The word “fear” occurs 400 times in the Bible in 385 verses.  It’s obviously a significant subject, it is mentioned so many times.  It’s used in a good way and a bad way.  In a good way, it’s very good, even to the extent that it could be put in a sentence that gives the very purpose of mankind (Ecclesiastes 12:13):

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Here the LORD commands Abraham, “Fear not.”  “Fear not” is a common expression coming from God, which especially make sense if fear is an instrument of Satan toward the bad.

I’m writing on fear because it is the true underlying subject of a lot of what we’ve been discussing here in recent days.  Many different fears of Covid-19 influence people in a wrong way.  We heard from the beginning that Covid-19 was a deadly threat and people are afraid of death.  The word “deadly” is used for coronavirus a lot.  Fear of death makes people slaves and this society may be more afraid of death than any previous one in the history of our country.

The fear of death in a very indulgent culture is greater to the extent that it becomes very compliant to what it is told to preserve its life.  The fear of death is an underlying uncertainty that leads someone to stock pile toilet paper.  It arises from fear of mortality leading to acts of self-preservation. Hebrews 2 says Jesus died to deliver us from that fear.  His death is the solution to that fear.

Satan is in charge of the world system and he knows how to use fear to control and influence people toward how he wants them to think, believe, and behave.  They become willing to pour everything into this life because of uncertainty about the next.  This life is as sure as it gets to them.  They live for it.  Nothing is more than this life because it’s all they’ve got.  Churches aren’t helping with it, because they are also making it about this life, knowing that’s what this generation also thinks.  In other words, churches aren’t bringing deliverance from the actual fear of death, as seen in their adherents’ preoccupations.

We live in a world of fear that is controlling us.  Some leaders and the media are taking advantage of it.  For the most part, it’s just very natural.  Many of the leaders and the media might be fearful too.  It’s hard to interpret where there is purposeful manipulation of the situation and where there isn’t.  However, believers shouldn’t function according to fear of death and should help the rest of the world to do that too — through the gospel.

 I challenge you to find the one time in scripture that says the two words in the following order, “local church.”  Where did the idea of “local church” come from?  In material written and statements made about the church, that language is everywhere today, as if it were in the Bible, and yet it isn’t.  God never says, “local church.”  Why do people use this terminology not found in God’s Word?

Saying “local church” assumes there is some other kind of church than “local.”  The word translated “church,” a term found only in the New Testament, is the Greek ekklesia.  Ekklesia means “assembly.”  That’s how Tyndale translated ekklesia in his first printed New Testament in English.  One would not say, “local assembly.”

Okay, you might read, “local assembly,” used like the following.  John was a “local assembly member.”  The speaker is referring to a political institution that is local and not regional, state, federal, or just somewhere else than in his present locality.  There are other assemblies in other places than just in this town, so this is a “local assembly.”

Here’s another one.  John worked at a “local assembly plant.”  In that case, a factory in town assembles things.  Something is being assembled, but it isn’t people in this case, but a product being assembled, that is, put together.  All the pieces will be in one place after they are assembled, however.

Despite the aforesaid mentions of “local assembly,” there is no such thing as a “universal assembly,” even though those words might be used too.  Here’s how.  This grease was a “universal assembly lubricator.”  In other words, it was a grease that would work for all manner of assembly of metal parts into whole products anywhere in the world.  But I digress.

Something universal can’t assemble.  It wouldn’t be universal anymore.  It would be local.  The terms “universal” and “assembly” are mutually exclusive.  Since a church, ekklesia, is an assembly, it can’t be universal.  It must be local if it is an assembly.  For that reason, someone shouldn’t say, “local church.”

“Local church” isn’t in the Bible, because the church is only local.  Every church is local.  It wouldn’t be a church if it wasn’t local.  This is what I call “local only ecclesiology.”  When I googled those words, “local only ecclesiology,” the first four finds were written by me, the fifth by James Bronsveld, and the sixth by Thomas Ross.  There are only at this date 521 usages on the world wide web.  I would say I may have invented the terminology to refer to a position, and I found that it had spread to a few other people, who don’t even take the position, but are referring to the biblical position.

People, who use the terminology “local church,” I submit, are making room for some other kind of church than a local one.  There is no other kind of church than a local one.  I contend that starting today, everyone that uses the terminology, “local church,” and believes in only the “local church,” should stop saying, “local church.”  Call “the church,” “the church.”  It is only local.

