GRACE DEFINED

By Milburn Cockrell

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men”
(Tit. 2:11).

My text speaks of the saving grace of God, or grace which actually brings
salvation. In this text “grace” especially means “the gospel of grace” which is
the declaration of the free love and favor of God as manifested in Jesus
Christ. In the Old Testament the gospel was hid in types and shadows (Eph.
3:3-9), but in the New Testament dispensation Jesus Christ is the
personification of the grace of God. This grace has appeared to all kinds of
men by the preaching of the gospel.

THE WORD GRACE

In the Old Testament the word “grace” comes from a Hebrew word (chen)
which means “kindness or favor.” In the New Testament the Greek word
(charis) means “the kindly disposition from which the kindly act proceeds,
graciousness, longkindness, goodwill generally” (An Expository Dictionary of
New Testament Words by W. E. Vine, p. 170). It is related to the Greek word
for gift (charisma), and in the King James Version the word for grace (charis)
is translated “gift” in II Corinthians 8:4. Our English word “grace” means
“favor or goodwill. . .the freely given. . .unmerited favor and love of God. .
.the condition of being in God’s favor or one of his elect” (Webster’s Family
Dictionary, p. 409).

Perhaps one of the most concise definitions of grace was given by an old
black brother who had been a slave for 40 years. When asked, “What is
grace?” he replied, “Grace is what I should call giving something for nothing.”
I doubt you can improve upon this simple definition.

Abraham Booth (1734-1806), the Baptist theologian, said grace “is the
eternal and absolutely free favour of God, manifested in the vouchsafement
of spiritual and eternal blessings to the guilty and unworthy” (The Reign of
Grace, p. 47). A. W. Pink (1886-1952) tells us that grace “is a perfection of
the Divine character which is exercised only toward the elect. Neither in the
Old Testament nor in the New is the grace of God ever mentioned in
connection with mankind generally, still less with the lower orders of His
creatures” (The Attributes of God, p. 60).

Another good definition is given by Burton Scott Easton in The International

Standard Bible Encyclopedia. He declares that grace “is an attitude on God’s
part that proceeds entirely from within Himself, and that is conditioned in no
way by anything in the objects of His favor” (Vol. II, p. 1291).

SCRIPTURAL DEFINITIONS

Any reader of the Bible can see the word “grace” means “goodwill and favor”
(Ruth 2:2; I Sam. 1:18; II Sam. 16:4). In Ephesians 1:5 “the good pleasure of
his will” is the same as “the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7). The grace of God
is “the kindness and love of God” (Tit. 3:4), the love and pity of God (Isa.
63:9).

The Lord styles Himself: “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious,
longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth. . .” (Ex. 34:6).

GRACE EXCLUDES HUMAN MERIT

Grace means unmerited favor, mercy shown when punishment is deserving.

What is done in grace is done graciously. Grace is unattracted by anything
in, or from, or by the objects upon which it bestows blessings. It can neither
be sought nor bought by the recipients. If grace could be merited, it would
cease to be unmerited favor. As A. W. Pink expressed it: “When a thing is
said to be of ‘grace’ we mean that the recipient has no claim upon it, that it
was in no-wise due him. It comes to him as pure charity, and, at first, unasked
and undesired” (Attributes of God, p. 60).

The word “grace” presupposes unworthiness in its object. It cannot be

exercised where there is the slightest degree of human merit recognized.
Romans 11:6 declares: “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.” God’s grace and man’s works are
diametrically opposite and totally irreconcilable. When you add works to
grace, then grace changes its meaning; it is no longer grace. The idea of
being saved by merit contradicts the very idea of grace. Grace is not grace
unless it is altogether free from human merit. When you hear someone
talking about what we do to earn God’s grace, you can mark it down that
such a person does not know “the grace of God in truth” (Col. 1:6).

Grace cannot be withheld because of demerit in its object. It would cease to

be grace, if God withheld it because of human failure and sin. Grace in
salvation can only be exercised by God where worthiness is banished
forever. God’s grace saves the chiefest of sinners (I Tim. 1:15), the ungodly
(Rom. 5:6), the enemies of God (Rom. 5:10); yea, even those who are “by
nature the children of wrath, even as others” (Eph. 2:3).

GRACE CANNOT INCUR DEBT

Grace is no sense gracious if God is under any condition of a debt incurred.

There is no payment required, past, present, or future. God saves
undeserving sinners by unrecompensed and unconditional free grace. “Now
to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to
him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith
is counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:4-5). Grace and debt are distinct and
different; they are irreconcilable. When a man works for wages, the wages
are due him as a debt. But God is not a debtor to any man. The payment of
an honest debt can never be an act of grace. When you hear a person talking
of God owing man salvation and saying God must give every man a chance
to be saved you can be certain he is a stranger to grace and to God.

Man being a sinner by nature, practice, and choice could never make God a
debtor. Men are “children of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2) and “condemned
already” (John 3:18). They are “under sin” (Rom. 3:9; Gal. 3:22), “guilty
before God” (Rom. 3:19), and in “unbelief” (Rom. 11:32). There is no
possibility of such people putting God under obligation to them.

SOVEREIGN GRACE

Grace reigns in man’s salvation (Rom. 5:21), and the God of all grace Who
sits upon the throne is sovereign. God told Moses: “I will make all my
goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before
thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on
whom I will show mercy” (Ex. 33:19). The God of all grace dispenses grace
according to His goodwill and sovereign pleasure. It is not dispensed to all
without exception, but to all God has appointed to obtain salvation by Jesus
Christ. This is all to the glory of God’s grace (Eph. 1:4-11).
There can be no election without reprobation. “What then? Israel hath not
obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the
rest were blinded” (Rom. 11:7). “And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of
offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient:
whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people. . .” (I Pet. 2:8-9). God does not
show His grace to the reprobate. Of the Anakims it is written: “For it was of
the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in
battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour
(Hebrew techinnah translated “grace” in Ezra 9:8 in KJV), but that he might
destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses” (Josh. 11:20).

FREE GRACE

Grace must always be free, for none ever purchased it. Romans 3:24 tells
us: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus.” The word rendered here “freely” (dorean) is rendered “without a
cause” in John 15:25. We are justified “without a cause”, or without any
meritorious cause in ourselves. We are justified wholly and solely by God’s
grace or favor, plus nothing, minus nothing. The word “freely” excludes all
consideration of any thing in man as the cause of his justification.

Arminians are more concerned with man’s “free will” than with God’s free
grace. They contend that man’s will can never be other than free, for the
person using it can never be prevented from willing, any more than thinking.
They say it is either free will or no will. Arminians fail to consider that man’s
will is under the control of his totally depraved nature. Paul wrote: “For I know
that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present
with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not” (Rom. 7:18).
According to holy Scriptures, man is a bound immoral agent, and not a free
moral agent. To boast of the freedom of the will to do anything spiritually
good is unscriptural, for man’s evil will is not free till it is by grace made free.
We have no power to become the sons of God until God’s grace gives us
the faith of God’s elect (Tit. 1:1; John 1:12; Phil. 1:29). Acts 18:27 speaks of
some who “had believed through grace.” Arminians cheapen God’s grace;
yea, they are haters of the doctrine of sovereign, free, distinguishing grace!

Mr. McLaren, and Mr. Gustart, were both ministers of the Tolboth church.
When Mr. McLaren was dying, Mr. Gustart paid him a visit, and put the
question to him: “What are you doing, brother?” His answer was, “I’ll tell you
what I am doing, brother; I am gathering together all my prayers, all my
sermons, all my good deeds, all my ill deeds; and I am going to throw them
all overboard and swim to glory on the plank of Free Grace."

Hervey once said: “Had I all the faith of the patriarchs, all the zeal of the
prophets, all the good works of the apostles, the constancy of the martyrs,
and all the flaming devotion of seraphs, I would disclaim them all in point of
dependence, and rely only on free grace. I would count all but dung and
dross when put in competition with the infinitely precious death and
meritorious righteousness of my dear Saviour Jesus Christ. . .”

ETERNAL GRACE

Grace is as old as the covenant of grace and the eternal council of the
Godhead. God purposed to give us grace before He imparted it: “Who hath
saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but
according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus
before the world began” (II Tim. 1:9). Our calling and salvation must be
traced back to God’s eternal purpose of grace. He was self-moved, impelled
by motives, not from without, but from within Himself. The purpose of God to
save us was not called forth by any worthiness in us, but it was “according
to his good pleasure which he had purposed in himself” (Eph. 1:9).

This grace was given to us in our covenant Head “before the world began.”
We did not exist in eternity past, but our Redeemer and Representative did.
This grace was given to Christ for us when we were chosen in Christ
(Eph.1:4). This donation of eternal grace occurred before we existed and
before we had done any good or evil (Rom. 9:11). Grace that began in
eternity past will last till eternity future.

INCOMPREHENSIBLE GRACE

In Ephesians 3:8 it is written: “Unto me, who am less than the least of all
saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the
unsearchable riches of Christ” (Eph. 3:8). “The unsearchable riches of
Christ” means the riches of God’s grace which center in Christ. There is a
mighty treasure of grace and love laid up in Christ Jesus. The length, depth,
breadth, and height of God’s grace is incomprehensible. Grace is like a
boundless, shoreless, bottomless ocean.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
What does the term “irresistible grace” mean? It means the love and favor of
God in Christ is irresistible in the elect when it pleases God to reveal His Son
to them (Gal. 1:15-16). I do not mean by this term that God drags rebellious
sinners to Heaven against their will. This is the lie told by our opponents to
prejudice people against what we believe. I mean the power of God’s grace
makes the sinner willing to come to Christ. I mean, as the Bible teaches, that
all the Father gave to Christ in the covenant of redemption will come to Him
(John 6:37). Nothing can prevent the eternal purpose of God to save His
people by grace. We sometimes speak of this as effectual calling.

The grace of God attacks hostile thoughts of men and brings every thought
into obedience to Christ. In II Corinthians 10:4-5 it is written: “(For the
weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling
down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every
thought to the obedience of Christ.” Ignorance and love of sin are Satan’s
strongholds in the mind of man. Vain imaginations, carnal reasonings, and
high thoughts exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. All of these
strong holds are pulled down by victorious grace and the power of God.

The term “irresistible grace” does not mean that the sinner may not for a time
resist God, for he certainly does. I mean invincible grace will triumph over all
human resistance. No sinner is saved without his own hearty will and
concurrence. But he is not willing to be saved till victorious grace makes him
so. “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power. . .” (Ps. 110:3). The
gift of saving grace involves “the effectual working of his power” (Eph. 3:7).

Why does the sinner at first refuse the call of the gospel? Because he is
unconscious of his ruined condition. He knows not the evil of sin nor the
strictness of God’s moral law. He has never become mindful of the majesty
of God whom he has offended. He does not realize he possesses an
incurably wicked heart. He sees no beauty in Christ that he should desire
Him. The sinner is perfectly content to rely on his wisdom, his power, and his
supposed self-righteousness. Nothing but irresistible grace can awaken him
from this condition.

Arminian Baptists are very inconsistent. They say that a man may resist
God’s saving grace, but then once saved by grace it becomes irresistible
(man can’t fall from grace). Fallen man can will himself into Christ, but he
can’t will himself out of Christ. This gives more liberty to the unsaved man
than the man who is saved!

Victorious grace comes to show the sinner how terrible his plight is and that
he deserves the wrath of God. The Spirit of grace causes the sinner to see
he is a lost, condemned, helpless creature, standing on the brink of Hell-fire.
At this point the poor sinner throws his supposed good works to the wind and
flees to Christ as his only refuge. He casts himself upon free grace, for free
grace alone can meet his need. Then he sings:

Amazing grace! how sweet the sound,

That saved a wretch like me!

I once was lost, but now am found,

Was blind, but now I see.

T’was grace that taught my heart to fear,

And grace my fears relieved;

How precious did that grace appear

The hour I first believed.

GRACE AND CHRIST

Jesus Christ is “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14, 16). All the fullness of the
God of all grace (I Pet. 5:10) dwells in the Son of God ( Col. 1:19; 2:9). There
was found in Christ both the graciousness which bestows favor and the
actual gift bestowed. Christ was full of the grace of God. There is enough
grace in Christ for all His people.

