Reproach of Men

Throughout most of the last 20 centuries, separate, independent, groups of Christians, generally labeled “ana-baptist” and specifically called Paulicans, Novatians, Donatists, Henricans, Waldenses, Albigenses, Bogomils, Lollards, and many other less complimentary names, have been persecuted for holding fast the specific teachings of the New Testament. They consistently held the New Testament church to be a local, visible, autonomous body of believers covenanted together to serve their Lord and Savior. For this, they were horribly persecuted by their opponents. The fiercest of these opponents was not the pagans that they invariably lived among. Rather, it was a church that called itself “Christian” — the Catholic Church. Its head, the Pope, was declared to be the vicar of Christ by their own councils. In so doing, he became Anti-Christ. They shut up the Bible to the “common” man declaring that it would “only cause confusion,” and then proceeded to warp and twist the doctrines to insure that their followers have no chance for salvation. The list of the sins of this horrid institution are so numerous as to almost defy cataloging. Yet, the Pope is honored by the governments of today.

My how we have forgotten history!

So we will remember, the following is from J.M. Carroll’s Trail of Blood. This excerpt briefly details the falling away that led to the formation of the Catholic Church and it’s ungodly head. Many more works, such as The Martyrs Mirror, and A History of the Baptists detail it more completely.

From The Trail of Blood . . .

“During the first three centuries, congregations all over the East subsisted in separate independent bodies, unsupported by government and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were baptized churches, and though all the fathers of the first four ages, down to Jerome (A.D. 370), were of Greece, Syria and Africa, and though they give great numbers of histories of the baptism of adults, yet there is not one of the baptism of a child till the year 370.” (Compendium of Baptist History, Shackelford, p. 43; Vedder, p. 50; Christian, p, 31; Orchard, p. 50, etc.)

7. Let it be remembered that changes like these here mentioned were not made in a day, nor even within a year. They came about slowly and never within all the churches. Some of the churches vigorously repudiated them. So much so that in A.D. 251, the loyal churches declared non-fellowship for those churches which accepted and practiced these errors. And thus came about the first real official separation among the churches.

8. Thus it will be noted that during the first three centuries three important and vital changes from the teachings of Christ and His Apostles had their beginnings. And one significant event took place, Note this summary and recapitulation:

(1) The change from the New Testament idea of bishop and church government. This change grew rapidly, more pronounced, and complete and hurtful.

(2) The change from the New Testament teachings as to Regeneration to “baptismal regeneration.”

(3) The change from “believers’ baptism” to “infant baptism.” (This last, however, did not become general nor even very frequent for more than another century.)

9. “Baptismal regeneration” and “infant baptism.” These two errors have, according to the testimony of well-established history, caused the shedding of more Christian blood, as the centuries have gone by, than all other errors combined, or than possibly have all wars, not connected with persecution, if you will leave out the recent “World War.” Over 50,000,000 Christians died martyr deaths, mainly because of their rejection of these two errors during the period of the “dark ages” alone–about twelve or thirteen centuries.

10. Three significant facts, for a large majority of the many churches, are clearly shown by history during these first three centuries.

(1) The separateness and independence of the Churches.

(2) The subordinate character of bishops or pastors.

(3) The baptism of believers only.

I quote now from Mosheim–the greatest of all Lutheran church historians. Vol., 1, pages 71 and 72: “But whoever supposes that the bishops of this golden age of the church correspond with the bishops of the following centuries must blend and confound characters that are very different, for in this century and the next, a bishop had charge of a single church, which might ordinarily be contained in a private house; nor was he its Lord, but was in reality its minister or servant. . . All the churches in those primitive times were independent bodies, or none of them subject to the jurisdiction of any other. For though the churches which were founded by the Apostles themselves frequently had the honor shown them to be consulted in doubtful cases, yet they had no judicial authority, no control, no power of giving laws. On the contrary, it is as clear as the noonday that all Christian churches had equal rights, and were in all respects on a footing of equality.”

11. Up to this period, notwithstanding much and serious persecutions, Christianity has had a marvelous growth. It has covered and even gone beyond the great Roman Empire. Almost, if not all the inhabited world has heard the gospel. And, according to some of the church historians, many of the original churches organized by the Apostles are yet intact, and yet loyal to Apostolic teachings. However, as already shown, a number of very marked and hurtful errors have crept in and gotten a permanent hold among many of the churches. Some have become very irregular.

12. Persecutions have become increasingly bitter. Near the beginning of the fourth century comes possibly the first definite government edict of persecution. The wonderful growth of Christianity has alarmed the pagan leaders of the Roman Empire. Hence Galerius, the emperor, sent out a direct edict of more savage persecution. This occurred Feb. 24, 303 A.D. Up to this time Paganism seems to have persecuted without any definite laws to that effect.