Some say, ‘it might be confusing to call the local church, “the church,” because many people will think of the universal church.’  There is no universal church.  The church is the church.  When I say, “the church through history,” I mean only a local one, because there is only a local one.  If I say, “the church is in a downward trajectory,” I mean only local church.  I’m using it in a generic fashion, like scripture sometimes does, but it is still local.

If I say, “the phone had modernized,” is that a universal phone?  No.  Everyone knows it’s local.  If I say, “the car has changed through the years,” is it a universal car?  No.  Everyone knows it’s local.  Let’s assume an assembly is local.  A church is an assembly.

I just read a man, Caleb Greggsen, who had written, an article for 9 Marks, entitled, “A Strict But Clear Definition of the Church Brings Freedom,” in which he wrote:

My church’s statement of faith defines a local church in this way:  [Local churches are] congregations of baptized believers covenanted together in faith and fellowship, marked by the right preaching of God’s word and right administration of the ordinances.

Greggsen isn’t being strict or clear.  He said it was a definition of “the church.”  So say in your definition, “the church is. . . ., ” not “local churches are.”  What’s ironic is someone saying, “local churches are congregations.”  That’s like saying, congregations are congregations, or like I once heard someone say, “pizza pie.”  Pizza is pie in Italian, so someone is saying, pie pie.

His definition is confusing, not clear.  Are the congregations covenanted together?  Or are the baptized believers covenanted together?  His desire to keep alive a “universal church” caused him to be unclear in his definition of a church.

What do you think?  Could we all today stop using the two terms, “local church”?  A local church is the church.  It is the only church.  It isn’t and never has been universal.  The two words, “local church,” are not found anywhere in the New Testament.  God doesn’t use those words, because the church is only local.

When God says, “the church at Corinth,” He doesn’t say, “the local church at Corinth.”  He doesn’t need to.  It is the church that is in Corinth, the only one.  It couldn’t be universal, unless every believer on earth was in Corinth, which we know isn’t true.  The exact wording is “the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Corinthians 1:2).  It’s even using the definite article, “the” (yes, also in the Greek).   The church of God is at Corinth, not “a church of God.”  If there was another church than a local one, wouldn’t this be “a church” and not “the church”?  You know it would be, but it isn’t.  Why?  Because “the church” is a local one only.

Join me in not making room for another church than a local one by not using the word “local” to refer to “church.”  Church is only local.

This is probably our last Word of Truth (WOT) Conference.  It also will not be normal.  We are ordaining two men from Bethel Baptist Church to the office of the bishop.  They are both qualified.  You are still welcome to come, but it won’t be the same.  We will keep you updated about what will be occurring instead of the WOT Conference.  It might be something you’re still interested in.

I want to remind you that I am not in California now.  I am in Oregon, as a missionary and starting a church.  For a short transition period, I am still the pastor of Bethel Baptist Church, while Pastor Sutton recuperates from his cerebral hemorrhage.  He is recovering, which is good, because that is only about a third of the people who have one of those.  He is in California and getting better, but we are not requiring anything of him until reevaluation in January.  We expect him to be ready to get started in January, and then he will become pastor of Bethel Baptist Church.

In the meantime, Jerad Stager is intern pastor of the church.  He will be ordained in November, but we think he is qualified already, just hasn’t had hands laid on him yet.  To do this, he has taken a leave of absence from a high paying job.  David Warner is principal of the school, Bethel Christian Academy.  He was going to train for a year under Pastor Sutton, but that plan was scrapped due to the information of paragraph two.  Both of these men, who are doing a great job, will be the two ordained.

The conference this year will be, as usual, the second week of November (11-15), Wednesday to Sunday.  I will be there.  The first night, I and some other preacher will preach.  Thursday morning, David Warner will present his doctrinal statement and be examined.  Other men will be there to help with the examination and to witness this.  Thursday night first a charge will be made to David Warner by his father-in-law, Jerry Wilhite, followed by a sermon by David.  Friday morning, Jerad Stager will present his doctrinal statement and be examined.  Friday night first a charge will be made to Jerad Stager by his father-in-law, David Costantino, followed by a sermon by Jerad.

Saturday morning, the theme will return to that of the last two years of the WOT conference:  sanctification.  We are still preparing to publish a book on the gospel and then on sanctification.  A lot of work still needs to be done for both of these.   That morning, the 14th, Saturday, Thomas Ross and myself will cover two sessions on sanctification.

Sunday morning, for Sunday School and the morning service, the two above newly ordained men will finish presenting their doctrinal statements.  One of the visiting preachers will preach the afternoon or evening service afterwards.  That’s the conference for this year.  You can still come if you’d like, but it’s not in general the type of conference we’ve had, so we understand if you wouldn’t come this year.  We wanted you to know though.