In II Timothy 2:1 it is written: “Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace

that is in Christ Jesus.” In Christ is a fountain, redundant, overflowing, ever-
flowing for believers, for “of his fullness have we all received, and grace for
grace” (John 1:16). Christ is not only the fountain and foundation of grace,
but He also gives us grace to receive grace, one grace after another, grace
upon grace.
As God, Christ is the Author and Giver of grace. As the Mediator, He is the
Purchaser and Procurer of grace.

All the grace in us comes to us by Christ as a conduit. This is why Paul

speaks of “the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ” (I Cor. 1:4).
This grace was given us in Christ before the foundation of the world (II Tim.
1:9). Adam was the conveyor of sin and death to his seed. Even so, Christ,
the Second Adam, is the conveyor of life and grace to His seed. From Adam
we received corruption upon corruption, and from the Second Adam we
receive grace for grace. We have no grace but what we received from Jesus
Christ.

There is no grace for those who live and die outside of Christ. I believe I
heard someone ask, “How do you get into Christ?” I answer by an act of God
the Father: “But of him (God the Father) are ye in Christ Jesus. . .” (I Cor.
1:30). God put us in Christ by sovereign election: “According as he hath
chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. . .” (Eph. 1:4). In time
God creates us in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:10). As a consequence of this
election and regeneration, these people believe the gospel: “. . .and as many
as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48; cf. John 10:26; 17:20;
Phil. 1:29). In this sense they believe into Jesus Christ (John 3:15-16, 36).
Then to declare this experience of grace before the world they are baptized
into Jesus Christ: “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ”
(Gal. 3:26-27; cf. Rom. 6:3).

GRACE AND GLORY

In Psalm 84:11 it is written: “For the LORD God is a sun and a shield: the
LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that
walk uprightly.” Thomas Brooks well said, “Grace is glory in the bud, and
glory is grace at the full.” Another has said, “Grace is the bud of glory; glory
is the flower of grace.” God will give grace and glory, both in due time, both
as needed, both to the full, both with absolute certainty. All grace and all
glory is a free gift of God’s unfathomable love displayed in Jesus Christ.

What more could we ask of God? What more do we need in time and
eternity? Heaven be praised! God gives grace and glory. You cannot
separate the two. In II Timothy 2:1 we see Christ as the fountain and
foundation of grace: “. . .the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” Then in verse 10
of this same chapter we see the same Christ who give us grace also give
salvation “with eternal glory.” Thus there is an inseparable union between
grace and glory. They are related as cause and effect. God gives grace to
save our souls from sin and glory to sanctify us for the eternal kingdom.
Indeed Christ will bring many sons to glory.

CONCLUSION

1. Grace does not offer salvation upon certain terms and conditions to
enfeebled and sin-ruined creatures. Grace begins, carries on, and completes
the work of man’s salvation: “. . .by grace ye are saved” (Eph. 2:5). By God’s
goodwill, His free mercy, His lovingkindness, we are really and truly saved.
God’s grace brings salvation (Tit. 2:11); it does not merely offer it.

2. Sinner, do not despair. Men are not saved by their good works, for no man
can do enough to be saved. Neither do bad works prevent a man from being
saved by grace. “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto
men. . .” (Matt. 12:31). The grace of God saves the very chiefest of sinners.
Oh, friend, Christ is full of grace. Then why not say: “God be merciful to me
a sinner” (Luke 18:13).

3. John Bunyan (1628-1688) wrote: “But, methinks, we should not have done
yet with this grace of the Son. Thou Son of the Blessed, what grace was
manifested in Thy condescension! Grace brought Thee down from heaven;
grace stripped Thee of thy glory; grace made Thee bear such burdens of sin,
such burdens of sorrow, such burdens of curse as are unspeakable! On Son
of God, grace was in all Thy tears. Here is grace indeed---unsearchable
riches of grace---grace to make angels wonder, to make sinners happy, to
make devils astonished!”

© Berea Baptist Church, Mantachie, Mississippi, U.S.A.

Churches of God
A.W. Pink
"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God
which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like
things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews" (I
Thess. 2:14).

The ignorance which prevails in Christendom today concerning the truth

about the Churches of God is deeper and more general than error on any
other Scriptural subject. Many who are quite sound evangelically and are
well taught on what we call the great fundamentals of the faith, are most
unsound ecclesiastically. Mark the fearful confusion that abounds
respecting the term itself. There are few words in the English language with
a greater variety of meanings than "church." The man in the street
understands by "church" the building in which people congregate for public
worship. Those who know better, apply the term to the members in spiritual
fellowship who meet in that building. Others use it in a denominational way
and speak of "the Methodist Church" or "Presbyterian Church." Again, it is
employed nationally of the state-religious institution as "the Church of
England" or "the Church of Scotland." With Papists the word "church" is
practically synonymous with "salvation," for they are taught that all outside
the vale of "Holy Mother Church" are eternally lost.

Many of the Lord's own people seem to be strangely indifferent concerning

God's mind on this important subject. One from whose teachings on the
church we differ widely has well said, "Sad it is to hear men devoted in the
Gospel, clear expounders of the Word of God, telling us that they do not
trouble themselves about church doctrine; that salvation is the all-important
theme; and the establishing of Christians in the fundamentals is all that is
necessary. We see men giving chapter and verse for every statement, and
dwelling upon the infallible authority of the Word of God, quietly closing
their eyes to its teachings upon the church, probably connected with that
for which they can give no Scriptural authority, and apparently contented to
bring others into the same relationship."

What constitutes a New Testament church? That multitudes of professing

Christians treat this question as one of trifling importance is plain. Their
actions show it. They take little or no trouble to find out. Some are content
to remain outside of any earthly church. Others join some church out of
sentimental considerations, because their parents or partner in marriage
belonged to it. Others join a church from lower motives still, such as
business or political considerations. But this ought not to be. If the reader is
an Anglican, he should be so, because he is fully persuaded that his is the
most Scriptural church. If he is a Presbyterian, he should be so, from
conviction that his "church" is most in accord with God's Word. So, if he is a
Baptist or Methodist, etc.

There are many others who have little hope of arriving at a satisfactory
answer to the question, What constitutes a New Testament church? The
fearful confusion which now obtains in Christendom, the numerous sects
and denominations differing so widely both as to doctrine and church-order
and government, has discouraged them. They have not the time to
carefully examine the rival claims of the various denominations. Most
Christians are busy people who have to work for a living, and hence they
do not have the leisure necessary to properly investigate the Scriptural
merits of the different ecclesiastical systems. Consequently, they dismiss
the matter from their minds as being one too difficult and complex for them
to hope of arriving at a satisfactory and conclusive solution. But this ought
not to be. Instead of these differences of opinion disheartening us, they
should stimulate to greater exertion for arriving at the mind of God. We are
told to "buy the truth," which implies that effort and personal sacrifice are
required. We are bidden to "prove all things."

Now, it should be obvious to all that there must be a more excellent way
than examining the creeds and articles of faith of all the Denominations.
The only wise and satisfactory method of discovering the Divine answer to
our question, What constitutes a New Testament church? is to turn to the
New Testament itself and carefully study its teachings about the "church."
Not some godly man's views; not accepting the creed of the church to
which my parents belonged; but "proving all things" for myself! God's
people have no right to organize a church on different lines from those
which governed the churches in New Testament times. An institution
whose teachings or government are contrary to the New Testament is
certainly not a New Testament "church."

Now if God has deemed it of sufficient importance to place on record upon

the pages of Inspiration what a New Testament church is, then surely it
should be of sufficient importance for very redeemed man or woman to
study that record, and not only so but to bow to its authority and conform
their conduct thereto. We shall thus appeal to the New Testament only and
seek God's answer to our question.
1. A New Testament church is a local body of believers. Much confusion
has been caused by the employment of adjectives which are not to be met
with in the N.T. Were you to ask some Christians, To what church do you
belong? they would answer, The great insivible church of Christ-a church
which is as intangible as it is invisible. How many recite the so-called
Apostles' Creed, "I believe in the holy catholic Church," which most
certainly was not an article in the Apostles'"creed." Others speak of "the
Church militant" and "the Church triumphant," but neither are these terms
found in Scripture, and to employ them is only to create difficulty and
confusion. The moment we cease to "hold fast the form of sound
words" (II Tim. 1:13) and employ unscriptural terms, we only befog
ourselves and others. We cannot improve upon the language of Holy Writ.
There is no need to invent extra terms; to do so is to cast reflexion on the
vocabulary of the Holy Spirit. When people talk of "the universal Church of
Christ" they employ another unscriptural and antiscriptural expression.
What they really mean is "the Family of God." This latter appellation
includes the whole company of God's elect; but "Church" does not.

Now the kind of church which is emphasized in the N.T. is neither invisible
nor universal; but instead, visible and local. The Greek word for "church"
is ecclesia,and those who know anything of that language are agreed that
the word signifies "An Assembly." Now an "assembly" is a company of
people who actuallyassemble. If they never "assemble," then it is a misuse
of language to call them "an Assembly." Therefore, as all of God's
people never have yet assembled together, there is today no "universal
Church" or "Assembly." That "Church" is yet future; as yet it has no
concrete or corporate existence.

In proof of what has been said above, let us examine those passages
where the term was used by our Lord Himself during the days of His flesh.
Only twice in the four Gospels do we find Christ speaking of the "church."
The first is in Matthew 16:18 where He said unto Peter, "Upon this Rock I
will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it." What kind of a "church" was the Saviour here referring to? The vast
majority of Christians have understood it as the great invisible, mystical,
and universal Church, which comprises all His redeemed. But they are
certainly wrong. Had this been His meaning He had necessarily said,
"Upon this Rock I am building My church." Instead, He used the future
tense, "I will build," which shows clearly that at the time He spoke, His
"church" had no existence, save in the purpose of God. the "church" to
which Christ referred in Matthew 16:18 could not be a universal one, that is,
a church which included all the saints of God, for the tense of the verb used
by Him on this occasion manifestly excluded the O. T. saints! Thus,
the first time that the word "church" occurs in the N. T. it has no reference
to a general or universal one. Further, our Lord could not be referring to the
Church in glory, for it will be in no danger of "the gates of hell"! His
declaration that, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," makes it
clear beyond all doubt that Christ was referring to His church
upon earth, and thus, to a visible and local church.

The only other record we have of our Lord speaking about the "church"
while He was on earth, is found in Matthew 18:17, "If he shall neglect to
hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church,
let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Now
the only kind of a "church" to which a brother could relate his "fault" is a
visible and local one. So obvious is this, there is no need to further enlarge
upon it.

In the final book of the N. T. we find our Saviour again using this term. First
in Revelation 1:11 He says to John, "What thou seest, write in a book,
and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia." Here again it
is plain that the Lord was speaking of local churches. Following this, we
find the word "church" is upon His lips nineteen more times in the
Revelation, and in every passage the reference was to local churches.
Seven times over He says, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the
Spirit saith unto the churches," not "what the Spirit saith unto the
Church"-which is what would have been said had the popular view been
correct. The last reference is in Revelation 22:16, "I Jesus have sent Mine
angel to testify unto you these things in the churches:" The reason for
this being, that as yet, the Church of Christ has no tangible and corporate
existence, either in glory or upon earth; all that He now has here is His local
"churches."

In further proof that the kind of "church" which is emphasised in the N. T. is

a local and visible one we appeal to other facts of Scripture. We read
of "The church which was at Jerusalem" (Acts 8:1). "The church that
was at Antioch" (Acts 13:1), "The church of God which is at Corinth" (I
Cor. 1:2)-note carefully that though this church is linked with, yet is it
definitely distinguished from "all that in every place call upon the name
of Jesus Christ our Lord,"! Again; we read of "churches" in
the plural number: "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea,
and Galilee, and Samaria" (Acts 9:31), "The churches of Christ salute
you" (Rom. 16:16), "Unto the churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2). Thus it is
seen that, that which was prominent and dominant in N. T. times was local
and visible churches.

2. A New Testament church is a local body of baptized believers. By

"baptized believers" we mean Christians who have been immersed in
water. Throughout the N. T. there is not a single case recorded of any one
becoming a member of a church of Jesus Christ without his first being
baptized; but there are many cases in point, many indications and proofs
that those who belonged to the churches in the days of the apostles were
baptized Christians.