13. But this edict failed so utterly in its purpose of stopping the growth of Christianity, that this same emperor, Galerius, just eight years thereafter (A.D. 311) passed another edict recalling the first and actually granting toleration–permission to live the religion of Jesus Christ. This was probably its first favorable law.

14. By the beginning of the year A.D. 313, Christianity has won a mighty victory over paganism. A new emperor has come to the throne of the Roman Empire. He evidently recognized something of the mysterious power of this religion that continued to grow in spite of persecution. History says that this new emperor who was none other than Constantinehad a wonderful realistic vision. He saw in the skies a fiery red cross and on that cross written in fiery letters these words–”By this thou shalt conquer.” He interpreted it to mean that he should become a Christian. And that by giving up paganism and that by attaching the spiritual power of the Christian religion onto the temporal power of the Roman Empire the world could be easily conquered. Thus the Christian religion would in fact become a whole world religion, and the Roman Empire a whole world empire.

15. So under the leadership of Emperor Constantine there comes a truce, a courtship and a proposal of marriage. The Roman Empire through its emperor seeks a marriage with Christianity. Give us your spiritual power and we will give you of our temporal power.

16. To effectually bring about and consummate this unholy union, a council was called. In A. D. 313, a call was made for a coming together of the Christian churches or their representatives . Many but not all came. The alliance was consummated. A Hierarchy was formed. In the organization of the Hierarchy, Christ was dethroned as head of the churches and Emperor Constantine enthroned (only temporarily, however) as head of the church.

17. The Hierarchy was the definite beginning of a development which finally resulted into what is now known as the Catholic, or “universal” church. It might be said that its indefinite beginnings were near the close of the second and beginning of the third century, when the new ideas concerning bishops and preacher-church government began to take shape.

18. Let it be definitely remembered that when Constantine made his call for the council, there were very many of the Christians (Baptists) and of the churches, which declined to respond. They wanted no marriage with the state, and no centralized religious government, and no higher ecclesiastical government of any kind, than the individual church. These Christians (Baptists) nor the churches ever at that time or later, entered the hierarchy of the Catholic denomination.

And the head of the Catholic Church is honored by the rulers and governments of today. How very shameful.

Before continuing on, it is essential that a term be defined in as much as it can be defined. That term is the word “religion.” The really sad part of trying to define religion is that virtually everyone’s definition of what “religion” is, fails. Hence, this has to be approached from a strictly Scriptural point of view, with the attendant explanation of why men have not been able to define “religion.” Last of all, for the question that must be addressed concerning Freemasonry and its relationship to religion (whether it is a religion, or merely a very good friend to it) is: Can a religion include different or diverse religions in its particulars and still be a religion in its own right?

In Scripture, the statement is made:

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:26-27)

The rest of the references made to religion in the Scripture only refer to someone’s religion, but describe nothing about what religion is. However, it is indisputable that an integral and primary part of religion is worship, and that that worship has certain confines, or restrictions placed upon it, whether narrow or broad. The Scripture does discuss worship, and even defines it for us. One of the first instances where worship is clearly defined is the instance where Abraham’s servant went to find a wife for Isaac. Upon having his request granted by the LORD God, Abraham’s servant did the following:

And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the LORD. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way, the LORD led me to the house of my master’s brethren. (Genesis 24:26-27)

Thus, the simple act of prayer is worship, and is a primary element of religion. The second thing we can note about religion is that it self-evidently has a defined set of beliefs, irrespective of whether those beliefs are logical, sensible, reasonable, or even beneficial. The defining aspect of those beliefs relate specifically to the spiritual, its existence, or non-existence, and thus the existence of any spiritual higher power. However broad one may think this definition is, it nonetheless is necessary as one can even make a religion out of such a mundane thing as cutting the grass.

Moreover, religion also has the elements of rite and ritual in some degree. The rites and rituals of a religion may only be a single thing, simplistic in its form, or it may a multitude of things, and very complicated in form. In some instances rites and rituals are used as a means of justification before the higher power(s) of that religion. In others, the rituals and rites are simply a means of illustration of certain truths that the adherents of that religion are to be reinforced in as often as they are performed. The latter was the case throughout the Old Testament as illustrated in the following passage:

Give unto the LORD, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the LORD glory and strength. Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness. (I Chronicles 16:28-29)

The bringing of an offering before the LORD was a picture of Christ to come, and was a teaching that the LORD God wanted illustrated continually. Failure to do so was indicative that one did not follow the LORD, but was bent upon their own way. In case it is not understood that the sacrifices and offerings were not efficacious for salvation the Scripture does provide the following as proof:

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:1-10)

And from the Old Testament:

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. (Jeremiah 7:21-23)

Hence, though rituals and rites were a part of the worship in ancient Israel, they were not necessary for salvation. In contrast, in the Catholic Church the ritual of Mass is necessary for the salvation they promise. By this contrast, we can see the varied purpose of rites and rituals and the fact that it is not necessary for a rite or ritual be specifically meant for salvation for it to be an essential part of whatsoever religion that incorporates it. In short, a religion may promise some sort of salvation or justification (and most do), but some of the elements of that religion may not be expressly necessary for the promised salvation to be effected.

