Polygamy And The Baptist Church

                                          DISQUALIFIED! 

                          

                                                    (Why Does The Church

                                                    Permit POLYGAMY?)

For a number of years now I have been convinced in my heart that someone must speak to the matter I will address here.  I have withheld my voice publicly from speaking out because I myself am affected by the matter in question.  I have been concerned that many or at least some will consider my comments to be self serving.   I can be quiet no longer.

Irreparable damage has been perpetrated upon the body of Christ by the errant and unbiblical practice of  "DISQUALIFYING" from Christian service those whose lives are touched with the unfortunate matter of DIVORCE.  Sadly, divorce happens.  It is a fact of life more grievous than death.  One of the things that make it so is the stigma placed upon the divorcee by the church world.

I was impressed again to write about this matter this morning when I saw a picture posted on Facebook by some of my dearest friends.  Anyone and everyone who personally knows this couple would be very hard pressed to locate a more humble and faithful couple.  I rejoiced to see the picture from the wedding that started them on their Christian journey together years ago.

I was a bit taken back, however by the location at which the wedding took place. My friends were married at what was at that time, their home church. The reason I was somewhat appalled with the location of the wedding is because that this same church body and pastor in particular erroneously used this very wedding which they obviously sanctioned to limit the effectiveness of ministry of this very couple.  The very ceremony that brought the couple together was the same instrument that in the mind of some disqualified a man from serving his Savior.

The reason the pastor and church used to legitimize such unbiblical discrimination was the same as is misused by Baptist preachers and churches throughout the country.  (Though not exclusively)   My dear friend was unfortunately a divorcee when he married his bride.  As such, he is considered by the pastor and church to be disqualified from ministry.  This estimation they based on one passage from scripture which is unquestionably misinterpreted.

1 Timothy 3:1-2   This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.   A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, .....   There is more written, but I will stop there for the moment for the simple reason that this is where most people evidently stop reading.  (The husband of one wife) This little misrepresented statement has cost the Christian church dearly in terms of servants who are gifted by God, but discredited and disqualified by men.

QUESTION:   DOES A MAN WHO IS DIVORCED FROM A WOMAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY REMARRIED HAVE TWO WIVES?  As ridiculous as it may seem, this is the logic of those who take it upon themselves to disqualify some.  You can’t preach!  They declare.  You have two living wives.  Let=s follow this form of reasoning to its obvious conclusion if we dare.    (For some reason, this matter never comes up unless a remarried individual has the audacity to desire to serve His Lord and Master.  It is almost never publicly applied to the average remarried individual.  However, if the church will be consistent in its doctrine, it must apply this principle to all who are divorced and remarried.)

1.  If it is so as some men declare it to be, then, why is this Polygamist not arrested?  Isn=t polygamy against the law in the U.S.?  Oh but in the eyes of God you are still married, they will protest.  Would someone please provide chapter and verse for that revelation!   Has the average remarried church member ever considered the FACT that if the church is consistent in its teaching, then the said church considers the said member’s marriage to be illegitimate?  The only possible honest conclusion must be; if indeed the man has two wives, he is a polygamist.  The same must also be true of a remarried woman.   She must have two husbands; polygamist.  (Again I say this based upon the assumption that the church’s interpretation of the husband of one wife statement is accurate.)

2.  If it is so, why is such a marriage ever sanctioned by the church?  Should not the church stand against such polygamist activity? I mean, if in fact the second marriage is illegitimate to the point of disqualifying an individual from serving God in any capacity, it would seem to me that the church would not permit such a marriage to be sanctioned.  I can’t help but question, “Why would a pastor take part in the wedding of my friends; (even if his only nod to the legitimacy of the marriage is the use of church facilities) and then subsequently use that very wedding to DISQUALIFY them from service?”  Such logic is ridiculous!

3. If it is so, why are Polygamists permitted, even encouraged to unite with the church at all?  Are they not Aliving in sin@ as the old timers used to call it?  Many pastors whom I know personally will refuse to minister to members of their church by officiating in their wedding because at least one of the marrying partners has been divorced.  They say they have convictions against being involved in such a marriage.