Let us turn first to the last clause of Acts 2:47: "And the Lord added to the
church daily such as should be (the V. R. correctly gives
it "were") saved." Note carefully it does not say that "God," or "the Holy
Spirit," or "Christ," but "The Lord added." The reason for this is as
follows: "The Lord" brings in the thought of authority, and those whom
He "added to the church" had submitted to His lordship. The way in
which they had "submitted" is told us in vv. 41-42: "Then they that gladly
received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added
unto them about three thousand souls," etc. thus, in the earliest days of
this dispensation, "the Lord added" to His church saved people who were
baptized.

Take the first of the Epistles. Romans 12:4-5 shows that the saints at Rome
were a local church. Turn back now to Romans 6:4-5 where we find the
apostle saying to and of these church members at Rome, "Therefore we
are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was
raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together
in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His
resurrection." Thus, the saints in the local church at Rome were baptized
believers.

Take the church at Corinth. In Acts 18:8 we read, "Many of the

Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." Further proof that the
Corinthian saints were baptized believers is found in I Cor. 1:13-14; 10:2,6;
I Cor. 12:13 rightly translated and punctuated (we hope to deal with this
passage separately in a future article) expressly affirms that entrance into
the local assembly is by water baptism.

Ere passing to the next point let it be said that a church made up of
baptized believers is obviously and necessarily a "Baptist church"-what
else could it be termed? This is the name which God gave to the first man
whom He called and commissioned to do any baptizing. He named
him "John the Baptist." Hence real "Baptists" have no reason to be
ashamed of or to apologise for the scriptural name they bear. If someone
askes, Why did not the Holy Spirit speak of the "Baptist church at Corinth"
or "The Baptist churches of Galatia"? We answer, for this reason: there
was, at that time, no need for this distinguishing adjective; there were no
other kind of churches in the days of the apostles but Baptist churches.
They were all "Baptist churches" then; that is to say, they were all
composed of scripturally-baptized believers. It is men who have invented all
other "churches" (?) and church-names now in existence.

3. A New Testament church is a local body of baptized believers in

organized relationship. This is necessarily implied in the term itself. An
"Assembly is a company of people met together in organized relationship,
otherwise there would be nothing to distinguish it from a crowd or mob.
Clear proof of this is found in Acts 19:39, "But if ye enquire anything
concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful
assembly." These words were spoken by the "town clerk" to the
Ephesian multitude which was disturbing the peace. Having "appeased
the people," and having affirmed that the apostles were neither robbers of
churches nor blasphemers of their goddess, he reminded Demetrius and
his fellows that "the law is open, and there are deputies," and bade
them "implead one another." The Greek word for "assembly" in this
passage is ecclesia, and the reference was to the Roman court, i.e., an
organization governed by law.

Again, the figures used by the Holy Spirit in connection with the "church"
are pertinent only to a local organization. In Romans 12 and in I Corinthians
12 He employs the human "body" as an anology or illustration. Nothing
could be more unsuitable to portray some "invisible" and "universal" church
whose members are scattered far and wide. The reader scarcely needs to
be reminded that there is not a more perfect organization on this earth than
the human body-each member in its appointed place, each to fulfil its own
office and perform its distinctive function. Again, in I Timothy 3:15 the
church is called the "house of God." The "house" speaks of ordered
relationships: each resident having his own room, the furniture being
suitably placed, etc.

Further proof that a New Testament "church" is a local company of

baptized believers in organized relationship is found in Acts 7:38, where the
Holy Spirit applies the term ecclesia to the children of Israel--"the church
in the wilderness." Now the children of Israel in the wilderness were a
redeemed, separated baptized, organized "Assembly." Some may be
surprised at the assertion that they were baptized. But the Word of God is
very explicit on this point. "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" (I Cor. 10:1-2). So, too, they were organized; they
had their "princes" (Num. 7:2) and "priests," their "elders" (Ex. 24:1)
and "officers" (Deut. 1:15). Therefore, we may see the propriety of
applying the term ecclesia to Israel in the wilderness, and discover how its
application to themenables us to define its exact meaning. It thus shows us
that a New Testament "church" has its officers, its "elders" (which is the
same as "bishops"), "deacons"(I Tim. 3:1,12), "treasurer" (John 12:6; II
Cor. 8:19), and "clerk"--"number of names" (Acts 1:15) clearly implies a
register.

4. A New Testament church is a local body of baptized believers in

organized relationship, publicly and corporately worshipping God in the
ways of His appointment. To fully amplify this heading would necessitate us
quoting a goodly portion of the N.T. Let the reader go carefully through the
book of Acts and the Epistles, with an unprejudiced mind, and he will find
abundant confirmation. Attempting the briefest possible summary of it, we
would say: First, by maintaining "the apostles' doctrine and
fellowship" (Acts 2:42). Second, by preserving and perpetuating Scriptural
baptism and the Lord's Supper: "keep the ordinances"as they were
delivered to the church (I Cor. 11:2). Third, by maintaining a holy discipline:
Heb. 13:17; I Tim. 5:20-21, etc. Fourth, by going into all the world and
preaching the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15).

5. A New Testament church is independent of all but God. Each local

church is entirely independent of any others. A church in one city has no
authority over a church in another. Nor can a number of local churches
scripturally elect a "board," "presbytery," or "pope" to lord it over the
members of those churches. Each church is self-governed, compare I
Corinthians 16:3; II Cor. 8:19. By church-government we mean that its work
is administrative and not legislative.

A N.T. church is to do all things "decently and in order" (I Cor. 14:40),

and its only authorative guide for "order" is the Holy Scriptures. Its one
unerring standard, its final court of appeal, by which all issues of faith,
doctrine, and Christian living are to be measured and settled, is the Bible,
and nothing but the Bible. Its only Head is Christ: He is its Legislator,
Resource, and Lord.

The local church is to be governed by what "the Spirit saith unto the
churches." Hence it necessarily follows that it is altogether separate from
the State, and must refuse any support from it. While its members are
enjoined by Scripture to be "subject unto the higher powers that
be" (Rom. 13:1), they must not permit any dictation from the State in
matters of faith or practice.

The administration of the government of a N. T. church resides in its own

membership, and not in any special body or order of men, either within or
without it. A majority of its members decide the actions of the church. This
is clear from the Greek of II Corinthians 2:6, "Sufficient to such a man (a
disorderly brother who had been disciplined) is this punishment, which
was inflicted of many." The Greek for the last two words is hupo ton
pleionon." Pleionon is an adjective, in the comparative degree, and literally
rendered the clause signifies "by the majority," and is so rendered by Dr.
Charles Hodge, than whom there have been few more spiritual and
competent Greek scholars. Bagster's Interlinear renders it "by the greater
portion," and the margin of the R.V. gives "Greek the more." The definite
article obliges us to render it "by the more" or "by the majority."

To sum up. Unless you have a company of regenerated and believing

people, scripturally baptized, organized on N. T. lines, worshipping God in
the ways of his appointing-particularly in having fellowship with the
apostles' doctrine and fellowship, maintaining the ordinances, preserving
strict discipline, active in evangelistic endeavour-it is not a "New Testament
church," whatever it may or may not call itself. But a church possessing
these characteristics is the only institution on this earth ordained, built, and
approved of by the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence, next to being saved, the
writer deems it his greatest privilege of all to belong to one
of His"churches." May Divine grace increasingly enable him to walk as
becometh a member of it.

(Studies in the Scriptures, Dec. 1927, pp. 277-281).

A Brief History of the Baptists

by the late Norman H. Wells

he history of the ancient churches is very obscure. Much of the early

T recorded history was either lost or destroyed. A great part of the history that
remains was changed to suit the interests of the Roman Catholic Church.
All of church history has been involved in much controversy and was subject to
the whims and fancies of each particular age.

In a very broad outline we want to look at the history of the church.

The First 300 Years of Church History

Jesus Christ, during His earthly ministry, founded the first church
in Jerusalem in approximately the year 30 A.D.

This first church was commissioned to go forth preaching the gospel, winning
the lost to Christ, baptizing and teaching the converts and establishing new
churches.

On the pages of the New Testament we find the record of the growth of
Christianity and the founding of many New Testament churches.

Nero, the Roman Emperor, blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome in 64
A.D. and began the first of ten persecutions the Christians were to receive at
the hands of the Romans.

Despite all the persecution, Christianity grew. At the end of the first 300 years
the religion of Jesus Christ was established all over the then known
world. There were churches in every town and community.

The Progress of Error During The First 300 Years

In the first two centuries the individual churches rapidly multiplied and some of
them became very large. The church at Jerusalem had possibly as many as
50,000 or more members!

These large churches each had several preachers or elders. Some of these
bishops or pastors began to assume authority over smaller churches. This
corrupted the original democratic policy and government of the churches and
led to the kind of hierarchy we see in the Roman Catholic Church today.

In the first two centuries the false teaching of "baptismal regeneration" began
to spread. This error led to infant baptism and many other errors.

It has to be remembered that these changes did not come about all in a day,
nor within a year. They came about slowly and never within all the churches.
Some of the churches vigorously repudiated these errors.

About the middle of the third century the lines were clearly drawn. Those
churches that remained loyal to the Scriptures were now clearly separate from
those that had gone into error and apostasy.

Constantine ruled as Emperor of the Roman Empire from 306 to 337A.D. and
his reign was to mark one of the great turning points in church history.

During a battle in 312 A.D. Emperor Constantine believed he had a vision of a

flaming cross and above it the words, "By this sign thou shalt conquer."

He decided to fight under the banner of Christ and Christianity came into favor
in the Roman Government.

In 313 A.D. Constantine gave a call for all the churches to come together and
pronounced himself as the head of the churches.

Many, but not all, of the churches came. The true churches would have no part
in this error.

This hierarchy or body of church rulers, that Constantine formed was

the definite beginning of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of the errors of
Catholicism had already had their beginning but now they were organized into
a definite system.

Constantine made "Christianity" the "State Religion." Up until this point the
persecution of the Christians had been done either by Judaism or Paganism.
Now came a change. Christians (in name) began using the law to compel all
Christians to join the organization. The true churches that refused were
persecuted.

The division was now complete. The true churches refused to line up with the
errors of the "state church." The church of Constantine became what we know
as Roman Catholicism. Baptists were never part of Roman Catholicism. They
remained true to the Scriptures and rejected the error.

After the organization of the churches into a hierarchy and their acceptance as
a "State Religion" the true, loyal churches that rejected this error were identified
by various names.

It is not to be understood that each of these groups was entirely free from error
or entirely embraced the truth. Through these groups can be traced the people
called Baptists. In these groups is to be found the true church -- not in
Catholicism.

Montanist ... Paulician ... Novationist ... Paterines ... Donatist ... Albigenses ...
Anabaptists ... these were some of the names used to identify those who
refused to identify with Rome.

The Dark Ages

The period from 426 A.D. to 1628 A.D. is called the "Dark Ages."

With the establishment of the new Catholic temporal power a bloody

persecution began. Loyal, New Testament churches, by whatever name they
were called, were hunted and hounded to the utmost limit by this new Catholic
power.

The now established Catholic Church began a war of extermination upon all
who opposed her.

It is reliably reported that 50,000,000 died of persecution during the Dark Ages.

During the bloody times of persecution, as Catholicism tried to exterminate the

true churches, many of the false doctrines of the Catholic church of today began
to take place.

The Inquisition 1198-1700

The Inquisition was instituted by Pope Innocent III and perfected under Pope
Gregory IX. It was a "Church Court" established by the popes for the trying and
punishing of "heretics" ... a heretic being anyone who did not agree with Roman
Catholicism. The lnquisition lasted for 500 years and was a time of
indescribable horror.

During all this persecution Baptist churches continued to exist.

The Reformation
The conditions within the Catholic Church had become so corrupt that many
voices were raised within the church in protest. Among these voices was that
of John Wycliffe (1320- 1384), John Huss (1373-1415), Savonarola (1452-
1498), Zwingli (1484-1531), John Knox (1505-1572), John Calvin (1509-1564),
and Martin Luther.

The combined effort of these men, along with many others, brought about the
Reformation.

All these Reformers started new churches. This was the beginning of
Protestantism. All Protestant churches had their beginning in the period of the
Reformation or since that time.

Baptists continued to exist through the Reformation as they had since the time
of Christ. Since the Reformation the Baptists have had a glorious history. There
are over 23,000,000 Baptists in the United States and they are also found in
over 100 different countries.