So we now see that prayer, a defined set of beliefs (particularly relating to the spiritual), and some rites and/or rituals are all parts of what define a religion. We could say at this point that any system that incorporates these specific elements is a religion. However, for the purposes of this discussion relating to Freemasonry, there is a necessity to answer a final question:

Can a religion incorporate other religions, and still be a religion in its own right?

To say the least it is an interesting question. However, it does have an answer, and that answer is more obvious than most would care to admit. For the answer we must turn to two different systems of belief: Unitarian Universalism, and non-secular Humanism.

I will begin with Unitarian Universalism and its answers to questions that are commonly raised.

Does the UUA have a creed?
No. Although the bylaws of the association do contain a section on purposes and principles, it is not a statement of a religious creed.

Do you subscribe to any doctrines?
We have no specific doctrines to which members are expected to subscribe. However, the bylaws of the UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association) and member churches and societies do contain a Statement of Purpose and Principles (see page 18). These are the basis of a solemn agreement that member churches will support the UUA and that the UUA will support the individual churches.

What do you NOT believe?
We do not believe that any religious precept or doctrine must be accepted as true simply because some religious organization, tradition or authority says it is. Neither do we believe that all UUs should have identical beliefs.

Do some UUs have different beliefs than other UUs?
They certainly do. Since individual freedom of belief is one of our basic principles, it follows that there will be differing beliefs among us. Found in today’s churches are humanism, agnosticism, atheism, theism, liberal Christianity, neo-paganism and earth spiritualism. These beliefs are not mutually exclusive–it’s possible to hold more than one. While we are bound by a set of common principles, we leave it to the individual to decide what particular beliefs lead to those principles.

Do you believe in God?
We do not have a defined doctrine of God. Members are free to develop individual concepts of God that are meaningful to them. They are also free to reject the term and concept altogether.

Most of us do not believe in a supernatural, supreme being who can directly intervene in and alter human life or the mechanism of the natural world. Many believe in a spirit of life or a power within themselves, which some choose to call God.

What are the bonds that unify UUs?
While there are no written or verbal doctrines designed for that purpose, we have both stated and unstated bonds which unify us. The stated bonds are the Principles and Purposes of the UUA which we support individually and collectively.

Among the unstated bonds are our mutual respect for each other and our appreciation of the many religious, philosophical and spiritual paths which our members pursue. We are bound together in our mutual concern for one another’s well being, and our willingness to aid each other in time of need.¹

To be continued . . .

1. UU Church of Nashua, NH., 100 Questions: Chapter 1 – Beliefs, Creeds and Doctrines↩

3. They were baptized after conversion (Matt. 3:6; Acts 1:22).

The question I have here is one of timing.  Is baptism a prerequisite to church membership, or a result of church membership?  Across the board, fundamental Baptists hold, and rightly so that baptism is a prerequisite for church membership.  However, one can be baptized and not immediately join a church.  It is usually not customary for this to occur, but it can.  It happened in the instance of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch.  Nowhere in Scripture is it recorded that he attended any service at the church in Jerusalem, or any other church for that matter.  What then do we make of it?  Was his baptism invalid?  Or, more likely the Lord had somewhere else for the eunuch to go and the Lord would make use of him there.  After all, it was the Holy Ghost that directed Phillip to minister to the eunuch, knowing that the eunuch would be saved and baptized.

So then, Point 3 is not really proof either.  At least it doesn’t contradict what he is trying to prove.

However, this point would be valid if we look at it in light of building a church.  When a missionary goes on the field, and in the process of his work individuals are saved, and subsequently baptized, does that make the mission a church?  Is it proof that the mission is a church?  I am certain that I would receive a universal “No” to the previous two questions.  However, it is proof that a church is in the process of being built.  Moreover, in time, as the Lord leads, the mission will grow and a church will be organized.  Even so, it is in the case of believers being baptized prior to Christ’s death on the cross.

1. Christian believers before Pentecost had the gospel (Matt. 4:23; Mark 1:1; Matt. 9:35; 11:5; 24:14; 26:13; Mark 1:14, 15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 16:9, 15; Luke 4:18; 9:6; 20:1, etc.).

I have to tell you that this proof, and all its attendant implications make me shudder.  Why?  In the context in which it is used, it actually disproves the point he is trying to make.  To show what I mean, let me pose the following questions:

1. Has the gospel always been the same?
2. Were people in the Old Testament saved the very same way as we are, which is by grace through faith in Christ?
Or:
3. Is the following verse of Scripture incorrect?