What happens at a wedding?   Does the preacher “marry” the couple in question?   No, they marry each other.  The preacher observes their vows of fidelity to each other and then summarily pronounces them to be husband and wife.  Many pastors will refuse to do so.  They will however encourage the couple to go somewhere and get married at a Justice of the Peace etc., and then come back to their church after the wedding.  Unbelievably, most couples will do exactly that.  They will return and support the ministry of the man who refused to minister to them.

The very first time and every subsequent time the preacher refers to the couple as Mr. and Mrs., he has done exactly what he refused to do at the wedding.

Suddenly his “convictions” do not bother him.   The couple is part of his congregation and is putting money in his offering plates so everything is ok.  Do you smell the same rat that I smell here?

The preacher never explains to the remarried that they will never be considered quite the saint as he himself is. Nor will they be counseled that their marriage is secretly considered to be illegitimate in the eyes of the church. (IE the individual can never serve the Lord in ministry or as a deacon.) Believe it or not, I know of pastors who have used the need for deacons as bait to lure people into joining their church.  After all, they reason, He is qualified….IE “one living wife”.

There is only one legitimate answer for this question.   NO!, the man in question DOES NOT HAVE TWO WIVES. The marriage is not illegitimate!

(Most Churches would be fairly empty this coming Sunday if the population of the divorced and remarried members fully understood the FACT that their pastor and their church family considers their marriage to be illegitimate and that they indeed are polygamists.)

Did you notice that the scripture in question bore one stipulation (if you want to call it that) for the one who desires the office of a bishop.  (That is prior to the one wife statement)   AA BISHOP THEN MUST BE BLAMELESS@.

Are we to assume that those who hold the office of Bishop or APastor@ are indeed blameless men?   While this matter of blamelessness does indeed require an upright character, is any among us truly blameless?   Is it not the fact that we are all filled with blame that necessitates a Savior?   Does there exist on earth a man without some flaw in his character though possibly overlooked by men, seen by God?

Still, men who are themselves full of blame, bypass this requirement of blamelessness and readily esteem themselves better or more qualified for service than those who have been marked by divorce.  Is not such self elevating logic prideful?  Is not pride a matter for blame?

I do not believe Paul wrote to Timothy with the intent of dividing the church into two classes of people (IE, the qualified and the disqualified).  Paul never intended that this text should be so misused as to restrict a group of people from Christian service.  It is quite clear that Paul was giving counsel to the church to take a strong look at those chosen to be their pastors and deacons.

Please consider the phrase in verse 2; “A bishop then must be….”   The word “BE” speaks of his present tense estate.  A wise church will consider what a man is at this present time.   Is he presently considered to be blameless?  Does he so live that men do not constantly point out his looseness of life?

Is he a one woman man?  That really is the meaning of the term “husband of one wife”.   If he is a polygamist now, in other words, if he maintains two dual and dueling marriages as some do in the state of Utah; he is not a worthy candidate. (We have already established the fact that divorce and remarriage do not reasonably constitute two living wives.)  Also, if he maintains a lifestyle of unfaithfulness to his wife, he should not be considered.

In subsequent verses, other “requirements” are listed.  Among them is the statement, “not a brawler” (v.3).  Are we to take from this counsel the idea that if a man has ever been in a fight he is disqualified from service?  I think not.  The passage is not addressing past flaws, but present tendencies. The question is, “Does this man engage in brute force to control people?”    Most people would say, “Oh yes, I was once a fighter, but that was long ago.”   The same people will hold a divorce twenty or thirty years ago over the head of a brother and declare his unfitness to preach.

Thirdly, and I will conclude this article with this:   AIf a man desire the office of a bishop@; whence cometh such a desire?

Does it not come from God?   The desire to minister is not a carnal concern; at least it should not be.  If it is God who separates men to the ministry, what right then do men have to separate them FROM such ministry?   The fact is, men have neither right nor power to do so.

I personally grieve when I consider the numerous local church bodies which have no pastor and will not have a man regardless of his gifts due to the foolish misrepresentation of one part of one verse of scripture.  If I gather anything at all from the text in question, it is the fact that there are absolutely no men on earth who are qualified to pastor men.  Only the good grace of our God chooses some for His service and it is true:   

“God does not call the qualified, He qualifies the called.”