ECCLESIOLOGY 101
Curtis Pugh

Having previously written “Eschatology 101” dealing with a basic approach to end-time

events, I now offer “Ecclesiology 101.” I hope it will be a help to God’s sheep. Perhaps, for
readers outside the U.S.A., I should explain the significance of “101.” Stereotypically at least,
first-year basic or elementary university courses have been numbered beginning with “101.” So
the nature of this article will be to provide a basic approach to ecclesiology or the doctrine of the
church.

It seems to me that there are four views among modern Baptists as to the way in which
churches ought to be organized. These four views have forced Baptists into four different
camps. These camps are both incompatible (incapable of harmonious coexistence) and
irreconcilable (impossible to restore to harmony). I shall try to give a fair, concise and
understandable assessment of the first three views along with some objections to them and to
provide support of the fourth one. As I cannot find the first three views supported by the Word of
God, I cannot furnish texts that support either of them.

The first position held by some who are denominated Baptists is what I call The Direct

Authority View. Briefly stated this view is that any group of baptized people may gather together
and determine to organize themselves into a church. It assumes that they have the authority to
do so, directly given by Christ, and that He will recognize them as a true church based on their
actions. Sometimes this is called the “self constitution view.”

We object to this view for several reasons, in the main because we have no
New Testament example of true churches originating in this fashion. On the other hand, we do
have a group of Gentiles turning to the Lord in Antioch. The consequence of this was that
the Jerusalem Church authorized one of their members to go to Antioch, evidently both to learn
the truth of the matter and to act accordingly. His actions would have no doubt included baptizing
and setting them in order, as this was the practice of the apostles (Acts 11:22; Titus 1:5). It is
clearly stated that under his ministry “much people was added unto the Lord” (Acts 11:24). These
people would need baptism and teaching as to the observing of all things Christ had
commanded. It is also interesting and important to note that it was only after the ministry of

Barnabas to this group in Antioch that they were ever called a “church” by the Holy Spirit (Acts
11:26).

Neither do we have any Word from Christ or any apostle giving baptized persons this
imagined “direct authority.” Matthew 18:20, the “two or three gathered together in my

name” passage, does NOT teach such a “self constitution view.” That passage deals with an
already established church dealing with matters of discipline as the context clearly
shows. Church organization was not at all in view when the Lord spoke these words! To try to
stretch this passage as a proof text for self-constituting a church is ludicrous and violates all
sensible rules of Bible interpretation.

We also object because such a method is disorderly in that persons who have been
excluded from the fellowship of a true church may, without repentance and amendment of life –
without making things right with their previous church – form themselves into a new church in
flagrant disregard for their former church. Churches organized in this manner make a mockery
of church discipline just as open communion does. And so, just as churches that hold to closed
communion have no church fellowship with open communists, so those who hold to biblical church
organization are forbidden to have fellowship with those who hold this disorderly or heretical
view. The Bible says, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition
which he received of us” (2 Thessalonians 3:6) and “A man that is an heretick after the first and
second admonition reject” (Titus 3:10). So, whether you view those who hold this view as

“disorderly” or as “heretics,” the faithful Baptist cannot rightly cooperate with or have fellowship
with them or their churches. To do so is to be a traitor to the truth!

We think the direct authority view is dangerous because it gives to the individual member
the right to dismiss himself from the membership of a church – whether to form a new one or to

escape rightful discipline or both. Where this plan is adopted, church discipline is rendered
meaningless and pointless.

We object to this view also because it is contrary to the Great Commission. In that
Commission our Lord stated His authority and gave commandment to His true churches to do

those things in His absence which He had formerly been doing while upon earth. The self
constitution view would allow any group to form themselves into a church and by their self-act
qualify themselves to do the work that Christ designated to be carried on by a specific body – His

church. If such a thing as “ecclesiastical Arminianism” exists, this would be it! Just as the
Arminian thinks he is saved because of something he did on his own, so these “ecclesiastical
Arminians” think they are legitimate Baptized Churches of the Lord Jesus Christ because of
something they did: Because of something they did completely apart from a church that had a
commission from Christ to continue the work He was doing.

And what had Christ been doing while He was on earth? He had been making disciples
and baptizing them and gathering them into a church (John 4:1; 1 Corinthians 12:28). What work
did He leave for His church? Why the same work He had been doing, of course. Christ did not
purpose that His work be carried on by individual believers or by a group of baptized individuals
acting apart from a church body. So it seems unreasonable to think that continuing the work of
forming churches can be accomplished by anyone other than a church body acting together to
determine what is the will of God in these matters and to do it.

The second position held by some who are denominated Baptists is what I call The
Ordination Authority View. This view says that any man ordained to the Gospel ministry has

all the authority he needs. By virtue of that ordination he can administer both ordinances, ordain
ministers, and organize new churches apart from either membership in or action by any true
church. Sometimes this is called the “preacher authority” view. We reject this view because it
was not practiced in the New Testament. It just is not to be found either in the teaching or practice
of Christ and His apostles. No New Testament writer endorses it and so neither should we.

There are several very real dangers to this idea. Those who adopt this view have created
a “class” of special men who, regardless of their doctrinal deviations or moral unfitness, are
empowered to organize or refuse to organize new churches. These men would be similar in
power to the “bishops” of the Catholic system. This view also promotes free-lance-ism among
those called Baptists. This sort of free-lance ministry is similar in some ways to that mentioned
in Acts 19:13 – i.e. “vagabond Jews” who went from place to place under the authority of none

but themselves.

This view, like the first one, also makes a mockery of and would destroy biblical church
discipline. Such a man, endued at some previous remote ordination with such great personal
authority, would be in submission to no church whatsoever. Such a man could be properly

excluded from a church and it would have no bearing on his ministry whatsoever for he was
“ordained” and to quote one who espouses this view, “When I was ordained I received all the
authority I need.” We cannot find any scriptural basis for the “preacher authority” view!

A third view, The Denominational Authority View, holds that a Baptist convention,

association or gathering of denominationally accredited ministers has authority to organize new

churches. This view is easily debunked because the New Testament knows nothing of such man-
made organizations as conventions and associations and therefore New Testament Christians
are bound not to recognize their man-made offspring as true churches.

The fourth view maintains that Christ, having all authority (Matthew 28:18), gave specific
orders to His church regarding the work they were to do in His absence. I call this position The
Church Authority View. These specific orders are called the Great Commission and are in fact

a delegation of Christ’s authority. Thus both the privilege and obligation – the right and the duty
– for all service to Christ was given by Him to His organized disciples, His church. Some have
called this the “mother church view” because it requires that a previously existing church be
involved in the bringing into existence of each new church. In practice, this view holds that
established churches have the (1) delegated authority and the (2) high privilege and the (3)
obligation to ordain (publicly set apart) men whom they believe are called of God to the ministry
and to send them out to places near and far in the church’s effort to carry out the Great
Commission. Thus churches are and must be directly involved in the establishment of new
churches. Since New Testament churches ordinarily determine the will of the church by the

orderly method of voting, it is reasonable to expect church actions to be decided, if not

unanimously, at least by a majority of the members. Thus no mere group of baptized individuals
can properly act in the place of a church.

This view continues the practice of our Lord who Himself ordained certain men and sent

them out to further His work (See Luke 9:1, 2; 10:1; Mark 3:14; John 15:16; 17:18, etc.). We think
that viewing the work of a true church as continuing the work Christ did while on earth is a most
important perspective and one that each true child of God should adopt. So the church authority

view is consistent with the Great Commission that was most certainly given to Christ’s church. If
the Commission was given to the eleven as individuals we have no commission today for they
are all dead. If the Commission was given to the eleven as apostles we have no commission
today for we have no apostles today. Only if we view the Commission as having been delivered
to those apostles and those with them in church capacity do Christ’s words have any real meaning
and the possibility of fulfillment.

The church authority view is clearly the proper one because it follows the pattern set forth
in the New Testament. There we see that men were ordained (publicly set apart by a church)
and then sent out to do the work of the ministry to which the Holy Spirit had called and equipped
them (See Acts 1:21; 11:22; 13:1-4; 15:25; 1 Timothy 2:7, etc.). This view is consistent with the
whole New Testament because all about whom we know that baptized with scriptural authority in
that volume were (1) men, (2) baptized men, (3) ordained men, and (4) members in good standing
with a previously existing church to which they were accountable. This view is consistent both
with the Scriptural method of financing Gospel work and the accountability to the churches of the
preachers involved in it. (Financial support and accountability go together.) Preachers sent out
by New Testament churches were “brought on their way” by the churches (financially
supported). (See Acts 15:3; Romans 15:24; and 2 Corinthians 1:6). Paul’s example of

accountability is this: after his mission trips he always, even after visiting the
famous Jerusalem church, returned to his home or sending church, Antioch in Syria. There he
gave an account of his work in various places, thus showing accountability to his “sending
church.” (See Acts 14:26, 27; 18:22). This is the practice even today of those missionaries who
hold to the “mother church view.” Those missionaries who hold to one of the three earlier
discussed views may practice some measure of accountability for practical reasons, i.e. to keep
the money flowing in, but those who hold to the church authority view do so primarily as a matter
of biblical principle.

We believe the church authority view is the orderly view because it does not foster a “class”
of special men being set up as rulers over the churches. And we believe this is the scriptural view

inasmuch as it does NOT foster free-lance-ism, i.e. that there is a class of ministers of Christ who
are accountable to no one but themselves and God.
 In conclusion let me point out the following: If either of the first three methods of organizing
churches is right, the churches of the New Testament were organized in the wrong way for they
were organized according to the fourth view. If one of the first three methods of organizing
churches is right, those Baptist churches down through history organized after this pattern were
organized in the wrong way and are/were not true churches. If the fourth view of church
organization is right, then the first three are unscriptural and churches organized in either of those
ways are not true churches of Christ.
The first view promotes oligarchy (authority of a few) and anarchy. Anarchy is defined as

“a state of lawlessness” and “absence or denial of any authority” and “absence of order.” A
synonym given by Webster is “disorder.” This first view says a group of baptized individuals can
dismiss themselves from their church and, independent of anyone, organize themselves into a
true Baptist church. The second view promotes hierarchy (religious leaders in positions of
authority). It says that there exists a special clergy or class of ordained men who have the
authority to organize true Baptist churches apart from any church action other than their original
ordination to the ministry. The third is totally unscriptural because it depends on man-made
denominational organizations for its authority. The fourth view promotes biblical democracy
under the Headship of the Lord Jesus Christ. It says that each true Baptist church is capable and
responsible to be actively involved in carrying out the Great Commission at home and
abroad. Further this view says that decisions to ordain men to the ministry, to send out
missionaries, and to dismiss members for the purpose of organizing new churches rests in the

church membership as a body and not in a clergy or in a group of members acting independently
of the church as a whole. This is the biblical and orderly way. “Let all things be done decently
and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40).

A MAN-MADE GOD
By Milburn Cockrell
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto
thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I
the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate
me" (Ex. 20:3-5).

"Little children, keep yourselves from idols" (I John 5:21).

The Holy Scriptures prohibit us from worshipping any man-made God. When
you mention an idol most people think of a heathen bowing before some
stone image in the jungle. But idolatry is putting any object in the place of
God or before God. At this season I fear that many people are guilty of
worshipping a man-made god, either knowingly or unknowingly. Santa Claus
has become a God-substitute. Although people say they are celebrating the
birth of Jesus Christ, it is a known fact that Santa Claus is mentioned more
in most homes than Jesus Christ.

At this season of the year little children are told Santa Claus is coming to
town. We see images of him with his white beard, dressed in a red suit, riding
in his sleigh drawn by eight reindeer. Parents and grandparents say it would
be wrong to rob little children of their belief in Santa Claus. The observant
Christian can see that it is Santa Claus the myth, not Christ the reality, who
is the center of attraction at this time of the year. Christmas could not survive
without Santa Claus.

ORIGIN OF SANTA CLAUS

The origin of Santa Claus grew out of legends and superstitions of the
ancient nations. The pagan German deities before the time of Christ were
believed to come down the chimney to give rewards and punishments to
people. They were gods of fire and solar gods, called hearth spirits.
In China each year this fire god, dressed in a fiery red cap and jacket,
traveled from the distant heavens to visit homes and distribute favors or
punishments.