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. (Hebrews 4:2)

Now, we should know by the context of this verse, which is set by the preceding chapter, that the “them” who are mentioned are the children of Israel in the Wilderness, which is very much Old Testament.  Which, if we combine it with another verse of Scripture that applies to the 40 years in the wilderness, we find something very interesting:

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (I Corinthians 10:1-4)

And again it is spoken of Moses:

By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. (Hebrews 11:24-26)

Now, by the above proof, Moses was a member of a New Testament church!  Why?  Because he believed in Christ to come, as it states in Hebrews, chapter 11 “Esteeming the reproach of Christ . . .” in plain reference to what Moses held to be of value in this world.  In short, Moses believed in the same Christ that preached in the four Gospels.  Thus, by this first proof, all Old Testament believers were members of the New Testament church.

Of course, we could take another implication from point 1:

That the gospel was not preached prior to Christ’s earthly ministry, and the Old Testament saints were held to a different standard for their salvation.

This would mean that S. E. Anderson believed that salvation in the Old Testament was by works.  However, the Old Testament demonstrates that this is manifestly not so:

But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. (Genesis 6:8)

Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.  Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:20-22)

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! (Isaiah 52:7)

The above three passages of Scripture demonstrate something very plain, which is repeated in the New Testament:

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.  And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (Romans 11:5-6)

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way,  the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (Mark 16:15)

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.  How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?  And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! (Romans 10:12-15)

There is one final implication of point 1:

That S. E. Anderson was not careful in his standard for proof, and either did not know, or did not care that he did violence to the Scripture to prove his point.

In any case, it should now be plain that the very first point is no proof at all of the existence of a New Testament church, whether we take it in conjunction with Christ’s earthly ministry, or not.  In fact, plainly, to declare that this is a proof of the existence of the New Testament church is to contradict the very doctrine S. E. Anderson says he wants to prove, as it makes every believer in the Old Testament a member of a New Testament church.

Now, I have attempted to understand where S. E. Anderson would get the idea that it would be proof of the existence of the New Testament church to say that believers before Pentecost had the gospel.  In skimming through the rest of the book, I found the following paragraph that contains a most interesting statement.

John the Baptist̓s new gospel and baptism were completely accepted and approved by the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 3:13.17; 4:17; 11:11; 21:23-27). John̓s baptism was new (Luke 20:1-8). The ministry of the Baptist overlapped that of Christ, thus placing both squarely in the New Testament dispensation. If John was not in the New Testament, then neither was Christ. But both were. And since John began preaching before Christ did, then John was the first Christian preacher. John was the forerunner of Christ and of all other true New Testament preachers. (S. E. Anderson, The First Church, chapter 2, page 20.)

While the baptism administered by John the Baptist was indeed new, there is only one way that anyone can consider John’s gospel as “new”: that is that their own doctrine does not accept or support the Scriptural proof that salvation has always been, is now, and will always be the same.  If nothing else, logically speaking, since God has never changed and will not change, and man has not changed since the fall (and will not change); man’s problem has not changed, and God’s solution to man’s problem has not and will not change, then salvation has always been and will always be — THE SAME!

I have searched to find a definitive statement by S. E. Anderson that clearly shows that he believed that salvation has always been by grace through faith in Christ, and I cannot find it.  Instead I find continual hints and statements that always imply that salvation was different in the Old Testament.  Thus, by the glaring statement above, the evidence strongly indicates that S. E. Anderson was an ultra-dispensationalist.

Introduction

This answering of the proofs offered by S.E. Anderson is actually an addendum to other writings on the New Testament church and is written to respond to the predominate idea that circulates among Independent Baptists regarding the origin of the New Testament church.  This addendum was brought about as an answer to materials I was presented with concerning the founding of the New Testament church and the baptism administered by John the Baptist.

The materials given to me were written by S. E. Anderson and Davis W. Huckabee.  I do not personally know either man.  However, I have some of their writings in my possession and I do know them through their writings.  My issue in writing this addendum is not against either of them personally, rather it is against the methods used to prove the points they make.  The bulk of this addendum addresses a list of 27 points given by S. E. Anderson in his book “The First Church.”  I address some of Davis Huckabee’s statements in the process of answering S. E. Anderson’s proofs.

There is a verse in Scripture that ought to be the guide for everyone in the gospel ministry.  In I Thessalonians 5: 21, we find the following admonition:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (I Thessalonians 5:21)

However, there is an additional item to add to that:

What does one consider to be the standard for proving something?