May I humbly suggest that readers print a copy or copies of this article and insist that their pastor read it?  It is my sincere desire that this article will provoke men and women to thought and action.  I have known men who were noble enough upon careful examination of truth to change their position.  I PRAY THAT MANY GOOD MEN WILL DO SO.

Ray Vaughn   (9/18/14)

"Gone Calvinist"

In response to Darren Hughes question which stated:   "So Buddy Bryson sais you've gone Calvinist. Just
wanting to hear what that means."    I wrote the following letter:

Hey Darren,
“Gone Calvinist”. Wow! Sounds like I’ve done something sinister doesn’t it?

Thank you for your sincere inquiry as to that which I most assuredly believe. I could wish that Brother Bryson had afforded me the same courtesy. Unfortunately, I haven’t heard from him directly in several years, nor in fact has he heard me preach or teach .  Evidently he has listened to the misrepresentations of others and jumped to his own conclusions.

I will however, readily admit that I have grown in my understanding as to the teaching of scripture as to the doctrine of God and the salvation of men. I say this to God’s glory, for it has been entirely His Holy Spirit which has opened my understanding of truth.

Please let me apologize at this point for the lengthiness of this letter. I cannot answer your question in a paragraph or two and I do intend to be as earnest in answering as you have been in asking.

I’m afraid, we as humans live in a very narrow box when it comes to comprehension of the Almighty and His Sovereign dealings with men. We tend to read our Bible with preconceived ideas as to what it says based upon what we were raised to believe and with a bias against any teaching contrary to what we have been taught. I must confess that I, being brought up in a modern day Baptist Church, (1954-2000) assumed that the truth was as I had always heard it.

Why do we assume, for example, that Paul and Silas had “church” just as we do now?  (Opening hymn, public prayer, choir specials, offertory, sermon, invitation with slow music and dramatic effort on the part of the preacher to provoke a “decision” from the lost within the congregation.) We assume that the church itself has not evolved or been influenced at all by the world as to its approach to our manner of worship or the message we preach.

All we need do is to examine the recent influences of the world upon the church to understand that this is indeed not the case. Take for example, the influx of what we term “comtemporary music” with screens projecting the lyrics on the wall in the place of hymns and hymn books. I’ve seen churches experience inner turmoil to the point of splitting over this one matter. Church signs now advertise one service for the “traditional” and another for the “contemporary”. Is this not an effort to modernize the church to appeal to the world? Are not churches guilty of being “seeker friendly” in order to reach more people. Let’s face it, church has become big business and the efforts of men to make it bigger and bigger has led the church away from it’s original design and purpose.

Another worldly influence that has weighed heavily upon the modern church is the acceptance yea even the promotion of numerous multiple translations of the scripture.  It would seem that the Word of Almighty God is unimportant now a days. All that matters is that men get to “hear from God” in a way that pleases their ears. The only excuse I can honestly see for these translations is MONEY. The Bible is the world’s biggest seller. Men make millions on changing the words of the Bible and reselling it to gullible masses looking for something new and modern.

Things that are different are hardly ever the same.

These are just a couple of examples as to how the modern church has been tampered with as to its method and message.

Some few years ago, I became much burdened as to what I was witnessing in the modern church. I began to struggle with the question as to why the church has lost it’s power and influence in the world. There are churches on nearly every corner so to speak and yet there is no power. I began to wonder, this I do believe being the prompting of the Holy Ghost, has the church always operated as it does now? What about our doctrine? 

Has the modern church been influenced away from its original doctrinal integrity by some “well meaning” trend to reach the masses even before we got here? Remember, I was born in 1954. I have always esteemed those days of the 50s, 60s, and 70s to be the days of “Old Time Religion”. I felt if I was consistent with the preaching of those days I was being true to my heritage in the Gospel.

I have spoken of the evolution of the modern church. The time came when I began to examine myself and the manner in which I preached the gospel for years. Have I truly been preaching the gospel which Paul preached? I began to search backward from before I was born. I began to look at the preaching of Jonathon Edwards, George Whitfield, the Puritans and others. I really fell in love with the preaching of Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

Every sermon that Spurgeon ever preached was written out word for word. This man who influenced tens of thousands in London, England and around the world is often quoted by modern preachers. I wonder how many ever actually read his sermons? Through modern technology men have taken about the task to read, even preach his sermons word for word and they are tape recorded and made available for our listening.