Justification is by faith alone.  Scripture teaches that in many places.  Sanctification, however, is not by faith alone.  Sanctification comes also by works.  You’ve got to do something and keep doing things to be sanctified.  When you don’t do those things, that is not being sanctified.  This is biblical and historical teaching.  You can see this in the section on sanctification in the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)  [see underlined portions]:

1. They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally, through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. (Acts 20:32; Romans 6:5, 6; John 17:17; Ephesians 3:16-19; 1 Thessalonians 5:21-23; Romans 6:14; Galatians 5:24; Colossians 1:11; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Hebrews 12:14)

2. This sanctification is throughout the whole man, yet imperfect in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. (1 Thessalonians 5:23; Romans 7:18, 23; Galatians 5:17; 1 Peter 2:11)

3. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in His Word hath prescribed them. (Romans 7:23; Romans 6:14; Ephesians 4:15, 16; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 7:1)

To some of you reading, what I’ve written so far might seem like a no-brainer.  However, churches are in a major way buying into an idea expressed by words such as these:  “sanctification is the daily hard work of going back to the reality of our justification.”  Timothy Kauffman writes about this in Sanctification, Half Full: The Myopic Hermeneutic of the “Grace” Movement:

[T]he new view (occasionally called the “Grace movement”) appears to allege that justification completes our sanctification; that is, the holiness of sanctification is that same righteousness that was already secured for believers via Christ’s substitutionary atonement, and is obtained by the same instrumental means of faith alone.

The Bible nor the history of Christianity says sanctification is by faith alone, but by faith plus works.  Read Colossians 3:1-5:

1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. 5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth.

The first half of verse one describes the reality of justification or salvation, if you will:  “ye then be risen with Christ.”  It is a first class condition, so it is a condition of reality.  If someone is really justified, he will do things.  He will do good works.  That is how he is sanctified.  And they are all commands:  Seek (v. 1), Set (v. 2), Mortify (v. 5).  People who are truly justified are commanded to do good works, not preach the gospel to themselves.

If someone truly saved were to preach the gospel to himself, he might do it in a few words, and I’m going to use my own name:  “You are risen with Christ, Kent.”  Alright done preaching the gospel to myself, and now I, me, am commanded to do these things.  Your affections are not just going to be set on things above.  You’ve got to set them.

Many, many professing Christians today are not seeking, not setting their affections on, and not mortifying.  They are not.  After reminding themselves that they are risen with Christ, they need to obey those commands.

A good question for anyone to answer is, Who is God?  Is that question easy to answer?  If it is, you answer it.  What would you say?

 You like that title?  It’s not original.  It comes from the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) [21:3]:

They who upon pretence of Christian liberty do practice any sin, or cherish any sinful lust, as they do thereby pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction, so they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives.  (Romans 6:1, 2; Galatians 5:13; 2 Peter 2:18, 21)

In case you complain about those Baptist boogie men, as if whatever experience you’ve had or have been deceived into thinking you have had as an excuse that could nullify scriptural teaching, something almost identical is in the Westminster Confession of Faith (20:3).

I’m pointing out this one item in the the LBC and WCF because it is the historic position of the church, it isn’t new, the contradiction of it is a big problem today, and it also disclaims the idea that this is a pet peeve or a recent obsession.  I also like the language, “pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel,” and, “destroy the end of Christian liberty.”

Using foul language or gestures is a pretence of Christian liberty.  You don’t have liberty to do that as a Christian.  That isn’t salvation.   The female showing her naked thighs is a pretence of Christian liberty.  Playing and promoting profane music, worldly and carnal, is a pretence of Christian liberty.  We have liberty to “serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives.”  These previous examples in this paragraph and many others represent the perverting “the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction.”

I would add that calling on professing believers to destroy their idols, stop imitating the world, deny worldly lust, abstain from fleshly lust, cover their nakedness, and stop glorying in their shame is not “contrary to the word,” “not contained in it,” or betraying “true liberty of conscience” (LBCF 21.3).  Contrariwise, God saved us from these things.  The doing of them and claiming Christian liberty is but a pretense.  In other words, it is pretend liberty, concocted in the imagination of the doer by which he or she can live for himself or herself and still call himself or herself a Christian.