It is a dodge to state “I don’t have to prove anything. I have faith that it is right.”  The reason that it is a dodge is because of I Thessalonians 5:21.  To make any statement similar to the above is to deny the plain commandment of Scripture — we are to prove everything, including Scripture.

Now I know that some will automatically jump to the conclusion that I am speaking of proving whether Scripture is right or not.  That would be an assumption that is manifestly false as the entire body of my writings plainly demonstrate that I use the Scripture extensively, and rely on it exclusively to prove doctrine.  No, the proving that is spoken here means to prove out the doctrines, and prove out the statements and assertions of everyone we encounter — by the standard of the Scripture.  By the way, without faith, no one can truly know that the Scripture is correct anyway.

All that being stated, let us begin with some of the assertions of S. E. Anderson concerning the origin of the New Testament church, and the point which he attempts to prove, which is that the New Testament church was in existence and functioning prior to Pentecost.

There is one point to bear in mind before proceeding:

The earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ began at His baptism by John the Baptist, and ended when He ascended bodily into Heaven.

Thus the assertion that the New Testament church began during Christ’s earthly ministry is indeed correct.  However, that is not what is meant by S. E. Anderson and others when they use the phrase “the earthly ministry of Christ”.  What they mean is the time period prior to the Lord’s Supper and His crucifixion.  This is obvious by the context in which that phrase and similar phrases are used.

Now, S. E. Anderson began the Preface to his book on the New Testament church with 27 points that he determined were proof of the church’s existence while the Lord Jesus Christ was teaching, preaching and healing prior to the Lord’s Supper.  The points will be taken in order and briefly discussed and answered, beginning at point 1.

Method of addressing the proofs in question.

The method which I use in addressing the points that are given as proofs, are as follows:

1. When the proof is prima facie in error, I will go no further than addressing the implicit logic of the statement made.  Regardless of what verses are used in support of the proof, if the proof flies in the face of other Scripture and strongly inveighs against, or sets aside other valid doctrine, I will address the error in logic and ignore the verses in support.  The reason for this should be self-evident.
2. When the proof is correct, but errs in the Scriptural support, I will address the error of the verses used to support the statement and acknowledge the validity of the statement.
3. When the proof is overly broad, I will address the attendant implications of the statement and demonstrate where it errs.
4. When the proof is correct and the Scriptural support is correct, I will readily acknowledge it as such.

Let me be express in this: I do not disagree with the central tenet of S. E. Anderson and many others concerning the fact that the New Testament church began before Pentecost.  What I disagree with are the following things:

1. The excessively broad brush used to “prove” their point.
2. The use of other versions, particularly the modern versions when it suits them.
3. The disdaining of the King James Version as a poor translation.
4. The false logic that is employed to arrive at a point that could not be made to fit otherwise.
5. The use of sources outside the Scripture, particularly the “Greek”.

In Christ,

Paul W. Davis

This is a continuation of last week’s lesson about opposition in the New Testament church.

The embedded MP3 file was presented in Ebenezer Baptist Mission’s Sunday morning services during Bible Study on June 14^th. I pray you find it edifying and a cause for reflection on how we conduct ourselves as members of a New Testament church. If you are born-again in Christ, and not a member of a New Testament church, I pray it gives you a better understanding as to how a New Testament church should work.

This continuation addresses a very thorny issue in every New Testament church — that of opposition within the church. My prayer is that fundamental, unaffiliated Baptists begin to take a more balanced and Scriptural approach in dealing with this single issue. In so doing, our churches will be stronger in the LORD and more solidly grounded in understanding the “whys and wherefores” of such things. The end that is desired is a New Testament church that never fails to follow its Head — the Lord Jesus Christ.

For those who cannot use the embedded player, wish to use a different player, or want to download the file, the following link is provided:

The Functioning of the Body — The New Testament Church: Part 2

In Christ,

Bro. Paul W. Davis

The embedded MP3 file was presented in Ebenezer Baptist Mission’s Sunday morning services during Bible Study on June 7^th. I pray you find it edifying and a cause for reflection on how we conduct ourselves as members of a New Testament church. If you are born-again in Christ, and not a member of a New Testament church, I pray it gives you a better understanding as to how a New Testament church works. After all, it is the will of the Lord Jesus Christ that you enter into covenant with Him for life-long service — which is found only within the local, visible, New Testament church.

The lesson addresses a very thorny issue in every New Testament church — that of opposition within the church. My prayer is that fundamental, unaffiliated Baptists begin to take a more balanced and Scriptural approach in dealing with this single issue. In so doing, our churches will be stronger in the LORD and more solidly grounded in understanding the “whys and wherefores” of such things. The end that is desired is a New Testament church that never fails to follow its Head — the Lord Jesus Christ.