I personally have in my possession hundreds of Spurgeon’s sermons. I listened to them.  I was refreshed and invigorated by them. I paid close attention to see if he was using the terminology, even the theology of our modern Baptist churches. Though he in the 1800s was pastoring the largest Baptist congregation in the world, preached quite a different gospel from that which we preach today.

I offer for your examination two particular examples. Listen to “High Doctrine” and “The Blood of the Everlasting Covenant” by Spurgeon and you will see what I mean. These are available at www.sermon audio.com .

I began to look for the significant influences that has reshaped modern Christian doctrine from what it was almost universally into what it has become today. Here is what I found.

 Charles Finney is known as the father of modern evangelism. Finney was a trial lawyer by trade. Upon his conversion to Christianity, he became concerned that what he considered the antiquated methods of preaching were not bringing the results in conversions that he thought the gospel worthy of. He began to preach with the same methods with which he had tried legal cases.

Whereas Spurgeon, Whitfield and others had powerfully proclaimed the gospel as it is to men as they are and left it up to a Sovereign God to call men to repentance and faith in Christ, Finney changed the approach altogether. The gospel proclaims the sinner to be the condemned one standing in the courtroom of God Almighty guilty and hopeless.  Christ is shown to be the sinner’s advocate, providing redemption for the sinner.

Finney reversed the trial. He put God and His Son on trial before the sinner and the sinner was appealed to as the jury. Into the sinners hands were placed by Finney the final decision as to the salvation of his own soul. What decision will you make concerning Christ? Will you “accept Him” or reject him? It’s up to you.
While this may seem to be a small change, it’s implications are huge.

Read the historic record concerning the response of men to such sermons as Jonathon Edwards’ “Sinners in the hands of an angry God”. Edwards read his sermon and the power of God fell to convict sinners. Men trembled before a Holy God crying “God be merciful to me a sinner” “Oh God, save me, I’m falling into hell”. In grace and mercy men and women were gloriously converted.

Finney is the guy who invented the modern day altar call. He established the “seeker’s bench”. He began to implore sinners to “accept Jesus”. He is called the father of modern evangelism because his techniques have been followed down through modern times. Billy Graham trotted the world calling people to “make a decision for Christ”.

I began to think about the terminology that is used in modern evangelism.  I did a word study in the KJV on the word “accept”. I honestly was looking for one example in all of scripture where men were compelled to “Accept Christ.”  What I found astounded me. The matter of acceptance in the KJV is this.
Without exception, the lesser is to be accepted of the greater. Never is man placed in position to “accept God or Jesus”. Man is always put in his place humbled before God pleading for acceptance. I plead with you, do this honest study for yourself.

The question in the Word of God is not, “will you accept Jesus”? The question is will God accept you? From God’s admonition to Cain and throughout scripture, men seek acceptance from God. Not the other way around. What a blessing to find out in the Word of God in Ephesians 1:6 “To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. “

There is nothing in the modern gospel to compel the sinner to pray, God be merciful to me a sinner! Not from the heart! The modern gospel puts poor Jesus on his knees before the sinner praying, "I wish you would let me save you."

In this simple word study of “accept, acceptance, accepted” in the KJV, I must advise you. Here is one place where the modern translations preach the modern message.  You only have to go as far away from the KJV as to the New KJV to find men accepting Jesus. Only one step away.  The KJV declares that we do not accept Jesus, we receive Him. The New KJV and all other more modern translations say we accept Him. Big difference.

Because the motive of the modern gospel is to drive the sinner to make a decision for Christ, the whole manner of the message is geared to that. Men appeal to the minds of men to make an intellectual decision for Christ, thus men are made to believe that it is judicially up to them to accept poor Jesus and “let Him come into their hearts and save them.”

Such teaching is absolutely foreign to the Word of God. We do not accept Jesus Christ.

If by God’s grace we are saved, we receive Him. Even this doctrinal truth is twisted by modern men to make man his own Savior. Modern translations change the word “receive” to “accept”. How do men receive Christ according to the Word? We receive Him by the supernatural work of God in us. Jesus told Nicodeums, “Ye must be born again”. Modern preachers implore men to accept Jesus and instruct them to come to this altar and be born again. The matter is made to sound like it is something the sinner can do. When the sinner comes to the altar he is instructed to pray a prayer and believe it and mean it. When the sinner complies with the instruction of the preacher, he is declared by the preacher to be saved….born again.

