Category: Uncategorized

Pastor V. Mark Smith

Last week while contemplating the subject of today’s article, I came across the title of another’s article that seemed worthy of stopping to read. The title was, “Is Paedocommunion Biblical?” You may not recognize this word and it is certain you will not see it except in a theological context. You may be familiar with the term paedobaptism but far less common is to see paedocommunion. Both terms relate to the participation of children in the life of the church. The more common term for paedobaptism is infant baptism, while paedocommunion refers to the inclusion of children baptized as infants in the observance of the Lord’s Supper.

You are already much aware that we do not believe paedobaptism is biblical. Baptism is a church ordinance enacted only upon a credible, volitional profession of faith. Infants are incapable of this, although older children who have come to understanding of repentance and faith and have professed Christ may receive baptism. Since the church agreed to their baptism and admitted them into the membership of the church, they are eligible for communion.

I remember when I first became pastor of Berean, there were practices concerning baptism and communion that I believe needed correction. The first was the participation of non-members. I have said multiple times we believe in restricted communion. The Lord’s Supper should be observed only by the membership of each individual local church. We do not question the salvation of any other Christians as this practice is not a salvation issue. Membership is the qualifier.

The other problem was the participation of children without profession of faith and baptism. Member parents would pass the communion trays down their row and would allow their young children to take from the trays and if they were too young to manage the task themselves, their parents would reach in and hold the elements for them. These would be the circumstances for us to say we do not practice paedocommunion!

Who, then, uses this term and finds it necessary to argue for or against it? It would be those churches that practice infant baptism and believe the baptized infants of adult believers are members of the covenant community (their terms) and are thus members of the visible church. If you understand our doctrine, you know we do not use the term visible to distinguish the local church from the non-existent invisible church (a subject for another day). This is the rub for churches practicing infant baptism. How do you exclude from communion those you have admitted into the covenant of the church? I am thankful we need not concern ourselves with arguments over this issue since anchoring the use of both terms is baptism. If the baptism is not valid, certainly participation in communion is invalid. The reformed churches and others who practice infant baptism very well understand the distinctions Baptists make concerning this. Our practice of excluding them from our communion should not offend them since their exclusion comes from logical deduction. Both we and they agree the unbaptized are not eligible for communion.

Controversies concerning the Supper spread across the wide spectrum of Christianity. The practice of restricted communion has no shortage of detractors, although they may not find fault in any other aspect of our observance. There are arguments about the presence of Christ in the elements, whether the Supper is a sacrament or a memorial, and is communion a means of grace. If so, how so? We do not advocate for the recognition of every group as true churches of Jesus Christ. What they do and how they agree or disagree on the Supper is of no consequence to us if they are not under the headship of Christ. Paedobaptism and paedocommunion are indicators of serious theological illness. The presence of those doctrines in a church means we are not dealing with valid churches.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

On this Sunday morning, God’s people across the world gather to focus their attention on the most important event in world history. Only days ago, most Christians’ thoughts were on the crucifixion. Which of these, the cross or the resurrection, is the most significant? This is not necessarily a point of debate since each is indispensable in the salvation of sinners. There are those who wear a crucifix almost daily which seems to me their focus is a dead man hanging on a cross. There is no symbolism of God in their depiction. It would be more difficult to devise a trinket that expresses the resurrection since an empty grave does not seem to be suitable for jewelry. However, the empty tomb is our symbol that Jesus Christ was both man and God. Joseph carried a dead, lifeless human body and placed it in a tomb and three days later it came back to life by its own power. The power of the resurrection is the ultimate symbol that Jesus is God.

These are facts presented in the Holy Scriptures and leaned on by the apostles as their incentive to risk their lives and give their lives for a man who died whom they believed to be alive. When Felix stated Paul’s disposition to Herod Agrippa, he described the controversy by saying Paul had many accusers but their accusations were not of the sort he anticipated: “Against whom [Paul] when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed:But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.” (Acts 25:18-19). Throughout Paul’s ministry in both missionary work in Acts and in his epistles, he affirms belief in the resurrection as a primary reason for our justification. The proof that the death of the cross was propitiatory is that God raised Christ from the dead.