If the embedded player does not work for you, you want to use another player, or you wish to download the file, you can access it by the following link:

The Functioning of the Body — The New Testament Church

In Christ,

Paul W. Davis

Out of the blue, on Saturday morning, I received an e-mail from Aaron, the gentleman I have been contending with over the issue of Calvinism. Now, Aaron is not just a Calvinist, but a Charismatic Calvinist. Personally, I don’t see how the two fit together, but there are a number of folks who are just that. I found out within the last few months that Charismatic Calvinism is a relatively new phenomena that is only about 30, possibly as old as 40 years, but is certainly no older¹ and is sometimes referred to as “Reformed Charismatic” or “reformed third wave/charismatic.”

This, in itself, causes me to look askance at it for one simple reason:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (I Timothy 4:1-3)

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. (II Timothy 3:1-9)

Now, I don’t know about anyone else, but I take those warnings seriously, just like I take the following seriously:

And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:7-8)

You know, that is a REAL GOOD QUESTION:

Will the Lord Jesus Christ find faith on the earth when He returns?

By the way, it is rhetorical . . .²

Now, the above bears heavily upon the following e-mail exchange with Aaron. However before examining the e-mails, it is imperative to understand that charismatic/Pentecostal doctrine and practice are all about signs, and a signs ministry. And, what the Scripture has to say about signs and the signs ministry.

A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. (Matthew 16:4)

We should also understand that signs can be duplicated:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch forth thine hand with thy rod over the streams, over the rivers, and over the ponds, and cause frogs to come up upon the land of Egypt. And Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up, and covered the land of Egypt. And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt. (Exodus 8:5-7)

And, signs are of the flesh and by the physical senses, not by faith:

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (I Corinthians 1:22-24)

If anything ought to tell us a signs ministry is not what we ought to be doing, the above statement by the apostle Paul ought to. After all, he contrasts “For the Jews require a sign” with “we preach Christ crucified” by juxtaposing them with the word “But.” In short, it is not signs that we should do, but preach Christ crucified. In sum, it is not “signs and miracles” that get people to come to Christ and be saved. Rather, it is the preaching of the gospel, and faith. Everything else is simply substituting what can be perceived with the physical senses — for faith.

For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. (II Corinthians 4:17-18)

Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (II Corinthians 5:6-8)

The reason for the strong emphasis on faith versus the physical senses is due to the fact that we cannot know the source of any sign that is done. In fact, in the days to come, all the signs will be performed by the Anti-Christ, and those supporting him:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. (II Thessalonians 2:3-10)

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. (Revelation 13:11-15)

Of course, we are warned about those who present themselves as ministers of Christ, and are not:

But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (II Corinthians 11:12-15)

With that, I leave you to examine the e-mail exchange, and consider just where we are today. And yes, I do believe the gentleman is unsaved, and possibly demon-possessed. I don’t immediately recollect ever calling him a “moron,” but I could be wrong, and I would have to examine all the e-mails exchanged to be certain. If so, it was definitely in the context of him blatantly ignoring something so obvious that only someone utterly lacking in intelligence could miss it. By the way, it really is something to be called a “Pharisee” and then be told “God bless” all in the same paragraph. I have yet to figure that one out.

NOTE: Messages are in order, from first to last, separated by a solid line.

Aaron wrote:

Paul,

Why do you think there are thousands of Christian denominations? We have the same Bible. It is amazing to me how man has taken God’s word, and made it their own. Man has lifted up certain scriptures taking them out of context, and made doctrine out of them. Example: We debate over if you can lose your salvation or not; if baptism is required for salvation or not; if the baptism in the Holy Spirit is for today or not; We have Pre-trib, Mid-trib, Post-trib rapture debates over the church; if hell is real or not; Millenium debates; some Christians believe in Universalism; some Christians believe in Armianism; some Christians believe in Calvinism; the list goes on and on.. There is one truth to all of these debates that divide the church. Why do you suppose Christian denominatons are all over the place when it comes to doctrine and theology? Answer: Man walks in the flesh, lifts up scripture out of context, makes doctrine and theology out of it.

But there is good news. In these last days, God is going to shake up the American, religious, cotton candy gospel giving church, and raise up people who want to walk in Holy Ghost miracle power to get people saved healed and delivered in Jesus name. You are going to see people raised from the dead, blind eyes open, deaf ears hearing, cancer falling off people, people getting up out of their wheel chairs, casting out devils. This is already happening in other countries. The days of playing Church are over in this country. Either you are going to be apart of this or your going to be a spectator. God bless.

Aaron

Aaron,

First, we do not all have the same Bible. The source texts for all those bibles are considerably different with thousands of variant readings. There are two major distinct Greek text families of the source texts. There are three distinct separate major variations of the Old Testament Hebrew with considerable variation in the readings.