Nicodemus knew better than that! His response to the declaration of Jesus was “HOW?”  “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus explained to him that the new birth is not of man, but of God. The modern Gospel declares that any person who jumps of his own will through the right hoops can be saved at any time he pleases. All he must do is condescend to “accept Jesus Christ as his Savior.”

John 1:12-13 declares the receiving of Jesus Christ to be the work of God Almighty.  “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. We receive Christ by the power of God at work in us to save us.

The scripture is clear on this point. Not one person would ever of their own will come to God for salvation. There is none that doeth good not one. There is none that seeketh after God, not one. If it were left up to me to come to Christ, I would never have come to Him. By His Sovereign will, Almighty God sought my Salvation. He sent His Son to redeem me. He called me by His Grace and compelled me to come to Him.”
The Scripture teaches, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:10) I firmly believe He has done and will do exactly that.

The fact is, the first step in the regeneration of a sinner is the conviction of the soul as to its lostness. We tend to think of all men as lost and to some extent indeed they are. But, Jesus taught, I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” In this sence, he ruled out the self righteous Pharisees from his message, because they thought themselves to be holy by their lifestyle. Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee was saved because first he was convinced that he was lost. Jesus told the Pharisees in John 10:26 - 28 “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Please notice that Jesus did not say, ye are not my sheep because you do not believe.  He said ye believe not because ye are not my sheep. Jesus came to save one group of people. His Sheep. He laid down his life for the sheep. Sheep hear His voice and they follow Him!

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
 Who are His people? I do not know, but He does. 2 Tim.2:19 “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his.”

God has chosen that by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Why do some believe the gospel while others do not? Is it that men arbitrarily choose not to believe? Indeed men choose to remain in unbelief. The marvel is that some men hear the gospel and genuinely believe it. I mean they rest the case of their eternal soul upon the claims of Christ and His Gospel. I say to you, this is the work of Grace.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.If indeed faith is the gift of God, why does He not gift all men alike? I challenge you to examine Isaiah chapter 6 in it’s entirety and then read Acts 28:23-31 as to Paul’s understanding as to why some believed and some did not. You will have to confront the fact that both are the work of God.

Romans chapter 9 makes it clear that God is glorified with both the salvation of some and the judgement of others; both of which He the Potter made of the same clay for His eternal purpose. Jacob and Esau were separated by grace according to God’s elective purpose before they were born and neither had done good or bad. God chose to love Jacob. Wow! We cannot escape these scriptures.

Romans 8:29-30 “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

Here Paul details the past tense work of God in grace. He has already spent at least the first 6 chapters of his Epistle declaring the Total Depravity of man. Now he declares what God has Sovereignly wrought in Grace. Note that I have purposely highlighted the words “whom” and “them”. It is obvious to the honest reader, that he is speaking about a specific people. These are God’s people.

First in the chain of eternal events is the foreknowledge of God. “Whom He did foreknow”. Many modern messengers take this to mean God looked down from heaven and foresaw what man would do on his own with Jesus when presented with him. In other words they assume God based everything He would do on foreseeing what man would do and built His eternal work around man’s will. This idea places man in the position as God and makes God subservient to man. The only two passages in the Bible that states that God looked to see what man would do and what He saw man doing  say the same thing. Psalm 14:2-3 “The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

We cannot honestly conclude that God looked down from heaven and foresaw men coming to him and believing in Him without His intervention. He foresaw a people and set His love on them. The scriptures call these people the elect. Look it up.

Whom he did foreknow them he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son. He predestinated a people to be made like Christ Jesus……changed by the miracle of Grace.

Whom he did predestinate, them he also called. The effectual call of the Shepherd to His Sheep. Leading them out of sin and to Himself. This is done by the Holy Ghost when the gospel is preached.

Whom he called them he also justified. Christ came to die for the church. He laid down his life effectually for the sheep. Those for whom he died, he will save.

Even the most liberal of theologians acknowledges that the atonement is only effectual for them who believe.