In his explanation of the gospel and his emphasis on the necessity of the resurrection for it, he wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 that Christ’s death was for our sins. In other words, His death was a substitution for ours. He follows this with the assertion that He was buried and rose again on the third day according to the scriptures. Without the resurrection, Christ did not fulfill the scriptures and thus the promises of God through Christ’s death are meaningless.

An interesting aspect of Paul’s claim that Christ arose according to the scriptures is what many consider a futile attempt to find any Old Testament proof of this promise. As one author wrote, and I paraphrase, they do not know what to look for as proof. The proof is the promise made to Abraham that God gives life from the dead. Paul leans into this in Romans 4:16-25. The promise was concrete in Abraham’s experience as he and Sarah had a child in the deadness of his and Sarah’s bodies. Abraham held on to this promise later when he would try to sacrifice Isaac. He believed God would raise him from the dead.

The question for us to consider today is whether the resurrection of Christ is our firm undergirding of faith. Is our faith built on the same foundation as the apostles? The resurrection drove them; it motivated them as it provided their confidence in God. I believe it does much less for us if we casually approach Resurrection Sunday. We are soft on such important principles. I doubt most Christians think any more of this day than a time for bright clothing and an obligatory church day. What does it mean to you? Is all your hope dependent on it? To properly understand the day, it must!

Pastor V. Mark Smith

Every Sunday morning, the Berean Baptist services begin in a familiar repetitive way. We start with the Call to Worship which is a scripture reading that usually corresponds to the theme of the first congregational song. Next is Bro. John Bunn’s greeting— “Good morning, Bereans!” John addresses two principles with this greeting. We are Bereans because the name of our church is Berean, and we are Bereans because we love to study the Bible to learn the truths of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. We take our name from the believers in Acts 17:11 who readily received the word and regularly researched the word. It is always a pleasure to preach to those who are interested in the scriptures and who faithfully take their Bibles and follow as we read and study.

Each of the Bereans here on Sunday morning attend church because of the common bond we have in Christ. Some attend who are here for curiosity and want to learn more about us and what this church believes. But by and large, most are well acquainted with each other, and the faithful core is always here eager to hear God speak through His word and worship Him in hymns, prayer, and preaching.

When I think of the core of the church, I equate this with their faithful attendance, faithful support, and faithful service. Some meet one or two of these areas—attendance and support—while we can name far fewer as servants of the church. As numbers dwindle, we must have more of our membership active in all three areas. In a discussion a few weeks ago, I remarked that those who are present for our afternoon class are members who enter the room, take their seats, and open their Bibles with well-worn pages covered with markings, underlines, and notes. I know their adventures in the Bible are frequent and not limited to the information they hear from me. They are Bible students throughout the week researching what I say on Sunday mornings and reading for themselves to learn the scriptures and achieve better knowledge of them.

As I survey this group on Sunday afternoons and see their heavily used Bibles, I recognize they are mostly the people who are the servants of the church. I am not sure who among them are monetary supporters other than the ones I casually see as I glance while leaving the pulpit for the offering. I have little doubt all of them give which only John Bunn our treasurer and Taber Jarrell our financial secretary can confirm.

My primary purpose in this article is to explain what I know regular Bible reading and study will do. The word convicts the heart and tells us what kind of Christians we should be. It is difficult to be doers of the word as James commanded without doing anything. The word makes well rounded Christians. They attend worship and study sessions. Our core is here, and it is our main support. The scriptures prompt our core to more prayer and study, and thus better acquaintance with word and the God of the word.

I believe each member should ask themselves, “Am I a part of the core of the Berean Baptist Church? If I am not, why am I not?” Which is better—a partially devoted Christian or one who surrenders all for Christ?

I know my definitions cannot be strictly exclusive. I also know each believer can evaluate what they read here and apply accordingly. Where do you stand? Does the Lord agree with your assessment?

