sojourn. This is when joy seeps out of the tedious repetitiveness of preparations for the never-ending succession of Sundays.

            The pastor’s job has many facets but none as critical as preaching. I pray for the power of the Holy Spirit to do it many, many more Sundays.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

            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

            Last year when ending our study of 2 Thessalonians, I took a few minutes to explain 2 Thessalonians 3:17 in which Paul wrote, ”The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.” Paul needed to authenticate his letters because there were false teachers that forged letters in his name and claimed they were from him. Paul usually dictated his letters to an amanuensis which was no validation that the handwriting was his. To circumvent this problem and prove he had indeed written the letter, he would write one section in his own handwriting. This would authenticate the letter was truly from him as the addressee would recognize his writing.

            I thought about this as I sat down to write this article. Each week I write hundreds and sometimes thousands of words in my own handwriting. I find that pen and paper enable my thoughts to flow more freely rather than staring at a computer screen and tapping them out on a keyboard. In my office closet, there are years’ worth of composition books, page upon page filled with scribbled blue ink. Most of it is illegible (and probably unintelligible) to you.

            One day a few years ago, I was thinking of my mortality and getting closer to wondering how to dispose of so much I have accumulated. My oldest daughter Clarissa told me long ago that she wanted all the books in my library. I thought about the closet and the composition books and wondered if I should throw them away or ask her if she would like to have them. She eagerly replied I should not dispose of them because they would be a special remembrance and be valuable to her. I can well relate to this because one of my treasured possessions is a large box of handwritten sermons belonging to my father. Long before computers became the normal method of preserving manuscripts in readable form, my father would write them longhand and place them in a large cardboard box. Each was saved and dated with some having multiple dates because they were preached several times over his long 40-year career of pastoring churches. His handwriting was worse than mine but through years of reading it, I became an expert in hieroglyphics. Most preachers have their own preferred methods of organizing and recognizing their notes as they preach. His was at best difficult, so you will rarely hear me preach one of his sermons. The exception would be some of his notes on the Tabernacle. I considered him the foremost expert in all things Tabernacle, so I could hardly do better than emphasize his understanding of the scriptures.

            I have been told numerous times that my preaching is like my dad’s. It is a grand compliment, but I hardly see how this is determined when looking at our notes yields highly dissimilar approaches. There may be a subconscious connection because we both believed preparation is paramount. Never be content to give the people watered down versions of the word or believe the sermons are too far above the crowd’s intelligence to understand. Dumbing down the word just leaves people dumbed down.

            These thoughts are on my mind as I contemplate the sermon for this week. Consistency in the presentation of Bible subjects is paramount. Attending the services is also paramount to good understanding of the subjects at hand. Our preaching is usually in series format which requires attendance at nearly all instances of multiple sermon parts to get the comprehensive picture of the current topic. You would not have a complete understanding of nuclear fission if you missed the lecture on atoms! Often the most vital part of the sermon is the one you missed.

            Perhaps to get it all, you might want to request the written manuscript. Good luck with that—I give them away because I can’t read them either.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

            Several months ago, while preaching on the doctrine of the church, I took time to brush up and hone my skills in this critically important doctrine. I have never made apologies for being a Baptist and have often said if others who disagree are right, I will gladly abandon my dogmatism to be right as well. We should favor no doctrines or insist upon any teachings that cannot be supported by the scriptures.

            As I was studying, I was reminded of an old book I have had for years. It was passed to me by my father when I inherited his library. This book was written by one of his professors in Bible college and is entitled The Church and the Ordinances. The author was Buell H. Kazee, a well-respected churchman who was born in 1900 and passed away in 1976. I barely remember him, but I do remember visits to his home and his church. Through the years, his book has been a great help in understanding some of the nuanced issues of the church and how it was formed. I cannot say I agree with all his conclusions, but I am impressed by his willingness to arrest his dogmatism on points of scripture that are not inarguably clear. There are times he expresses an opinion from the preponderance of evidence but still admitted there is room to adjust and accept better arguments. I must be clear, however, that none of his unsure positions affect major doctrines of the faith. These are more of the sort that we cannot know as all the practices of the church were in the developmental stage in the New Testament. Not until the New Testament canon was complete was the church fully formed without apostolic oversight.

            Many who have attended Berean for years know that I have long been a student of Baptist history. While studying Kazee’s book, I did further research as I found his book was also posted on the Baptist History homepage maintained by the John Leland Baptist College. While visiting this site, I read through some of the offerings and found a link to Baptist periodicals and journals written in the 19^th century. With curiosity, I opened a link to a scanned copy of one of these journals published in the year 1810. This copy was a British journal that began with a history of Baptists in England. Prominently displayed was the outright rejection of Roman Catholicism’s claim that they were the first to bring the gospel to the British Isles. Three headings caught my attention: The First British Christians Were Baptists, The First British Martyrs Were Baptists, and The First British Protestants Were Baptists. Obviously, the early 19^th century Baptists did not believe the Reformation was the beginning of people called Baptists. Although not known by this name until the 17^th century, all notable church historians agree that Baptist doctrine is found in every century to the first. The gospel of Christ reached England before the end of the first century and thus churches of England held Baptist beliefs more than 300 years before Augustine began persecuting Baptists in the 4^th and 5^th centuries.

            When Augustine arrived, he tried to convince and convert the Saxons to Catholicism. The Saxons would not give up their pagan practices, so pragmatic popery sanctioned their idolatry. To pull the Saxons into the Roman church, Pope Gregory issued an order to Augustine. The Baptist journal quotes Gregory with alarm: “Whereas there is a custom among the Saxons to slay abundance of oxen, and sacrifice them to the Devil; you must not abolish that custom, but appoint a new festival to be kept either on the day of the consecration of churches, or on the birthday of the Saints, whose relics are deposited there; and on those days, the Saxons may be allowed to make arbors round their temples, changed into churches, to kill their oxen, and to feast as they did while they were yet Pagans!” The journal commented, “Nor do we consider it at all impossible, that Austin (Augustine), to secure his popularity, might now and then sit down with his disciples, and eat at the devil’s table.”

            The article then comments that church and state sanctioned these pagan feasts and thus Roman Catholicism became the state church. Further, as a reward for his meritorious services, Augustine was made a saint. “If anyone should observe, that at this time Popery was not arrived at the full measure of the stature of Antichrist; we reply, that in its earliest infancy, Popery was a Mystery of Iniquity.” (emphasis in the original)

            I will spend more time perusing these periodicals. We are aghast that the accepted history of the church by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike is that Rome was once the true church. Read this testimony of the early Baptist churches again. From “…its earliest infancy, Popery was a Mystery of Iniquity.” These Baptists did not buy the fantasy of imagined Roman Catholic history and still had congregations extant from the earliest days of the gospel to refute it. We Bereans steadfastly refuse to have our history defined by 16^th century Protestantism. Did we protest? Yes, but not from within Catholicism but apart from it in its earliest days as it sucked up pagans under Constantine and formed them into the murderous monstrosity of the Dark Ages and the corruption-riddled perversion of the present.

            These historical observations are pertinent to the identification of the true New Testament church. Christ promised His church would prevail—never apostatizing and never needing a complete overhaul of reformation. Not reforming, but always conforming to the doctrines of Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone, and the prophets and apostles in whom the foundation was laid.

Pastor V. Mark Smith