The image of Santa Claus in its more modern form began in the fourth
century. A Roman Catholic bishop named Nicholas is said to have lived in
what is now Turkey about 1,700 years ago. The World Book
Encyclopedia says of St. Nicholas: "The beloved legend of Santa Claus, who
brings gifts to all good children at Christmas time, is connected with Saint
Nicholas, who was an actual person. . . .The stories about Saint Nicholas
say that he lived during the A.D. 300's. . . .One story is told that on three
nights in a row he tossed bags of gold into the window of three girls who did
not have the money for a dowry and so could not get married. This story may
have started the custom of giving gifts at Christmas" (Vol. 12, p. 5680).

After Saint Nicholas died mothers told children that good Nicholas might visit
them again at Christ's mass. This idea supposed that this bishop had died
and rose from the dead, for he could not have brought gifts after his death
without rising from the dead. At first most European people celebrated
December 6, the date of Saint Nicholas' death, as a special holiday. As the
years past the 6th of December gave place to December 25th. This is why
Santa Claus is sometimes called even today Saint Nicholas. In Holland
Christmas is still celebrated on December 6, the day of Saint Nicholas' death.

Santa Claus has many different names in various countries of the world.
Saint Nicholas in America is now called Santa Claus. The Dutch children
shortened "Nicholas" to Claus," and the Spanish influence in
the Netherlands changed "Saint" to "Santa." In Germany he is called Kris
Kringle and in France Pere Noel (Father Christmas).

"In Holland St. Nicholas appeared, as he still does today, in the colorful
regalia of a medieval bishop, including the red miter upon his head and the
long cape draped from his shoulders. In America the miter and cape became
the colorful cap and suit of our Santa Claus, both bright red and trimmed with
fur. Instead of the serious mien of a bishop, he became a fat, jovial figure
with white beard and ruddy nose and cheeks, a mixture of human and
supernatural attributes" (Colliers Encyclopedia, Vol. 20, pp. 414-415).

Santa Claus in its modern form came from a poem in 1822 written by
Clement C. Moore A Visit from St. Nicholas, which gives a picture of the saint
as we know him today. But even this poem, which begins with the familiar
line "`Twas the night before Christmas," the name of Santa Claus does not
appear. Thomas Nast, the cartoonist, gave the first picture of Santa Claus
as he is imagined today in a cartoon, in 1863. Later his famous
drawing Santa Claus and His Works, which appeared as a Christmas picture
in Harper's Weekly in 1866, showed Santa Claus in his workshop with his
record of the good and bad deeds of all children. The drawing also showed
the sleigh with reindeer, the pack of toys, the stockings hung at the fire-place,
and the Christmas tree (See World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, pp. 7211-
7212).

The modern Santa Claus myth originated with St. Nicholas, a Roman
Catholic monk who is believed to have lived in the fourth century in what is
now called Turkey about 1,700 years ago. After his death mothers told their
children that though he was dead yet he lived again and would visit them on
the night of the mass of Christ and give them gifts if they had been good.
Although the name has changed sometimes from country to country, the
myth is still being told unto this very day. In America Santa Claus is a mixture
of human and supernatural attributes. In his sleigh drawn by eight reindeer
he flies miraculously over the house tops of the world in one single night,
leaving gifts to all.

SANTA CLAUS, AN ANTICHRIST

The average person would have us to believe that the Santa Claus myth is
just clean, wholesome fun for little children. They say it is a thing to develop
the imagination of children. But his is hardly the case. In truth Santa Claus is
an antichrist, a God-substitute, a man-made god, a working of the spirit of
iniquity. If you move the "n" in Santa" to the last "a" you have Satan."

Consider the popular Christmas song that we hear at this time of the year:

You better watch out, you better not cry,

Better not pout, I'm telling you why---
Santa Claus is coming to town!

He's making a list and checking it twice,

Gonna find out who's naughty and nice---
Santa Claus is coming to town!

He sees you when you're sleeping,

He knows when you're awake,
He knows if you've been bad or good---
So be good for goodness sake!

Oh! You better watch out, you better not cry,

Better not pout, I'm telling you why---
Santa Claus is coming to town!
If you will take the time to examine what is being said here about Santa
Claus, you will see that he has the attributes of Jesus Christ. There is nothing
in the universe like Christ. But Santa Claus is just as unique as Jesus Christ.

Christ is eternal (John 1:1-3). So is Santa Claus. He was never born and no
one knows who his parents were. It would also seem that he has no end.

Christ is unchangeable (Heb. 13:8). Santa Claus has not aged in 1,700
years. He is no older now than when I was a little child. He still looks the
same today as he did a hundred years ago.

Christ is omniscient (John 21:17). So is Santa Claus. The popular song says:
"He sees you when you're sleeping, He knows when you're
awake, He knows if you've been bad or good. . ." Santa Claus can see all
over the world, and he knows the good or bad conduct of little children.

Christ is omnipotent (Matt. 28:18), but so is Santa Claus. At Christmas time

Santa can do anything. Poor parents may live in the slums and not have a
dime to their name, but Santa Claus can bring their children almost any
present. Nothing is too hard for him.

Christ is omnipresent (Matt. 28:20), but so is St. Nick. He can be in every

department store in the city, on TV, in the supermarkets, on the street
corners, in churches, at Christmas parties---all at the same time. On
Christmas Eve he leaves the North Pole and travels over the whole world,
going down everybody's chimney, leaving gifts in just one single night!

Christ is sovereign (John 5:21). So is Santa. Who has authority over him? In
what court can he be tried? To whom is he responsible? He is over all.

Christ is good (Acts 10:38). So is Santa Claus. He is very good to children

who have behaved very well. He is the giver of good gifts to all at Christmas
time.

Christ is righteous (I John 2:1). But Christ has nothing on Santa Claus, for
Santa has no moral imperfections. Has he ever done any wrong to any
person? Has he ever confessed his sins?

Christ is just (I Peter 3:18), but so is Santa Claus his mythical substitute.
"You better watch out, you better not cry, better not pout, I'm telling you why-
--Santa Claus is coming to town." Santa is coming in the character of a judge
to examine the conduct of little children. He is a rewarder and punisher like
Christ. Boys and girls must live to please him if they want their stockings
filled.

Christ is forgiving (Mark 2:10), but so is the imaginary Santa Claus. Although
children are not always good, Santa still fills their stockings with candy and
puts them presents under the Christmas tree. So Santa is forgiving just like
Christ! Most children learn that you do not have to be good to get your
present each Christmas.

This should be enough to convince any person that Santa Claus is a

substitute for Jesus Christ. Saint Nicholas died, but after he died mothers
told their children that good Nicholas might visit them again at the mass of
Christ. This would have meant that Saint Nicholas rose from the dead---an
imitation of the resurrection of Christ. The Bible says that Christ will come
again to reward His servants as to their being good or bad (II Cor. 5:9-11;
Rev. 22:11). Santa comes every year to reward the good and bad---a cheap
imitation of the second coming of Jesus Christ.

SANTA CLAUS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN

Santa Claus is a lie. There is no such person. It is to be seriously doubted

that the man Saint Nicholas ever existed. The Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol.
16, p. 477) says that "his existence is not attested by any historical
document, so nothing certain is known of his life." There is not now, nor has
there ever been, a man who lives at the North Pole and works all year to
make toys to give to children on Christmas Eve. There is no such thing as a
man who rides in a sleigh up in the sky which is pulled by eight reindeer.
Reindeer might pull a sleigh on the ground, but never in the air.

How sad that little children fight with their playmates to prove there is a Santa
Claus and that mother and father are telling the truth. The Santa Claus myth
is a system of perpetual lying to little children. Their little bright eyes ask with
all seriousness: "Is there really a Santa Claus? Can Santa's reindeer really
fly? Does Rudolph have a red nose?" When parents answer these trusting
little hearts in the affirmative they are lending their personal authority to a big
lie! The lie becomes a truth to the child.

Should a Christian lie? The Bible answer is plain. Exodus 20:16 says: "Thou
shalt not bear false witness." God says of His people in Isaiah
63:8: "Surely they are my people, children that will not lie. . ." How can
parents who lie to their children about Santa Claus fit this description?
Ephesians 4:25 commands us to put "away lying."

Parents punish their children for lying to them about things, but then they turn
around and lie to the children about Santa Claus. How inconsistent and
foolish. No wonder there is a generation gap! No wonder children grow up to
believe Christ is a myth. Such lies destroy the child's faith in his parents. He
finds out that Santa, a man with God-like attributes, is a fake. He then thinks
that Santa is for little kids and Christ is for big kids!

Henry Work, M.D., a Bethesda, Maryland, child psychiatrist and former

chairman of the department of child psychiatry of UCLA, made some
interesting comments about the Santa Claus lie: "Is it smart to use the image
of an all-seeing, all-knowing Santa Claus to influence a child's behavior? You
know the line---`You'd better be good or Santa won't leave any presents
under the tree!' It's often used as an effective, if harsh, way to bring an unruly
youngster back into line at this time of the year. The answer to the question
is no" (Better Homes and Gardens, Dec. 1984, p. 45).

The Santa Claus lie destroys the child's faith in his parents. It is quite a shock
when he discovers his parents have been lying and laughing behind his back
all these years. He was a fool for fighting to prove them right at school.
Credibility is gone. Doubts and suspicions linger long in his mind. He begins
to doubt what mom and dad have said about the Bible, God, morals, and his
country! One little boy who had learned the truth about Santa Claus was
heard to say to his classmate: "Now that I know that there is no Santa Claus
I intend to check into this Jesus Christ thing also!"

This myth tends to teach children salvation by good works. The song says:
"He's making a list and checking it twice, Gonna find out who's naughty and
nice." This gives the impression to a child that the way of acceptance is being
"nice." This is not true. Salvation is in one trusting in the blood and
righteousness of Christ. It is not any kind of good works performed by man.
Santa Claus is just another form of Arminianism!

Santa Claus is preparing the way for the Antichrist. He is presently a Christ-
substitute. The final Antichrist will be a man who will give gifts to all and solve
all the problems of the world. He will promise to make every day one big
Christmas for all (Rev. 11:9-10)! No wonder the world will gladly receive him
and worship him!
Santa Claus is a false Christ. He should have no place in the homes and
churches of real Christians. Don't tell your children the Santa Claus lie. Tell
them about Jesus Christ. Tell them to pay homage to the ever-living Christ
born of a virgin, and forget the "visions of sugarplums" in your head! Tell
them of how Christ shed His red blood for sinners, not about some fat man
in a red suit who does not exist.

I wish to conclude this message by reading a letter that a young mother wrote
to Santa Claus:

"Dear Santa Claus:

"You'll probably be surprised to receive this letter from an adult. You may be
even more surprised as you read it to find that the writer is neither a maiden
aunt nor a disgruntled bachelor. I'm a young mother.

"It isn't my intention, Santa, to hurt your feelings. You see, my family has paid
tribute to you for many past Christmases: my husband and I when we were
in our childhood; now our children who are 6, 4, and 2. They still care for you.
How much they care has really proved a problem in recent years. It is
threatening to happen again this holiday season.

"Our children worship you. They speak of you constantly. They watch
diligently for your December 25 appearance. Can you tell us, Santa, what
you have done to deserve this faithfulness from two generations? Can you
promise any future consideration in exchange for past loyalties?

"During a family crisis, have you ever told us, "Lo, I am with you alway"?
Were you ever with us during sorrow to comfort us with these words: "But
your sorrow will be turned into joy"? And, Santa, there have been doubtful
times. Where were you? We didn't hear from you the calming message, "I
will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."

"We have come to the conclusion that you have been even less than a friend
should be. And we have been shortchanged. My three children have stood
on a windy, cold mainstreet just to get a glimpse of your jolly face. They have
written heartfelt yearly letters. They have gone to department stores to
whisper in your ear. They have worked hard at being good in anticipation of
your Christmas Eve visit. Yes, they've done all this---as their father and I did
before them.

"But there's going to be a change this Christmas. There isn't going to be any
Santa Claus worship in our home. We've decided to focus our attention and
adoration on another Being---One who has stood by us the other 364 days
this past year; One who has comforted us during the sorrowful and doubtful
times---and yes, the times of crisis also.