Pastor V. Mark Smith

In January of last year, we were early into our study of Mark’s gospel when we had opportunity to examine the ministry of John the Baptist. John appears early in all four gospel accounts because of his baptism ministry. Before Jesus began His public teaching, it was necessary for Him to inaugurate His ministry with the New Testament right of the church which is baptism in water. Of course, there was no church when John started baptizing, but it appears the apostles chosen as foundational building blocks of the church were all baptized by John. Before choosing Judas’ replacement in Acts 1, Peter said the new apostle must be qualified in this respect—he must have accompanied the ministry of Jesus since the baptism of John. The New Testament stressed John’s baptism as well as the Old Testament in mentioning how John would prepare Israel for the coming Messiah.

Although appearing only in the New Testament, Jesus named John as the last Old Testament prophet. Apparently, God saved the best of those types of prophets until last. Jesus said there was no greater man born of women than John the Baptist. It is a superlative statement especially since Jesus Himself was born of a woman. I will leave you to research and decide on His meaning.

The last we saw of John in our study was in chapter 2 when the Pharisees complained that he and his disciples fasted when Jesus and His did not. It was a convenient comparison for them as they tried to drive a wedge between Jesus and John while knowing the people considered John to be a prophet. The Pharisees had no use for John except as they could use him against Jesus. It is hardly imaginable they favored John when he called them vipers and called them to repentance from their sins. It was not a good look for John to call them self-righteous sinners. It was also useless for them to try to exalt John above Jesus. He recognized Jesus’ authority and said he was not worthy to untie the sandals on Jesus’ feet. Jesus applauded John for his strong stand on the truth of God’s word, an immovable position since prison did not deter him from outing Herod and his wife for their immorality.

The first messages on John last year were The Baptist Bulldozer and The Baptist’s Baptism. We conclude the saga of John the Baptist today with The Baptist Beheaded. John met an ignominious end as Herod treated him as an enemy of the people. He certainly was Herod’s enemy—at least an enemy of his sin. He called him to repentance not only because his responsibility was to rule in righteousness, but also because his soul depended on it.

Herod never repented of his sin and later Caesar exiled him and stripped away much of his authority. A man who dined fabulously in a palace and could speak a word to dispel his enemies now burns in the flames of an eternal hell. Such is often the end of the world’s mightiest men. John’s legacy was that of a nomad traversing the desert in rough camel hair clothing and dining on grasshoppers. And yet, we know him better than Herod because of His trust in the Messiah and his faithful obedience to truth. John’s life teaches us not to be afraid of what people can do to us. Service to Christ yields honor at the proper time.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

In my sermon today, I will use a word you have not heard from the pulpit for several years. It is not that the word is unimportant, it is simply that the teaching has taken us in a different direction in which I have not needed to explain the doctrine expressed. To give you an introduction to the word, I invite you to walk down the hall leading to the older part of the building. Most of you will not need to because your memory of what is there will serve fine.

On the right-hand wall under spotlights are the portraits of all the pastors who have served this church over the past fifty-five years of our existence. I am the last in the line and have the distinction of serving longer than any of the earlier men. Some may lament this, but I doubt my record run will end soon. This brings me to the word I want to use later, and when I do, you will be quite sure of its meaning and have the visual expression of it in your brain. The word is perpetuity. Applied in our setting, it means the continuous uninterrupted existence of the church. Concerning this local body of Christians, Berean Baptist Church has continued the ministry here for fifty-five years. We are a church of the Lord Jesus Christ, but our history is not the total years of Christ’s church as you well know. In our study of Mark’s gospel, we read of Christ’s choice of twelve men appointed as His apostles and serving as the foundation stones of His church with later scriptures explaining that Christ Himself anchored this foundation with Him as the chief cornerstone.

Armed with this truth and two thousand years of history, we may confidently say the church of Jesus Christ has existed in perpetuity for twenty centuries. This accords with Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. In Matthew 28, Jesus commissioned the church with the gospel and commanded His disciples to make more disciples, to baptize them, and teach them to obey everything He commanded. This would ensure His promise of perpetuity and that His church would be here until the end of this age. Until Christ returns, the church continues and brings more of God’s people into its fellowship. Each of the pastors on the wall have done their part to support this legacy of ministry in Rohnert Park.