Whom he justified, them he also did glorify. God sovereignly has wrought a work of grace that seals His sheep for time and eternity in grace.

Salvation is of the Lord. Salvation is all together of the Lord. If men are saved at all it is because God has done this! We love Him because He first loved us.

I surely would not think that any lover of the Lord Jesus would object to the truth being told about Him and what He has done. The fact is however, the modern church is so entrenched in this save yourself gospel which really is no gospel at all that they will spit out of their mouth the truth and them that preach it.

I hear the modern messenger say, “God has done all he can do to save you. Now it is up to you. Will you accept Jesus Christ?” Honestly such teaching makes me nauseous; especially when I consider the fact that I have in past times preached it myself.

If indeed it is up to me, then that is no gospel. The gospel is good news. If it is up to me at all, I am doomed. Thank God for His saving grace that rescued my soul.

Answer me this question. How can an unbeliever believe? He cannot, except God grant him faith.

How does this effect evangelism? It empowers it. The preacher who understands what I am saying does not go to convince men to accept Jesus. He preaches to them the powerful gospel that Christ came and gave himself to completely save a people from their sins. He entrusts the Holy Ghost to arrest those people and bring them to genuine conversion.

I cannot escape the conviction that arrested my soul on an airplane in 1994 with Buddy Bryson flying over Sao Paulo, Brazil. The Holy Ghost brought my attention to a passage in Acts where He the Spirit of God comforted Paul and encouraged his evangelistic effort. Acts 18:9-10 “Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.” He did not say I hope to gain much people….but, I have much people in this city.

I guess I had already at that time “gone Calvinist” to some extent, because I entered that mission field not trusting my intellect or ability to get decisions. I trusted God to save his people and He did……and He does.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
 He did not say as many as believed were ordained to eternal life, but, as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Salvation is God’s work not man’s. How gracious that He should sovereignly grace us with salvation and impart to us the ministry of reconciliation that we should say to all men, “Be ye reconciled to God.”
We make that plea to all men for we do not know who will be graced to respond. But let us do so with careful adherance to the fact that it is the Holy Ghost who convinces men of sin, righteousness, and judgement.

Misrepresenting what I have said, some accuse me of not believing in “whosoever will” salvation. Absolutely God’s grace is extended to whosoever will. The question is “who will and why are they willing”. Psalm 110:3 “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.”

Without question every soul who comes to Jesus Christ in genuine God given faith and repentance God will save. John 6:37 Jesus said, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” That is a fact.

It is also a fact that Jesus continued on to say in John 6:44, “No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him:”

I fear that the modern church has suffered greatly by the sowing of tares among the wheat by thoughtless preachers who want to bring everybody to a decision for Christ and have convinced many that they are saved because they have jumped through the religious hoop and prayed a prayer without knowing the conquering power of God’s grace to save.

Church pews are often filled with voting members who do not know God. If they knew Him they would not love Him. They don’t even like the idea of a God who is Sovereign in His actions toward men. I have had people tell me they do not like the God of the Old Testament because He had enemies and He destroyed them. The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New. He still has enemies today and He will Judge them.

I bow to Him. If that makes me a Calvinist, then write me up!  I am guilty.

I love you Darren and by the way, you really ought to study the doctrine of adoption in the KJV. God put it in your heart to adopt a baby. While I was writing this letter, I went to the mailbox and received the card with the picture of you with Margy and little Sophia. How Precious. You went across the world to rescue one child.

Nobody in his right mind would accuse you of injustice because you chose one. Do they not understand that your choice of one meant the fact that you passed over millions of others? Does that make your act of love any less gracious? I say not! In fact, it upholds your graciousness.

When I suggest that God set his love on some it automatically implies that He overlooked others. That is exactly what the scriptures teach. If indeed it is true that “We love Him because He first loved us”, then we who love Him are moved to love Him by His loving us first. If His grace held that kind of power over our hearts to cause us to love Him, does He not have power to convert all men to Himself should He so choose?

The fact that I believe while others do not, tells me one thing. God is gracious to me!

Your little girl; the one you set your love upon will doubtless love you back. Because you first loved her and sought her out and saved her to your self.