Ít's true that your name will probably be mentioned around our house, Santa.
Old habits are hard to break abruptly. But Someone Else's name will be
mentioned much more often. The children will probably work just as hard at
being good, but I hope they will do it for another inducement---one that will
last the whole year long---to bring glory to Another's name. That other One
has given us so much more---and not just on Christmas Eve!

"You may call our family fickle, Santa, but we won't mind. On this December
25, and all through the year, we want a Comforter, a Healer, a strengthening
King. We don't want a myth any longer.

"We've talked it over. This year we've decided to give tribute, honor, and
worship to Someone who really deserves them---to the True Giver---Our
God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Farewell,

A Young Mother"

CHRISTMAS OR THE SATURNALIA?

By Milburn Cockrell

There is no command to celebrate the birth of Christ in the Bible. There is

not one word in the Bible about Jesus Christ being born on December 25.
According to Holy Scriptures, the most likely date would be in September, as
many scholars concede. No verse in the Bible commands us to exchange
gifts among ourselves on December 25. The wise men did not exchange
gifts among themselves, but they gave gifts to Christ (Matt. 2:11).

I heard some person ask, “Then why do we celebrate Christmas on

December 25? Where did this custom come from?”

I will let history give the answer. The Christmas celebration came from a
pagan festival of ancient Rome called the Saturnalia.

My first quote is from History of the World by John Clark Ridpath. This is the
man who wrote W. A. Jarrell a letter in which he said: “I should not readily
admit there was a Baptist church as far back as A. D. 100, though without
doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were then Baptists” (See
Baptist Church Perpetuity, p. 59).

“The great festival of FLORA was celebrated by the women. It was given
when the wheat fields were in bloom, and was conducted with much beautiful
display peculiar to the season of flowers. But the most elaborate of all the
celebrations of Rome was that of SATURN, held at the winter solstice, and
afterwards extended so as to include the twenty-fifth of December.

“Saturn was regarded by the Romans as the god of that primitive peace
which once held sway in the world before the age of devastation and war. In
that pacific era all men held the same rank and had their enjoyments in
common. It was fitting, therefore, that in the festival of Saturn---though the
world had forgotten the old-time goodness---all men should be regarded as
restored for a brief season to their primitive equality. So the great and the
humble, the rich and the poor, the young and the old, were all given the
license of a common freedom, a common immunity. The festival was called
the Saturnalia. Labor ceased, public business was at an end, the courts were
closed, the schools had holiday. Tables, laden with bounties, were spread
on every hand, and at these all classes for the nonce sat down together. The
master and the slave for the day were equals. It was a time of gift-giving and
innocent abandonment. In the public shops every variety of present from the
simplest to the most costly could be found. Fathers, mothers, kinspeople,
friends, all hurried thither to purchase, according to their fancy, what things
soever seemed most tasteful and appropriate as presents. The fair
of Rome exhibited in plentiful profusion every variety of articles brought from
every quarter of the world. There were knickknacks for the children,
ornaments for the ladies, little trophies of the toilet, ornamental tapers in wax,
and, indeed, whatever the fancy or caprice of Rome could well imagine or
create. It was a season of mirth and jollity; of feasting and hilarity; of games
and sports.” (Vol. II, pp. 743-744).

Next I call attention to the World Book Encyclopedia which is found in many
Christian homes in America:

“SATURNALIA, sat er NA lih ah, was the name of an ancient Roman festival.
The feast was given in honor of Saturn, the Roman harvest god. The festival
began on December 17 and lasted for seven days. On the first day, public
religious ceremonies took place, and sacrifices were offered to Saturn. On
the second day, many families offered their own sacrifices of a young pig.

“The Saturnalia festival was a gay occasion. Schools observed holidays and
all public business was halted. Courts of law closed their doors, and no
criminals could be punished. Families held gatherings and elaborate
banquets. Even Roman slaves were free to attend the festival.

“The last days of the festival were given over to visiting and exchanging
presents. Some of the gifts were little clay images. They were called sigillaria,
from the Latin word sigilla, which means small images. The last days of the
festival were also called the sigillaria” (Vol. 15, p. 7234, 1956 edition).

Some contend that the Saturnalia ended on December 24th, but Ridpath
says it included December 25. Please don’t forget December 24 is Christmas
Eve.

The Encyclopedia Britannica has a good article in it among which you will
find the following information: “The streets were infected with a Mardi Gras
madness. . .the seasonal greeting io Saturnalia was heard everywhere;
presents were freely exchanged. . . .The influence of the Saturnalia upon the
celebrations of Christmas and the New Year has been direct. . .” (Vol. 19,
pp. 1084, 1971 edition).

Some sincere Christians will say, “But we have Christianized this day for
Christ. It is no longer a pagan celebration to the Roman god Saturn.” How
can you Christianize a pagan day? Can you reform the Devil? Can we use
heathen customs in the worship of Jehovah? What does the Bible say about
this practice? The answer is found in Deuteronomy 12:29-31: “When the
LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest
to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; Take
heed to thy self that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be
destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying,
How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt
not do so unto the LORD thy God. . .”

© Berea Baptist Church, Mantachie, Mississippi, U.S.A.

Comments on

Christmas
by Charles H. Spurgeon

"We have no superstitious regard for times and seasons.

Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical
arrangement called Christmas. First because we do not believe in
any mass at all, but abhor it, whether it be sung in Latin or in
English: Secondly, because we find no scriptural warrant
whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Savior; and
consequently, its observance is a superstition, because not of
divine authority. Superstition has fixed most positively the day of
our Savior's birth, although there in no possibility of discovering
when it occurred. It was not till the middle of the third century that
any part of the Church celebrated the birth of our Lord; and it was
not till long after the western Church had set the example, that the
eastern adopted it. Because the day in not known. Probably the
fact is that the "holy" days were arranged to fit in with the heathen
festivals. We venture to assert that if there be any day in the year
of which we may be pretty sure that it was not the day on which
our Savior was born it is the 25th of December. Regarding not the
day, let us give God thanks for the gift of His dear Son.

How absurd to think we could do it in the spirit of the world, with a

Jack Frost clown, a deceptive worldly Santa Claus, and a mixed
program of sacred truth with fun, deception and fiction. If it be
possible to honor Christ in the giving of gifts, I cannot see how
while the gift, giver, and recipient are all in the spirit of the world.
The Catholics and high Church Episcopalians may have their
Christmas one day in 365 but we have a Christ gift the entire
year". C. H. Spurgeon Dec. 24, 1871

"Upright men strove to stem the tide, but in spite of all their
efforts, the apostasy went on. till the Church, with the exception of
a small remnant was submerged under pagan superstition. That
Christmas is a pagan festival is beyond all doubt. The time of the
year, and the ceremonies with which it in celebrated, prove its
origin".

"Those who follow the custom of observing Christmas, follow not

the Bible, but pagan ceremonies".

Christmas and Romans 14:5-6a

by Joe Garnett

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every
day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that
 regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not
the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it
Romans 14:5-6a

Proponents of Christmas often appeal to these verses1 to defend their

celebration2 of this pagan holy day. At first glance this scripture appears to
support their position. But the Bible student should look closer, determining
the context and whether this passage can have application to the
syncretistic festival of Christmas.

Most commentators teach that Romans 14 deals with Christian liberty. It

does, by way of interpretation, only narrowly. By way of interpretation
merely two problems are covered, that of whether or not to eat certain
meats and whether or not to observe certain days. With regard to
Christmas, it is needful that we deal only with the observing of days.

The disputes in this passage take place not because there are simply
differences of opinions. The disputes arise because some in the church are
weak (immature) and others are strong (mature). This is important to keep
in mind because in time one should expect the problem to be solved by the
immature becoming mature. (Of course we understand that there might be
others coming into the church continually with the same problem, thus
protracting the dilemma for some time).

The goal of Biblical instruction is to make the saint a mature person in

Jesus Christ (Col. 1:28). Thus in regard to this passage, we need to
understand that if all the believers in the church had reached a certain
degree of maturity, the problem would not have existed. The solution that
Paul gives should be considered a temporary solution for these weak
brothers and not a permanent one. (No one would disagree that Christians
should always respect and love each other). We should expect these who
are now weak to one day become strong as they reside under proper
instruction.

The specific problem in verses 5-6a concerns the keeping of days. It

appears that the majority of commentators understand the problem to arise
from young Jewish converts to the Christian faith. These converts feel
obligated to continue to observe Jewish holy days. This should not surprise
us for these were proper days for them to observe prior to the work of the
Lord Jesus Christ. They have not at this time received the understanding
that it is no longer necessary for them to observe these days under the new
covenant. We find them in a transition period in which they are confused. If
they were to not observe these days they would feel that they were not
being obedient to God. They don't have a grasp on the glorious truth that
the work of the Lord Jesus Christ is complete and the days that they
observe are only shadows of His fullness (Col. 2:17).

To summarize, I make these observations:

 The dispute involves different understandings between weak and

strong brothers in Christ.
 The weak feel that they must observe the Jewish holy days as they
were previously commanded to do.
 The strong understand the completed work of Jesus Christ and the
new covenant make these days obsolete.
 These different understandings cause dissension.
 The only possible solution at this time is for both groups to accept
one another in love.
 In time we should expect the weak to become mature after they have
been instructed in the truth and come to an understanding of what
Jesus Christ has accomplished.
This is believed to be the interpretation of this passage or its proper
understanding. Thus we must expect anyone making application from this
passage to keep this understanding in mind at all times.
This is the question which now comes before us: Is the Christian
observance of Christmas protected by way of application in this
passage? To determine this let us consider the circumstances involved in
both cases and see if there are any likenesses.

Situation addressed in Romans 14 Situation of present day X-mass

celebrants
The young Jewish believers observed a day. Those who celebrate Christmas are
celebrating a season and a festival. Although
they claim to celebrate a day, their actions
betray them. Long before the day arrives they
will be putting up trees, shopping for presents
(not for Jesus), building and placing creches,
 decorating with lights and other objects (many
of occultic background), planning and going to
parties and endlessly talking about these
activities.

The Jewish converts were keeping days that The Christmas celebration has never been
they were previously obligated to observe. sanctified by scripture. It is built upon the lie,
which is acknowledged by most everyone, that
Jesus Christ was born on December 25.
Rather than having support from the word of
God, it is man made religion which is
condemned by Jesus (Matt. 15:9).

When the weak Jewish convert kept a day, The celebrants of Christmas adhere to no
there were disciplines that he performed. For spiritual disciplines. If they were to spend the
instance, if he felt he needed to keep the day in the scripture with fasting and prayer
sabbath, he had instruction from the scripture they could at least be commended. However,
with regard to his activity (Deut. 5:12-14). the day will be spent by most in a festive
atmosphere, eating, exchanging gifts and
doing whatever they choose to do. These are
the same "spiritual disciplines" that the pagans
have done as this Babylonian festival evolved.

The observances of these young Jewish The Christmas celebration takes place within
believers did not take place in the church. The the church as well as in the world. In most
day that the weak brother regarded, he churches the celebration generally consumes
regarded it unto the Lord. The observance that the month of December with decorations in the
he performed he rendered without the church building, parties, programs and some
presence of those who did not wish to take emphasis in all the services. If there is one
part in the observance. For certain who does not desire to celebrate, he must
observances he most likely went to the choose between being absent or enduring the
synagogue. The strong brother was not festival.
required to endure the observances of the
weak.

The weak Jewish brother could be expected in The celebrant of Christmas expects to
time to mature and be released in conscience continue in a syncretistic fable originating from
from observing obsolete holy days. Babylonian mystery religion on a day when the
now glorified Son of God was not born.