Across the world, there are many groups who are pretenders claiming to be part of the church founded by Christ. They bear His name and claim His blessings. We do not agree to the validity of many of these claims. We judge the claims of The New Testament church by its connection to the doctrines taught by the original church with each generation checking their close adherence to these doctrines. The apostolic doctrines of the church do not change. The word of God does not change; Christ promise does not fail. Therefore, we believe churches built on the model of the New Testament still exist. We are responsible to compare and associate ourselves only with those churches.

The apostles are long dead but the truths they taught remain. These are unalterable no matter how much time passes or how much the culture in which we live may be different from the time of the apostles. Number one on the list of pastors of Berean is Harry Buerer. Pastor Buerer planted this church in 1969 from the doctrinal seeds of churches preceding him. I stand at the end of the line still holding the truths taught in 1969, and more importantly checking those doctrines to make sure they follow what God says in His word.

Listen for the word perpetuity today and for reason I use it. We are the church of Jesus Christ in Rohnert Park. We intend to stay that way.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

If I were to write a description of the Berean Baptist ministry over the past two decades, I would enthusiastically say we are a church concerned with truth, doctrinal exposition of truth, and refusal to compromise the truth. There are no perfect churches this side of Hebrews 12:22-24, so we do not claim to be. I suppose others favor a different balance of ministry, but prayerfully, we are consistent in our doctrine and the desire that people should know the Christ of the Bible through the doctrines taught in scripture.

In these two decades, my sermons tended towards explaining doctrinal positions and how they affect our knowledge and understanding of God. I am thankful for those who have grown in the faith with this approach and the kind words as they express their thanks for better understanding of the Almighty sovereign God we serve. This change in thinking is most evident in what we would describe as a different worldview. It is the shift of focus from a man-centered religion to a God-centered one. While there are few who openly claim to have a man-centered religion, they do not realize they in fact do. They do not realize it because they do not know what God-centered religion is. There are multiple ways to express God-centered religion because all our doctrines have Him at the center. In only a brief space, I would go back to the beginning of the creation to explain. The emphasis in Genesis 1 is God-centered religion. It is not that God was lonely, that God needed us, that God must have someone to love Him, that God is not complete without us, etc., etc., etc. God is supremely holy and happy in Himself.

The emphasis in Genesis 1 is “In the beginning God…” “In the beginning God…” The purpose of the beginning was not to create man so that God would have someone to love, but to create for His ultimate glory. He magnifies Himself through the creation. God is not determined to bestow free will on anyone as if the ultimate expression of love is for God to receive it as a free choice. And yet, we repeatedly hear that God wants us to love Him only if we want to love Him. This would be the main tenet of man-centered religion. In other words, the will and determination of the creature supersedes the will and determination of God. Without our cooperation and choice, God cannot fulfill the design of the creation. In this view, the election and predestination of God spins out of existence in favor of salvation conditioned on a moment in time choice. God does not control this choice, and thus all the plans of creation rise or fall on an uninfluenced, undetermined choice that can go for or against God. Therefore, the sacrifice of Christ provides only a possibility of options, one of which, because of multitudinous hindrances, is logically and manifestly more than frequent failure to accomplish its purpose.

God-centered religion avoids this preposterous dilemma. Those in man-centered religion insistently and persistently argue they have a God-centered religion while at the same time holding to a worldview that is a world-view. The message today expresses the problem of a man-centered view. It always ends with rejection of Christ because without the active monergistic God, the greatest miracles and the most eloquent preaching cannot do what salvation requires. Only God can change a heart and bring dead sinners to life. There is no person who chooses to love God without an act of God upon a heart fettered with sin. When GOD breaks these chains, there is one and only one free will choice. This choice is God. In God-centered religion, God is first…always first. “In the beginning God.”

Pastor V. Mark Smith

This week, we begin a new chapter in the Gospel of Mark. The sixth chapter begins with skepticism over the inexplicable knowledge of Jesus and the impossibility of the volumes of miracles He did. One miracle should have been enough to convince people that He was more than a man, but a healthy volume of miracles was no better than one to convince people of who He was. If I were to reduce the first six verses of Mark 6 to one overarching theme, I would call it the power of unbelief. We often speak of the power of faith, and we know the Bible presents the concept that faith can move mountains. Jesus narrowed His description to stay faith is powerful enough that the equivalent of a grain of a mustard seed can move mountains.