Second, what the label says, and what’s in the can, bear no resemblance to each other. Just because the vast majority of the folks out there carry the label of Christian, does not mean they are. To be a Christian, one must follow Christ, and that the Christ of the Scriptures. By that I mean they are not free to remake Christ into someone that “fits” a distorted doctrine. For instance, Catholics are not Christians, and were not known as Christians for centuries. Instead they were known as Catholics, and they followed the doctrine and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, not the Bible. In fact, it was forbidden for Catholics to even possess or read the Bible for centuries – by order of the Popes. It has only been in the last 300 years that they have successfully relabeled themselves “Christian.”

If we care to really examine the doctrine of many other “Christian” groups out there, we will find they are also not really Christian, but merely have applied that label to themselves so they would be more acceptable to everyone.

You have fallen for the deception of ecumenism, and are not careful in examining who believes what, and what Bible you really ought to use.

–
In Christ,

Paul W. Davis

Aaron wrote:
By your response- you will be a spectator- arguing over doctrine, what Bible to use- pointing your Pharisaical finger at people-while God is raising up the real Body of Christ who will walk in Apostolic Holy Ghost power to get people saved healed and delivered in Jesus name. Your response is typical and proves my point the condition of the American Religious Cotton Candy Gospel Giving Church. The miracles are already happening in other countries and will soon happen in America, God is going to shake the American church where she needs to be shaken to wake her up! You have fleshly, religious, denominational strongholds only God can break. God bless.

Aaron,

You’re setting yourself up for the Anti-Christ.

–
In Christ,

Paul W. Davis

Aaron wrote:
I don’t know how to respond to your despicable remarks. I’m a moron, unsaved, and possessed by the devil. You will stand in judgment of your name calling and your behavior towards me. Mark it down. See ya Paul, I have wasted enough time with you. I’m going to get people saved- healed- and delivered in Jesus name. God bless.

1. http://www.charismaticreformed.org/history.htm↩
2. The answer is not a “YES.”↩

Of all the things the average Christian studies, church history is probably the least studied. Moreover, when it is studied, it is the history of the Roman Catholic Church and its children, the Protestants, that is the subject of study. However, there is an entirely different history of the church that, comparatively speaking, very few know about.

It is this little known history that is the history of the true New Testament church.

Now, I know that there are many who would argue the point and say that the Catholic Church is the true New Testament church. However, to be a true New Testament church, one must follow the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church does not do this. I know because I own a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and it deviates from the New Testament extensively. In fact, it deviates from the Catholic Bible extensively.

That aside, there have always been churches that did not deviate from the New Testament in their formation, polity, and doctrine. Generally speaking they have been known as Anabaptists. Beginning in the 1500′s they became known simply as Baptists. But, even as the churches in the New Testament were not homogeneous in their character, neither have been those churches known as Anabaptist, or Baptist. Nevertheless, they have always shared some things in common, particularly the doctrines of salvation, baptism, church organization, the autonomy of the local New Testament church, the Lord’s Supper, and missions. In addition, they have always looked to one single person as their founder and chief Shepherd – the Lord Jesus Christ.

Moreover, though generally known as Anabaptist (re-baptizer), they have been know by a host of other names given them by their enemies. Names such as Monatists, Novatians, Donatists, Paulicans, Albigenses, Waldensians, Paterines, Cathari, Bogomiles, etc. The list is extensive and varied, ranging from simple names designating a particular teacher’s following, to outright derogatory and slanderous names designed to totally discredit their doctrine and practice.

When attempts to discredit them failed, and members could not be persuaded to recant their doctrine, they were persecuted. At different times and places whole congregations were killed for simply following what the Scripture teaches about baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, the Lord has perserved his church to this day.

All that being said, it should now be clear that a proper knowledge of the history of the Lord’s church, as opposed to the false history that is commonly presented, is essential for understanding how precious proper Scriptural doctrine is. Moreover, the history of the Lord’s true church and the preservation of the Scriptures are inextricably bound together. Without the different churches preserving the Scripture throughout the centuries since the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross, we would have no pure Scripture to read.

Finally, the testimonies of the saints that came before, ought to be an encouragement for us to do better than what we do. When we understand that many of them died rather than compromise, we ought to be moved to do likewise.

In Christ,

Paul W. Davis

By the very nature of what must be done, the following will be somewhat tedious. However, it is utterly necessary to establish certain facts concerning the Calvinist idea of “election” and whether that idea and concept is Scripturally correct.

Here now, we are called to the word “election” and its usage in verse 11 of Romans, chapter 9. The word “election” is a frequently misused and misunderstood word that is a favorite of those holding Calvinist/Reformed doctrine. This word is used as supposed “proof” that the LORD God predetermined who would be saved, and who would be passed by and thus consigned to an eternity in Hell. However, for it to be proof, it must be proved by Scripture. In sum, this means that we must find other Scriptures that solidly support the contention that “election,” as it is used in verse 11 does indeed mean, or lends support to meaning, that a predetermination was made as to who would be saved, and who would not. Hence, a criterion, a standard for the LORD God choosing who would, and would not be saved.