Scripture teaches what the LBC calls “liberty of conscience.”  The idea here is that a believer is expressed by the words (21:1), “their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.”  This is still “yielding obedience unto Him.”  It isn’t liberty to sin against God, but to do so with “a childlike love and willing mind.”  It matters why we do what we do.  Subjecting people to other than scriptural mandates inhibits God-honoring motivation for service.

Further investigation into the teaching of scripture upon the conscience reveals that the conscience is in part protected by rare subjugation to merely human ordinances.  Even performing according to Divine design, a conscience will still respond to non-biblical or unbiblical edicts.  A conscience can be harmed by adding to or taking away from what scripture teaches.  Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 for the freedom of conscience.  A pretence of Christian liberty is not that.  A Christian wants his conscience warning him against idolatry, foul language, shameful behavior, nakedness, worldliness, irreverence, and lust.

 In His model prayer, the Lord Jesus Christ gave the pattern of praying, “Thy kingdom come,” an imperative of request.  True believers will ask for God’s kingdom to come.  They want it.

The kingdom of God isn’t some arbitrary kingdom like Vulgaria in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.  It is a particular, defined kingdom.  Jesus is its king already.  It’s not subject to vote.  He’s already got the position and it is a lifetime appointment, which happens to be forever.  If you want in that kingdom, you’ve got to accept His reign in advance.  That means you like it.  You desire it.  You’re asking for it already, can’t wait until it gets here.

Christian girls who post themselves in their daisy dukes on instagram, I can tell you in advance, they won’t like, they don’t like, the kingdom of God.  They want a different kingdom, not one where Jesus Christ reigns.  Problem is that His is the only kingdom.  The end of that model prayer reads:  “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever” (Luke 6:13), which is also a quotation of 1 Chronicles 29:11, the whole verse of which says:

Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.

I can see the moribund countenance of the professing Christian girl, who was just told she couldn’t bring her shorts with her.  When everyone else breaks into the grand chorus of praise, her lips are frozen.  She can only sing if self-care or self-love are included, and then she would rock.  At the prospect of the actual kingdom, she would ghost God if she could, because He won’t let her dress like she wants in His kingdom.  At last check, she still likes His air and food provision though.

One of the great losses of not praying like Jesus said is the absence of praying for the kingdom of God.  Jesus is already reigning at the right hand of the Father in the midst of His enemies (Psalm 110:2).  Everyone added to the kingdom in this era is giving in to that reign, which means submitting in a biblical church.  It is an actual submission, not one like where you just put an X in the submission box, registering intellectual assent.  Jesus threw the keys to the kingdom to the church, and you don’t have to be in it.  You can go ahead and take the temporal life you have as everything you’re ever going to get.

I recognize that most churches today don’t give the impression to people that they are already citizens of a kingdom, which means a rule is presently occurring.  They are under a rule.  This is why in the description of overseers or pastors, it says that they “rule” as the accurate, true verb of job description.  Jesus is ruling, but they are carrying it on for Him as if it were Him.

Daisy Duke Christian imagines Vulgaria like the ink blot rorschach for the kingdom of God.  Superimposed is “the grace of God.”  God’s grace allows God’s kingdom to be Vulgaria.  Hey, I want in now!  This is all fiction hatched in an imagination.

Daisy Duke Christian doesn’t evangelize.  She thinks by being “nice,” that is evangelism.  She’s “nice” to everyone, while they die and go to Hell.  They are in turn “nice” back to her, and everyone is a big nice happy family in the kingdom of Vulgaria.  It is all a lie.

What I’m writing is also true of Nashville Profane Music Christian.  None of these are going to be in the kingdom of God.  They wouldn’t even like it.  If it showed up right now, they would reject it, unless they found out the alternative would be going to Hell.  Then they would begrudgingly sign on to avoid that, hating every moment of it.

God won’t take someone into His kingdom as a hostage with Stockholm syndrome.  Actually, just the reverse is true.  Daisy Duke Christian has developed a psychological affection for her captor, who happens to be the prince of this world.  She’s in bondage and she doesn’t recognize that he is ruling over her.  That’s why she wants to stay, like Lot’s wife looking yearningly toward her own vision of the kingdom, which identically matches the world system.

In one very true sense the kingdom has already started for actual kingdom citizens.  They want to live now like they will for a thousand years after Jesus has made His enemies His footstool.  They want to be with Him in church, His church, not the phantom church of pop Christianity, which not only allows but most often encourages daisy dukes.  Those who don’t like the actual kingdom of Jesus Christ now aren’t real citizens.  And there are no green cards.  They will never get a temporary visa.  Believing in Jesus does mean believing in Jesus, which its clear through the whole Bible means that you want Him as your King.