Most times, we will extol the supreme virtue of faith without discussing too much about the power of no faith, or said more commonly again, “the power of unbelief.” The scriptures are no less descriptive of this than the power of belief. Unbelief was powerful enough to cause Jesus’ enemies to deny His miracles even while they watched Him do them. If they did not outright deny them, they at least illogically attributed the wrong source to them. Some of Jesus’ strongest condemnations were because of unbelief. He told residents of Capernaum that if He had done His miracles in Gentile cities or in the Old Testament bastions of the worst immorality, Sodom, and Gomorrah—if there, if those people had seen them, they would have repented at once and come to Him for salvation. There would be no trouble finding ten righteous people in them after His displays!

We use multiple excuses for not attending church or helping in the Lord’s work. There is always a complaint of some sort when our failures are truly more owed to unbelief than any other cause. I thought of this when surveying Matthew 11. The first section of the chapter ends in verse 19 with Jesus’ comparison of His and John the Baptist’s ministries. Though He and John had different approaches, neither satisfied the people. No matter what He or John did, they were not satisfied. John was not personable, he did not drink, he and his disciples fasted, while Jesus was a party animal and was always buddies with the fun crowd. Jesus said, when we dance, you don’t like it; when we cry, you don’t like it. If we fast or feast, you don’t like it.

The root cause of their discontent was their unbelief. People will never be satisfied with God. The late James Montgomery Boice spoke of the restless in the church who are always looking but never staying. He said: “God has many messengers with many varying gifts. Some are powerful speakers and can move a crowd to tears. Others are intellectual; they make a careful case for Christianity and present many powerful proofs of the gospel. Some teachers are outgoing, talkative, people oriented. Others are retiring and thoughtful. Some write books. Others lead movements. Still others speak on radio or appear on television. Some are old and teach with the wisdom of their years. Some are young and proclaim the truth with youthful vigor. Some are prophetic. Some are analytic. None of this matters to a generation of determined sinners who say in opposition, ‘This one is too loud. That one is too quiet. This one is too intellectual. That one is too superficial.’”

These folks have no interest in serving or knowing God well. Their offense is not a church’s method or doctrine. It really comes down to the gospel. The gospel offends, and nothing but the power of God will overcome the power and persistence of unbelief. As the Jews of Jesus’ time could not fool Him with their pretended devotion to the Law and thus to God, neither do we fool Him by wandering endlessly to find the church that is pure enough for us. It is neither here nor there. Open your eyes to see that most complaints are preferences and have nothing to do with devotion to Christ.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

When I wrote this article, it was the 26^th of January near the end of a stressful week. These are my thoughts several weeks ago as I tried to express the topic on my mind. A few days before, I discussed with a friend my interest in historical arguments concerning the doctrines of the faith. In this instance, it was the development of the premillennial eschatological viewpoint of Christ’s return. Each time I preach on the Second Coming of Christ, interest in the subject peaks and it seems the congregation pays more strict attention to the exposition from the pulpit. There is rejoicing in remembrance of Christ’s glorious appearing, how He will come, and the results for both believers and unbelievers.

I understand the reason for the excitement, and I believe the miserable times in which we live heightens this reaction. Dissatisfaction with churches, politics, economics, immorality, and the general demise of Christianity in America contributes to our uneasiness in waiting for Christ’s return. We do not face our earthly future with the hope we once had. Thus, the Second Coming of Christ is the bailout for our depressed lives.

I believe the New Testament authors expected the coming of Christ with great anticipation. Their hope was not dissimilar to ours. With the daily threat of persecution, who would not hope the coming of Christ was not soon upon them? This anticipation was real enough that believers in Thessalonica had determined they had missed His coming and were living in the aftermath of the return. Imagine the stress of such a thought! Their confusion was the cause of two important letters from Paul to correct their misunderstandings. In these letters, he tempered their expectations, gave them an order of events, and did this without destroying their hope that having Christ return immediately was a necessary component of their peace and happiness.