The word “election” does not get much usage in Scripture. There are only about six instances of the word, and the underlying Greek word is found seven times as it is translated as “chosen” once. Thus, to be certain of the meaning of “election” as used in Romans, chapter 9, verse 11, we will have to examine the usage of the word “chosen.”

The word “election” appears in the following verses:

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) (Romans 9:11)

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. (Romans 11:5)

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (Romans 11:7)

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. (Romans 11:28)

Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. (I Thessalonians 1:4)

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: (II Peter 1:10)

And, where the underlying Greek word is translated “chosen” is in Acts:

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: (Acts 9:15)

Since Romans 9:11, I Thessalonians 1:4, and II Peter 1:10 plainly do not provide any sort of criteria or explanation of “election” and why certain persons were “elected” to salvation, we must concentrate on Romans, chapter 11 as verse five plainly states that the election is “of grace” and then proceeds to explain in verse six that grace and works are mutually exclusive, and cannot be mixed in any way, shape, form or fashion. We then arrive at verse seven with the question:

“What then?”

This plainly indicates that a conclusion is drawn concerning Israel and who in Israel was saved, and who was not. To get an actual understanding of the conclusion drawn, it is essential to quote verse eight as well:

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. (Romans 11:7-8)

Now we must ascertain why certain ones were given to be blinded, and others not, and how this fits with the election of grace. To go forward we must resolve how it is that some found grace in the eyes of the LORD, and others did not. For that we must go to Isaiah, chapter 29 to the passage that states:

For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. (Isaiah 29:10)

and again in Isaiah, chapter 6:

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. (Isaiah 6:9-10)

However, in neither of these cases does the specific quoted verses tell us anything about why this was done. We must look at the passage in Isaiah, chapter 29 to see a reason as the rest of Isaiah, chapter 6 only tells us the extent of the LORD’s judgement on Israel.

Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? (Isaiah 29:9-16)

In the above passage many things are declared, but among the things stated, the following is given as the reason all these things have come upon Israel:

Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: (Isaiah 29:13)

And again in the same passage:

Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? (Isaiah 29:15)

By the above two verses, we now have a reason for the LORD God withholding grace from the Israelites. Clearly they chose to be dishonest with the LORD and attempted to hide their wickedness from Him. This is something that the LORD God does not tolerate at all, and has made it plain in His word from the very beginning.

The fact that grace was withheld from certain Israelites due to their deceitfulness gives us the express criteria for the “election of grace” described in Romans, chapter 11, verse five. This is a far cry from the Calvinist contention that God chose some in eternity past without any express standard or criteria, and without regard to what any particular individual does. Plainly and clearly, if one is deceitful and dishonest with the LORD, grace cannot be expected to be bestowed. One must be honest about who and what they are, both to themselves and to the LORD God. This does lead to the question of whether man is capable of being honest with himself and with the LORD, but that will be dealt with later. For now, we must return to Romans, chapter 11 and examine the last verse that uses the word “election” and see what it states:

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. (Romans 11:28)

Again, we can see that this passage states nothing about why some are elected and others are not. Thus, we pass it by and examine the word “chosen” as used in Acts, chapter 9:

Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. (Acts 9:13-18)

Now, before some go and proclaim that receiving the Holy Ghost constituted the salvation of Saul, it is necessary to examine what happens immediately upon Ananias’ statement to Saul. It is expressly stated that he “received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.” which is consistent with the empowerment of the Holy Ghost to perform a work for the LORD. Hence, Saul’s receiving the Holy Ghost has everything to do with his baptism, and little to nothing to do with his salvation. One can be saved, and yet not be “filled with the Holy Ghost” (ref. Acts 2:1-4, Acts 4:5-10, Acts 4:31, Acts 13:6-12).

In returning to the examination of the usage of the word “chosen” in the passage, we find the context here to be one of chosen for a specific work. The statement is made:

Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. (Acts 9:15b-16)

Again, we find that this has nothing to do with being chosen, or elected to salvation, rather it is about being elected for a specific work, with no criteria being given as pertaining to Saul’s salvation. In other words, we are not told that Saul was preselected, or predetermined for salvation. What we are told is that Saul was chosen for a specific work after salvation. Please note, it does not necessarily follow that someone who is chosen for a specific work after salvation, was predestined to be saved in the first place. There is a vast difference between foreknowledge, and predestination. The LORD God can and does predestinate certain individuals to perform a certain work after salvation, because He knew beforehand that they would repent and believe the gospel. This does not mean He predestined that individual, or any other individual for salvation.

To be continued . . .