Adopted means Son placed. Taken from one family and placed in another. That is what God did for me.
Ephesians 1:5 “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Galatians 4:4-6 “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 　
Again I apologize for the length of this letter but I still feel that I have only grazed the surface as to what the scriptures say. Please know that this is not new doctrine from my own head. This has been the teaching of Baptists since before we were called Baptists.  When we were called Waldenses, and Paulines. For these are the doctrines of grace as revealed through Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul and Peter.

I fully understand that I may have brought questions to your mind that I have not fully answered. I would welcome an ongoing dialogue with you. If you feel I am at error here, then I challenge you with the Word of truth as your weapon, to straighten me out. KJV only please.
　
A copy of this letter will be forwarded to Buddy Bryson and a few others.

Hallelujah What A Savior!
Ray Vaughn
　
　
　　
　
　　
　
　
　“Indeed, things that are different are never the same. While the KJV is a translation of the Word of God into the English language, it is a good one. I have been studying the KJV for more than 42 years now. With a Strong’s concordance I can examine every word of it in it’s original language. Do we really believe that the church can embrace a new translation of scripture and not have our doctrine affected by it. Indeed, modern teachings of men have been injected into the new texts of scripture. I will give examples shortly.

Veiled Calvinism

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain;"
(1 Corinthians 15:10)   These words have become to me to mean more than a cliche, but rather a clear and concise statement of testimony.  

I was raised as all men are, an Armenian in doctrine.   Coming as I did to faith in Christ at the tender age of six, I often rejoiced in my good sense in doing so.  My only regret was that I did not make this "decision" of
faith at an earlier age.  The preaching of the pastors under whose doctrine I sat reinforced my thinking.

When at the age of 15, I felt the call of God on my heart to preach His word, I approached the task as did all the ministers whom I had listened to.   I became as Charles Finney, an attorney for the condemned Jesus, seeking by reason and argument to persuade men to make a positive decision for Christ.   I had often heard
Billy Graham in his vast crusades make his plea for men and women to "accept" Jesus and let Him same them.  This was my approach to the gospel ministry for some 35 years.

Some15 years ago, the God of Grace began leading me down a path of difficulty by which He graciously taught me what the gospel is all about.   Most people if observing the path of this journey would deny that God had anything to do with it.    Romans 8:28 however, is still in the Bible.   "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

The God of purpose allowed my heart to be broken at my own failures time and again.   I learned how desperately depraved I am in and of myself.   I came to see and know in experiential ways what I have always known technically.  There is nothing within me that merits the favour of God.   When I am in position even now as a believer to choose my own way, all too often I still would flee from this gracious God.   How is it that I ever came to Him at all?

Please indulge me to borrow from Mr. Spurgeon a few lines here that expresses more eloquently that I ever could what the Lord taught my heart.  The following is taken from "A Defense Of Calvinism"  by Spurgeon:


It was very much in like manner that my heart was taught the doctrines of Gods free Grace.   Coming to understand that "Salvation is of the Lord"  is more than cliche...
it is the lifeline of the believer.   God does the choosing, the redeeming, the accepting,
the saving, the sanctifying, the persevering, .....all of it is of the Lord.

As Paul wrote in Romans 8:29-30, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.  Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

As a preacher of the gospel, when a man is taught of the Lord to flee his Armenian, will-worshipping upbringing; that of free-will of man being the means of salvation, he is faces with a dilemma.    How does he ever preach the same way again.  

I found at the first, a liberty in preaching the Gospel that I had never known before.  I knew without a doubt that I was preaching truth.  I was rather than exalting man as capable of making his own way to God, declaring his total inability to do nothing but look to the Saviour.   God disperses faith as His gift of Grace as He Sovereignly wills to the sinner.  The sinner's only hope is to plead, "God be merciful to me a sinner". 

Glory of all glories, no man ever thirsts for Christ and comes to Him to be turned away.
(John 6:37)  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.  Whoseover will, let him come and take the water of life freely!
But, no man will come, no man can come except the Father draw him.   These are the clear teachings of scripture.

It wasn't long, however, after I began to preach God on His throne, and man in the mire before Him, that I began to experience much conflict from the church.    I had taken man off the throne of his free will.   I had dared to state that if God Almighty doesn't show you mercy you will perish.   I exalted a Sovereign Saviour and such a message was not kosher in the Armenian Baptist Church. 