Thus, this writer concludes that Romans 14 does not exonerate the
practice of Christmas from scriptural condemnation. The day that the weak
Jewish convert observed was a day formally warranted by scripture with
designated disciplines. It was observed outside the church without involving
the strong.
The weak brother could be expected in time to mature in conscience and
no longer feel obligated to observe it.
In contrast, the "day" the Christmas celebrant celebrates is a pagan
originated festival of unknown duration having no basis in scripture nor
God-ordained disciplines. It is celebrated in the church and considered
immutable. Thus we see that there is no relationship between the two
"holy" days.
The scripture condemns such practices as Christmas. Jeremiah 10:2,3 tell
us to "learn not the way of the heathen" and that "the customs of the people
are vain." In Matthew 15:9 Jesus explains that men worship Him in vain,
"teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." In Colossians 2:8 we
are told to beware lest someone should spoil us "through philosophy and
vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world." I
Timothy 1:4 instructs us to "neither give heed to fables ... which minister
questions."
Jude 3 exhorts us to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once
delivered unto the saints." The "faith" is the body of truth contained in the
scripture. Matthew 28:20 reveals that what is to be taught and observed are
"all things whatsoever I (Jesus) have commanded you." Titus 2:1
commands us to "speak thou the things which become sound doctrine."
Christmas is a deceitful Babylonian fable with assorted heathen traditions
added through the centuries. You cannot mix it with Christianity and call it
"worship in spirit and truth" any more than you can mix skunk manure with
honey and call it a feast.
Christmas is not part of the faith for which we are to contend. It is not that
which the Lord Jesus Christ has commanded us to observe. It is not sound
doctrine. Christians should abhor it for the demonically inspired Babylonian
myth that it is.

1
Another verse often used by the proponent of Christmas is Colossians
2:16, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a
holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." They interpret this to
mean that they can eat and drink what they want and celebrate any day
they wish. However the context shows that evil men were demanding that
the Christians keep certain laws. Paul instructs them that they do not have
to adhere to these commands and that they shouldn't. His instruction is not
that they can keep a certain day, but that they are not obligated to do so by
those who would make them.
2
Celebrate has become a memorialized word in current Christianity. One
celebrates Jesus, the Lord's supper, Christmas, etc. The common biblical
term is keepwith the idea of observe or do. I'm not sure whether these
words should be interchangeable. The 1966 College Edition of Webster's
New World Dictionary makes some distinction. "Celebrate implies the
marking of an occasion or event, especially a joyous one, with ceremony or
festivity. Observe and the less formal keepsuggest the respectful marking
of a day or occasion in the prescribed or appropriate manner." There may
likely be other distinctions that have become clouded as our language
degenerates. However, I have not done the homework to know for sure.
But for the purposes of this paper, observe will be used to refer to
the dayfound in scripture and celebrate will be used when referring to the
festival of Christmas.

Lent, Good Friday and Easter

by R. F. Becker
(NOTE: Mr. Becker is a protestant and writes from that perspective. We must admit, however, that the
warning he sounds against participation in Roman paganism is, if anything, even more appropriate for
Baptists than for protestants. Mr. Becker exhibits more spiritual discernment than the majority of those who
would today profess themselves "Baptists." He would seem closer to practicing "the faith once delivered
unto the saints" than those modern "Baptists" who join Rome in her abominations.)

"Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen." (Jeremiah 10:2)
"Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord's hand, that made all the
earth drunken" (Jer. 51:7).
"Come out of her, my people, that ye may not have fellowship with her
sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached
unto heaven and God hath remembered her iniquities" (Rev. 18:4, 5).
God has recorded much in His Word of the wicked idolatry of ancient Babylon.
Her sins became a dreadful and lasting curse to all nations. And man's history
since those days has been affected and polluted by them.

God has also revealed by His Spirit that "Babylon the Great" of Rev. 17 is in
very essence that selfsame Babylon of old. And that woman, which the Apostle
John saw, with her name on her forehead, arrayed in purple and scarlet and
gold, and drunken with the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus has long
ago been identified as the Roman Catholic Church.

Now the ancient idolatry of Babylon has been the root of nearly every heathen
religion. But in every known form of idolatry there has been more or less
deviation from the original Chaldee worship. Only in the Roman Catholic Church
has the paganism of Babylon of old remained pure. To realize that this same
idolatry of Belshazzar's day is still influencing our lives should make every true
believer shudder.

But the thought of Christians joining hand in hand with pagans in supporting
and enjoying Babylon's idolatry, now revived in the Roman Catholic Church,
ought to make every soul that loves Christ's Name and Blood, shrink in holy
horror. For He who liveth forever and ever has decreed in the verses above that
whoever partakes of Babylon's sins shall suffer in Babylon's judgments (Rev.
18:4).

Now that particular part of Rome's Babylonish idolatry about which I wish to
speak very plainly is her festivals. For it is in these celebrations and
observances that Rome not only so sadly deludes her own superstitious slaves,
but she also causes many weak Christians to err and sin grievously against
Christ.

Now just a few words to the Protestant Church members:

There are three kinds of people in the professing Church of God. First there are
those few who are truly godly, and can always be depended upon to be valiant
for Truth. Then there are those professors whose hearts we have great reason
to fear are not right before God. These are sure, under whatever test they may
be found to turn up on the side of those who oppose the things of the Holy Spirit.
This tract is for neither of these. To the godly saint it is needless. To the empty
professor it would he useless.
But there is one more type of person in the Protestant Church, and it is to them
especially I address this tract.

It is to the many weak and carnal believers who have unwittingly kept Rome's
festivals in their own churches, neither realizing the origin nor the idolatrous
nature of them, that I appeal. It is to the weak Christians in pulpit and pew, who
would fain please everybody and offend nobody, who forget that they should
please God first of all, that I write, hoping this may be a help to them.

This type of believer, though he does seem to have saving faith, yet is a
disappointment to the godly. There is something weak about the way these take
up with men's traditions. They often appear to be trying to walk as close to the
broad road as they can without really being on it. And they are very ingenious
in discovering reasons for what they do; reasons which cannot be found in
Scripture; reasons which appeal to the flesh.

This weak believer within our Protestant church seems to feel he is under
obligation to be present or have a part in his church's celebrations of Babylonish
festivals. Having never been taught the truth, he does not realize that in these
observances his own church is only aping Rome, and that Christmas and Lent
and Easter are pagan to the very core. They never once think that God does
not look lightly on idolatry, as many suppose, and they are breaking willfully the
greatest of all commandments, to which God's dreadful threatening is attached
(Ex. 20:5).

One of the great evils of the early churches of Ephesus and Pergamos was the
false teachings of the Nicolaitanes. These declared that it was no sin to engage
in idolatry. They also denied that the Father created the universe, yet they still
professed to be Christians (Rev. 2:6, 15).

In Smith's Dictionary of the Bible we read: "This sect, like the false prophet of
Pethor, united brave words with evil deeds. Mingling themselves in the orgies
of idolatrous feasts they brought the impurities of those feasts unto the Christian
church. All this was done as a part of a system supported by a doctrine
accompanied by the boast of prophetic illumination."

Is not this what we see in our churches today at Christmas and Easter? One of
the greatest of all abominations to God is false worship. Romanism is the
extreme ultra-development of Satanic subtlety in worship. For she is
very Babylon in idolatry under the disguise and name of Christ! Christian! How
then can you take part in her sins? How can you keep the feasts of paganism
and join its unholy corruption to the Wonderful Name of Christ?

Now, there may be some who read this who will be disposed to utterly condemn
what is written in this tract. Let them consider here the words of the great Dr.
Paley: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information; which is proof
against all argument, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance.
That principle is 'CONTEMPT prior to EXAMINATION'."

However I am sure that every honest soul will be inclined to search himself and
try his ways as he reads on, and if he is guilty of observing paganism will
become sorrowful and say to Christ in tears "Is it I?" (Mark 14:19). Only the
unsound and unreal resent searching.

The religious festivals of Rome are legion. Our 1950 calendar is crowded with
them. And the jubilee year of Pius XII will bring more. Space prohibits dealing
with them all here. Let us look only at Christmas, Lent, Good Friday and Easter.
And as we look at these Romish festivals that people love so well, let us
remember the words of our Saviour: "This people honoreth me with their lips
but their heart is FAR from me" (Mark 7:6).

CHRISTMAS

In another booklet, "The Truth About Christmas," I have shown how our Romish
Christmas is only a combination of the Catholic "Mass" and the name of Christ.
So it will be sufficient to state here that this annual festive season was held in
the month Thebeth (our December) in Babylon, long before the birth of Christ,
in honor of the birth of Tammuz (Ez. 8:14), the son of Semeramis, the Chaldean
queen of heaven. As the Satanic "mystery of iniquity," spoken of by Paul (in II
Thess. 2:7) developed in the early church during the third and fourth centuries,
the idolatries of this pagan festival were incorporated into the Roman Catholic
system, in pretense of honoring Christ's birth.

LENT

Let us begin our study of Lent by asking, as many will, If this observance of
abstinence is wrong, how did it become so universal? How did it come to occupy
so large a space on our calendar?
Why, the Roman Catholic Church put it there during the sixth century! She
"borrowed" the 40 days called "Lent" from the worshippers of the Babylonian
queen of heaven.

Let not my reader suppose that Lent is observed only in the Roman Church and
our anemic Protestant churches today.

In Layard's "Nineveh and Babylon," page 93, we learn that Lent is observed by
the Yezidis, devil-worshippers of Koordistan. They inherited this heathen fast
fashion from their early Babylonian masters.

In Humboldt's "Mexican Researches," volume 1, page 404, we find how the

pagan Mexicans kept a Lent. "Three days after the vernal equinox began a
solemn Lent, Good Friday and Easter fast of forty days in honor of the sun."

In Landseer's "Sabean Researches," page 112, we are informed how an

Egyptian Lent of 40 days was held expressly in honor of Adonis or Osiris, the
great mediatorial god. So we can see Rome is by no means original in
observing her pagan Lent.

Just as on December 25 a great celebration and feast was held in Babylon in

honor of the birth of Tammuz so in that same country the 40 days' fast was
observed as an important preliminary of the great feast held in commemoration
of the death and resurrection of the same idol! And this same Lent was
observed in Babylon by alternate weeping and rejoicing, just as Rome today
has her poor blind subjects keep holy-weeks by alternate days of joy and
sorrow. Lent was first observed in Assyria and Palestine in the month of June.
In Egypt it was the month of May when it was kept. When it finally migrated
to Britain this pagan fast was observed in April. It seems to be a most flexible
fast suitable for
any type of pagan idolatry. For I notice that in 1950 the Roman Lent begins in
February!

Rome's method of enveloping Babylon's Lent and incorporating it into her ritual
should he noticed. About the year 525, Rome, pursuing her usual policy of
absorbing the pagan observances and in order to gain nominal adherents to the
church, engineered a new religious merger. Under the shrewd management of
the Abbot Dionysus the Little, the pagan Lent was established as a church
observance. And so the Church, now controlled from Rome, and fast sinking
into every form of corruption, added yet this evil of a "sacred fast" to her list of
idolatries. In his manipulations to fit a 40-day Lent into the calendar this same
Dionysus caused the approximate date of Christ's birth to be changed four
years later than the truth. This change of calendar brought in the grossest
corruption and
rankest superstition in connection with the abstinence of Lent. It was only the
beginning of another form of Roman evil.

An early Christian of Marseilles, writing in the fifth century, said: "It ought to be
known that the observance of the 40 days' fast had no existence so long as the
primitive church remained pure."

Rome has modernized and streamlined her Lent to fit the present. And the Lent,
Good Friday and Easter lukewarm so-called Protestants have followed her, as
is their habit. In theirobservance of Lent they only prove how the virus of Jesuit
paganism has numbedtheir sense of sin. Well could our Lord say of the
professing Protestants whoobserve Lent: "Ye do dishonor me" (John 8:49).
Perhaps it is needless to remark about the ordinary individual's observance of
Lent. It does not even deserve comment. The world's fast is no fast at all, say
nothing of a "sacred fast." One gives up chocolate bars. Another does not eat
butter. Another smokes one cigarette per day instead of ten or twenty. Still
another refrains from drinking only one glass of beer or wine or whiskey per
day! So sunk in sin is man that by these Romish pagan denials of the flesh, he
supposes he is placing himself in God's favor.