With the troubles we experience daily, it is gratifying to believe that Christ may appear at any moment. When He comes, He will relieve us of our worries and show us that patiently waiting was well worth the time and effort. There is enough in this reality of hope to sustain us through every hardship we meet. It is worth noting that when the Bible speaks of our hope in this way, it is not “hope so, but maybe not.” It is hope that is in every way steadfast and sure. Our hope is an accomplished faith that ends in sight. It is possible for us to live happy fulfilled lives with two seemingly conflicting perspectives. Christ may come today, or we may die before He does. Death for the youngest among us may be another fifty years or more away. We must not forget each of us was at that stage once but here we are these many years later still waiting for Christ and living in the expectation of His return.

The Lord wants us to labor to keep this feeling. When Peter spoke of the dissolution of this world and its systems, he asked, “Seeing that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness… (2 Peter 3:11). True confidence in Christ’s return will fix us in holiness. Knowing the exact date will not. In the model prayer, Jesus instructed the disciples to pray, “Thy kingdom come.” The same prayer should be on our lips every day. Daily expectation of the Kingdom keeps us sharp and on our toes for whatever day Christ may come.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

Twenty-five years ago, when I was new to Berean, I began my ministry teaching a new Sunday School class called The Sunday Morning Forum. I did not want this class to be the usual Sunday School meeting with a structured lesson format that kept us confined for weeks in a typical lesson plan. At times, we had these, but each lesson in our class was meant to stimulate participation in discussions. In time, the class developed into the format we have now with open discussions on any biblical topic spurred by questions from class members.

This format meant that I, as the teacher, would need to be well-versed on most Bible doctrines and have a good working knowledge of the text. I have spent my life developing this knowledge leaning on the grace of the Holy Spirit to guide me. After these years, I confess there are times questions perplex me and I do not answer all questions well. In those times, I defer, and my next move is to find the answer and report back. It is always best not to answer rather than give a wrong answer. Despite my best efforts, I may want to appear smart and answer anyway. In those times, I ask for the Lord’s and your forgiveness. 

There are also times when topics are uncomfortable, and I would rather not deal with them. However, I made a commitment long ago not to slip and slide around difficulties to get me out of the chair and cool my backside. Two weeks ago, one of these topics came before us. It was an unavoidable discussion and we needed to discuss it because it is one of the most volatile subjects we face today. This is the topic of homosexuality. With lightning speed, what society once considered the bottom rung of immorality has not only become morally acceptable but considered a higher morality than strict opposition to it. Not to accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle and even a preferred one for a segment of the population is to be immoral and abnormal. Most Christians have come to grips with it and rather than rock the boat have taken a laissez-faire, live and let live philosophy. I have a short reply to this. It is not Christian, it is not harmless, it is not godly, it is not a matter of indifference, and it is not acceptable according to the word of God. Regardless, too many Christians have made their peace with it and will not be vocal in opposition to it. They have chosen their friends from among them as if no harm, no foul. There is harm and it is a foul upon decency, and both are deadly serious.

The reality is this sin was so sickening, twisted, and perverted that it caused fire and brimstone to pour out of the sky. It caused the death of thousands among Israel and their enemies. It helped to ruin their morality and incited forays into idolatry that led to Israel’s captivity. Neither Old Testament nor New Testament allows God’s people to accept this sin. There was never a “go along to get along” attitude in any period of church history until the overwhelmingly gigantic push of the last two decades. The demand for tolerance and acceptance is formidable enough to shut preachers’ mouths or risk abandonment by this society. Morality is 180° upside down with most tiptoeing around it with fear they might offend sinners. Some ask why we treat this sin differently. The answer seems all too obvious to me. What sin, what work of Satan has changed an entire worldview and flipped our churches and the laws of our country on end to accept what we dared not accept as anything but one of the most heinous, shameful sins we can commit? We treat it differently because of its demonic power. We do not advocate hatred or harm to homosexuals. We do advocate refusing to mix and mingle with it. Those who do risk what we have already seen. Softening, accepting, and silencing for fear of offense. We must deal with sin and sinners. This is what the church does. Christ saved us from sin, and so they must and may be. We will only help legitimize their cause by friendship and normalization. “Friendship of the world is enmity with God.” When confronted, deal with it biblically and move on. “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.” (Psalms 1:1).

Pastor V. Mark Smith