It was then that I began to hear council from those who agreed with me doctrinely, that "wisdom" was to be found in preaching the doctrines of grace in concealed terms so as not to offend the hearers.

If I were to be preaching in my present home church, where Grace is the constant message, then I was free to exalt God's Free Grace in the most clear and forceful of terms.  However if I was in another church, I would be wise to conceal my message in terms that would make the doctrine unrecognizable.  Thus, I would have the approval of men while I left them scratching their heads wondering what I meant.er

I have heard of a man who was pastor of the same church for many years.  In other parts of the country where he preached in meetings, he was known to have strong Calvinistic beliefs and preached them.   At his home church however, he died without them knowing that he "believed" and preached such things elsewhere.
I am left wondering what did he believe!

What's the difference in a man preaching strongly the doctrines of grace at home and then veiling his Calvinism when he goes elsewhere to preach?   Is such a practice wisdom?  I think not!  Are we called to be the servants of God or of men?  Do we so fear the persecution of men that we are unwilling to bear our cross?

What are we as men of God called to do?  With what scriptural passage are we instructed to disguise our message to suit the occasion or the audience.  Are we not implored not to fear their faces?   How will this
generation learn the truth if the men of God pick and choose what we think men need to hear.

Was this the practice of Paul?   Did he preach one message in Ephesus and another in Rome?  I think not!
Paul said, "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God."   (Acts 20:27)

Men of God are responsible to "preach the word"!  Some men fear they will not be invited back if they preach what they truly believe. If we trim or disguise our message to keep a door open where we can come back and further compromise the truth at a later date, we have denied the truth!

How can I in good conscious preach anything else but what I know to be the truth of God?

Permit me to refer in closing to Mr. Spurgeon:

"The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, "Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor."

 Woe is me if  I preach not the gospel!

Amen and Amen

"When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul—when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown on a sudden from a babe into a man—that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God. One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."
I once attended a service where the text happened to be, "He shall choose our inheritance for us;" and the good man who occupied the pulpit was more than a little of an Arminian. Therefore, when he commenced, he said, "This passage refers entirely to our temporal inheritance, it has nothing whatever to do with our everlasting destiny, for," said he, "we do not want Christ to choose for us in the matter of Heaven or hell. It is so plain and easy, that every man who has a grain of common sense will choose Heaven, and any person would know better than to choose hell. We have no need of any superior intelligence, or any greater Being, to choose Heaven or hell for us. It is left to our own free-will, and we have enough wisdom given us, sufficiently correct means to judge for ourselves," and therefore, as he very logically inferred, there was no necessity for Jesus Christ, or anyone, to make a choice for us. We could choose the inheritance for ourselves without any assistance. "Ah!" I thought, "but, my good brother, it may be very true that we could, but I think we should want something more than common sense before we should choose aright."
First, let me ask, must we not all of us admit an over-ruling Providence, and the appointment of Jehovah's hand, as to the means whereby we came into this world? Those men who think that, afterwards, we are left to our own free-will to choose this one or the other to direct our steps, must admit that our entrance into the world was not of our own will, but that God had then to choose for us. What circumstances were those in our power which led us to elect certain persons to be our parents? Had we anything to do with it? Did not God Himself appoint our parents, native place, and friends? Could He not have caused me to be born with the skin of the Hottentot, brought forth by a filthy mother who would nurse me in her "kraal," and teach me to bow down to Pagan gods, quite as easily as to have given me a pious mother, who would each morning and night bend her knee in prayer on my behalf? Or, might He not, if He had pleased, have given me some profligate to have been my parent, from whose lips I might have early heard fearful, filthy, and obscene language? Might He not have placed me where I should have had a drunken father, who would have immured me in a very dungeon of ignorance, and brought me up in the chains of crime? Was it not God's Providence that I had so happy a lot, that both my parents were His children, and endeavoured to train me up in the fear of the Lord?
John Newton used to tell a whimsical story, and laugh at it, too, of a good woman who said, in order to prove the doctrine of election, "Ah! sir, the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love afterwards." I am sure it is true in my case; I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I should never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love. So I am forced to accept that great Biblical doctrine."     (end of Spurgeon quote)