Christian, can you take part in such a mockery of God as Lent, which not only
brings ignominy upon the name of Christ, but helps to ruin the souls of
thousands and thousands? Remember one more fact. The Rome that put Lent
on our calendar is that same scarlet woman that has shed the blood of millions
of the martyrs of Jesus, and has sent billions of her own slaves out into eternal
night believing the LIE. Can you take Rome's bloody hand in yours and join her
in observing a pagan season she has stolen from Babylon of old? What is a fast
that brings honor to Christ Listen to Isaiah:

"Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of
wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be
heard on high . . . Is not THIS the last that I have chosen? to loose the
bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the
oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread
to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house?
. . . Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall
spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the
GLORY of the Lord shall be thy rereward" (Isa. 58:4-8).
 GOOD FRIDAY

Here is another Popish holy-day that has caused many weak believers to sin.
But we find no authority for its observance in the Bible. Whence all this annual
ado and false concern by the ungodly who care naught for a heart cleansed
from sin? And why are so many Christians moved into observing Rome's
religious delusion? The answer is not hard to detect. "Good Friday" celebrations
appeal to the flesh and the emotions. It is NOT the Crucifixion of Christ that
interests people in the passion plays and services. It is the Pope's holy-day with
its pomp and ceremony, thrilling the senses, that attracts those who are ignorant
of Scripture. Jesus said: "Blessed are they that have NOT seen yet have
believed." And is it not sad how Rome's pagan ritual has permeated nearly the
whole lump of professing Christendom? No wonder Jeremiah the prophet once
said to apostate idolatrous Israel: "Shall I not visit them for these things?
saith the Lord: Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as
this"' (Jer. 9:9).
Any thoughtful student unbiased by tradition or men's imagination will have no
difficulty in understanding that our Lord Jesus Christ did not die on a Friday.
Proof of this fact is in the following verses:
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale;
so shall the Son of man be THREE DAYS and THREE NIGIITS in the heart
of the earth'' (Matt. 12:40).

"And He began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many
things, and be rejected of the elders, and the chief priests, and scribes,
and be killed, and AFTER THREE DAYS rise again" (Mark 8:31).

"Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while He was yet alive,
AFTER THREE DAYS I will rise again" (Matt. 27:63).

"And that He was buried, and that He rose again the THIRD DAY according
to
the Scriptures" (I Cor. 15:4).

In John 11:9, we read: "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?"
Here our Lord teaches that twelve hours make a day. Therefore in His reckoning
a day and a night are exactly 24 hours.
In the Jewish order of time the night preceded the day (Gen. 1:5; Mark 15:33).
The night began at 6 o'clock in the evening, ending at 6 o'clock in the morning,
when the day began.

Now, from the Scriptures quoted, we conclude one important fact. Christ was in
the tomb after His death and before His resurrection three days and three
nights, which make 72 hours--no less.

In each of the four Gospel records we read of Mary of Magdala and others
coming to the sepulchre to anoint the body of Jesus. If we carefully consider
them all, one fact stands out beyond any question. That is, when they came to
the grave, Jesus was gone. In Matt. 28 we have the record of the angel rolling
away the stone. But this was not to liberate the Lord of Glory. It was only to
show the world that He was gone. Sometime before the women witnessed the
tomb unsealing our Saviour had come forth from the dead. The angel said: "He
is risen, He is not here."

We know that haste was made by those who put Christ in the tomb of Joseph
in order to have him buried before the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath, which
began at 6 o'clock in the evening. And we read in John 19:31 "for that Sabbath
was an high day." Now this Sabbath was the Passover Sabbath and did not
come on Saturday. The weekly Sabbath or seventh day or Saturday was not
called a "high day." But sometimes special feasts among the Jews were called
Sabbaths or "high days" even if they did not fall on Saturday. Thus we learn
from John 19:31 that Jesus was buried by His sorrowing followers the
EVENING before the HIGH DAY Sabbath.

Now Christ could never have been buried on a Friday evening or He would not
have risen until Monday evening to fulfill Matt. 12:40 and the others we quoted.
He could not have been entombed on a Thursday evening or He would not have
risen until the evening of the first day of the week, or Sunday. And He could not
have risen early Sunday morning either because three days and three nights
before that or 72 hours would have been Thursday MORNING, and we know
He was buried in the evening.

'Therefore we have only one deduction left if we abide carefully by the

Scriptures. Our Lord must have risen at the very end of the THIRD day or
about 6 o'clock in the evening. He arose at the end of the weekly Sabbath. He
was in the tomb we know during the High Day Passover Sabbath. He was gone
when the women came to His grave very early on the first day of the week. Thus
the Crucifixion of the Son of God as recorded in the Bible must have taken place
on--Wednesday.

So we find that the very root of all "Good Friday" observances is based on
untruth. It is only another Romish invention designed for her profit, which weans
men from truth and turns them to fables.

EASTER

What is Easter? One of Rome's most valuable pagan observances,

transplanted from Babylon, in pretense of remembering Christ's resurrection,
yet in reality a festival of a Chaldean goddess. And here again the feeble
Protestants and the blaspheming Modernists have aped the Mother of harlots
in bringing Babylon's ritual into their churches. And this mustard seed of Romish
planting has verily filled the whole earth with its branches.

What about the name "Easter?" Like its Mother Babylon the Great (Rev. 17.5)
Easter has its name on its forehead. It is not a Christian name. It came from
idolatrous Chaldea. Easter is nothing but the name 'Astarte" or "Ishtar," one of
the many names of the Babylonian goddess, Semeramis. As to the name
"Easter" being in the King James version of our Bible, we find that the same
Greek word which is rendered "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is "Passover" in all other
places in the New Testament. In all revised versions the word in Acts 12:4 is
"Passover.'' Even in the Catholic Douay Bible the word is "Pasch" meaning
"Passover."

In Babylonish worship, Semeramis, the queen of heaven, as Astarte, was

symbolized by a dove or the "Mediatrix'' without whose intercession none could
ever be born anew. In our day the same pagan blasphemy is taught to Roman
Catholics, only the Chaldee Astarte has become "Mary Mediatrix, the Mother of
God!" And how little do Catholics themselves realize that in their Easter
ceremonies, the madonna they worship as being without sin is only a Roman
copy of the Chaldean queen of heaven from wicked Babylon of old!

In the Apostolic days of the true Church the believers remembered the death
and resurrection of Christ every day. In Acts 20:7 this remembrance feast of
breaking bread and drinking of wine was held on the first day of the week. This
remembrance of Christ was kept in obedience to the words of Jesus Himself in
Luke 22:18, 19 and Paul's admonition of I Cor. 11:23 to 26. Such was the love
of those who had accompanied our Saviour in His ministry, and had seen the
end of the Lord (James 5:11) that while they lived, the worshippers in the infant
Church allowed no idolatry to corrupt the true honoring of Christ. It was only as
the anti-Christ "mystery of iniquity" that Paul spoke of in II Thess. 2 began to
slowly unfold itself, that the outlawed pagan observances appeared in the true
Church. Among the early Christians we find no trace of an annual observance
of the resurrection of Christ. The festival we read of in church history of the third
and fourth centuries was not called "Easter." It was called "Pasch" or "Passover"
because it took place at the time of the Jewish feast of that name. It was
altogether different than the Roman Catholic Easter in our churches today. This
feast was not of Apostolic origin, yet it was not idolatrous nor was it preceded
by a Lent. Until the end of the second century this feast was observed on March
23rd.

Even in Rome itself this "Pasch" festival very slowly took on the form of an
idolatrous observance. There seems to be no mention of the word Easter in the
annual feast until around 450 A. D. Then the Roman Church in its gradual
development of the apostasy, gave the Christian "Pasch" the name of the
Babylonian goddess "Astarte." In 519 A. D. it was decreed in the Council of
Aurelia that Lent should be kept before "Easter." So the name "Easter" must
have been used first to replace the name "Astarte" or "Ishtar" under Rome's
manipulation sometime between 450 A. D. and 519 A. D.

And is it not very significant to the thoughtful reader that in the selfsame era—
in the year 476--about the time the word "Easter" was first used by the Roman
Church, there was also inaugurated in that same Church, the long and evil reign
of the "man of sin," the "son of perdition," the "dark ages" of the papal anti-
Christ?

It was not until the end of the sixth century, however, that paganism, now rapidly
taking on great proportions in the Roman Church, forced the observance of
Easter into the calendar.

In Britain this replacing of the Christian Passover with Lent and the worship of
Astarte as Easter, met at first with great resistance, since there was a full month
difference in the time of the two observances. Only after violence and
bloodshed did the papal power cause the worship of Astarte, now called Easter,
to displace and then eclipse that which was formerly done to honor Jesus
Christ.

Now a few words about the customs of Easter. The hot cross buns as well as
the dyed eggs figured in the Chaldean rites of Babylon's worship. Buns were
known to have been used in worship of the goddess Easter in the days of
Cecrops, the founder of Athens. The ancient Druids of the British Isles used
eggs in their heathen worship. In the mysteries of Bacchus, celebrated in
ancient Athens, one part of their pagan ceremony was to consecrate an egg! In
Hindoo paganism eggs of a golden color are used in their celebrations. The
Shinto worshipping Japanese have sacred eggs of brazen hue. In China at this
hour painted eggs are used in idolatrous festivals. Eggs were used in religious
rites of the Egyptians and hung in their heathen temples for mystic purposes.

Before we pass on we ought to consider how an egg became an emblem of our

Easter. Many are the tales from the pens of heathen writers but one
from Babylon will suffice. Listen to Hyginus, keeper of the Palatine library
in Rome in the days of Augustus. He said: "An egg of wondrous size fell down
from heaven into the river Euphrates. The fishes rolled it to the bank. The doves
settled upon it and hatched it and out came Venus, who was afterwards called
the Syrian goddess Astarte!"

So much for the ancient Easter eggs. But now in the twentieth century our
educated, cultured and refined generation of pagans have improved upon the
egg idolatry of Babylon. We have progressed since then! So before our very
eyes religious, professing church-going parents brazenly deceive their own little
children into believing that rabbits lay colored eggs in beautiful baskets for
Easter!

What a dreadful judgment awaits a nation of people, who in the clear light of the
blessed Gospel, can annually perpetuate such high handed idolatrous evil.

"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any

people'' (Prov. 14:34).
"A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; The prophets
prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and My people
love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?" (Jer. 5:30, 31).

This is a day of shallow thinking and shallow profession. And the stream of so-
called Christians which is polluted by Rome's festivals is very wide. So well
have her doctrines of falsehood developed that most refuse to believe that this
leaven from Babylon exists in our midst. But the naked fact remains;
Protestants have been so thoroughly drugged by Rome's doctrines and
festivals we hardly know our right hand from the left.

Now since the Roman Catholic Church is indeed Babylon the Great of Rev. 17
and her "Virgin Mary" is none other than the Chaldean "Mediatrix," or queen of
heaven, how utterly should everyone who loves Christ forsake her festivals, and
how forcibly should we condemn them! Jesus Christ preached against false
prophets. So did Paul and Peter and John and many others of Christ's own
faithful ones, down through the generations till now. Then whence this hush!
hush! Hands off! policy in so many pulpits today? Why is the True and Living
church frightened into silence about these things by the false church? Why do
so many pastors in places of responsibility stand so helplessly by
while Rome makes of us a generation of pagans with her idolatries?

What shall I say more of this Easter problem? And what shall I say of you who
profess the Name of Christ who follow Rome to her shrines of Christmas and
Easter? Can you church people, after knowing the way of salvation and
righteousness willfully and shamelessly embrace Babylon's idols and fondle her
wicked paganism further?

And you timid pastors, why do you fear to warn your flocks against the idolatries
of the mother of harlots? Why do you hold out one hand to Rome's heathen
festivals while holding the open Bible in the other?

What would Christ say of you? What would the Christian martyrs say—what
would the faithful reformers say--what would the Puritan fathers of our country
say, if they could be here and see you allowing the faith they fought for and died
for to be sacrificed upon the altars of Babylon the Great by their own Protestant
heirs, now stupefied by the pomp and glitter of Rome?

The spirit of God said long ago, "Come out of her, My people, that ye have
no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues" (Rev.
18:4). But weak Christians and lukewarm churches have not come out
of Babylon's festivals. Rather they have invited them into the midst of their holy
places. They have kept them there. They have loved them well. They have
fondled them and
embraced them to their bosoms.

Hence, according to God's promise, we have Rome's festival plague upon us.
She is daily pouring out her vials of blasphemy around us. Daily a flood of
iniquity from the great dragon flows forth. And if the blood-bought Church does
not repent of her idolatrous folly, and come out of her sins, who can tell what
hour we shall see the hand of the mother of abominations of the earth destroy
our church and nation?
"Put yourselves in array against Babylon round about: all ye that bend the
bow, shoot at her, spare no arrows: for she hath sinned against the
Lord" (Jer. 50:14).