Hey guys,
I was wondering if anyone has read any books by W.E. Best.
I think he is a baptist who rejects free will.
Is this guy still around?
R.B.
Hey guys,
I was wondering if anyone has read any books by W.E. Best.
I think he is a baptist who rejects free will.
Is this guy still around?
R.B.
Wait,
I found a web address in the back of one his books. Here is the site:
http://www.kaoc.org/
From this site you can navigate to a list of his writings.
I think he is in Texas.
In fact, I think his books are FREE!
Here is the link to all his books:
http://www.webbmt.org/Eng-bks.htm
I think someone gave me one of his books about 5 years ago, then I wrote a letter to some address and someone sent me some more stuff, but now I can't find the stuff they sent. Anyways, I was thinking about getting some more of his stuff, but wanted to see if anyone could comment on his material.
I will start examining the site I found and comment on anything I find wrong.
R.B.
"Melted" on this board went to the church he preaches at I believe.Originally Posted by red beetle
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.GALATIANS 5:22
Melted went to W.E. Best's church?
How neat is that?
I am reading his book on regeneration and conversion and I have to say that he is very good at using clear simple language to cover a good amount of solid theology.
Thanks LOJ
Red Beetle
Last edited by red beetle; 01-06-2007 at 09:09 PM.
He actually preached at the church with W.E. Best. I don't believe he is in attendance any longer.
John
The grace which saves us is eternal to us, as is also our election in Christ. Those who are in Christ have everlasting life by that virtue alone and it is also plain Scriptural teaching that when God loves, He loves with an everlasting love and therefore draws His own to Him. (Jeremiah 31:3). Now there can be no eternal saving grace, no eternal election in Christ, no experience of God's eternal love where a soul is not justified. These aspects belong together as integral parts." …John Gill
Kyle left that chuch because they deny absolute predestination - or that God actually causes all things - including evil. He published his resignation letter on this site.
Ditch the Garbage! - Too many people are proud of their humility - I, on the other hand, am not humble - and am proud of it!
"Luther's New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity." - A complaint by German humanist Johann Cochlaeus.
Follow me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/kraftb
Follow Predestinarian Network on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/predestinarian
Follow Predestinarian Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/predestinarian
Oh, I did not know. How dare W E Best to do that!!!
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.GALATIANS 5:22
Hello Monty,
I grew up in Pastor Best's church as a child and stop going at age 16. I later became a member there 3 years ago when my wife and I were regenerated (age 26). I have known him for most of my life. Three weeks ago he retired from preaching due to medical problems (he is 87 or 88 and has been diagnosed with alzheimer's).
My wife and I left there in September of this year due to us being practically kicked out (though in the end we asked to be removed, I believe we were officially "unchurched" or excommunicated -- we never received "official word" on anything pertaining to the finality of the situation except through 3rd parties). I preached 11 sermons there which included some on God & Evil which caused Best to say that he could not fellowship with us if we believed that God created evil and that He causes sin. It was not originally our desire to leave that assembly, but he would not discuss things with me and he preached "at us" (you have to know Best to understand that fully) for 8 Sundays, including one in particular on church disciple followed up by a public push to have us voted out.
Some things you may want to know:
-- He denies supralapsarianism (God's Eternal Decree) [actually he tries to take pieces from Supra and mix them with pieces from Infra - very confusing booklet, read it entirely]
-- He affirms "passive reprobation" (God's Eternal Decree) and that Sin causes reprobation, not God (The Most Neglected Chapter in the Bible, p140)
-- He teaches that God "reacted" to Pharaoh's hardening his own heart (The Most Neglected Chapter in the Bible, p146; God's Eternal Decree)
-- He denies double predestination (God's Eternal Decree)
-- He believes the "lump" of Romans 9 was already fallen men (God's Eternal Decree)
-- He affirms "self-determination" to sin (The Most Neglected Chapter in the Bible, p138; God Forgives Sinners, p13)
-- He teaches that damnation is based off of God's "infallible foresight" (The Most Neglected Chapter in the Bible, p122) and that God merely foreknows & anticipates sin (God Forgives Sinners, p12)
-- He believes that "sin became a reality only as God's creatures perverted His will" (God Forgives Sinners, p12; and see The Relation Between God and Man's Sin, sermon preached on 6/4/2006)
W. E. Best also denies that there is ANY aspect of God's kingdom here now. He believes in a physical Israel which will be saved in the end times. He is a rabid premillennialist who verbally puts amillennialists in the same boat as Arminians. He has some good work, especially on the impeccability of Christ, which he is well known for. Oh, and if you called him a baptist to his face, he might hit you! ...Even though he used to be one.
The man is one of the harshest most unforgiving persons I've met in my life. The assembly over which he was elder is practically terrified to discuss the Lord openly for fear of saying something wrong and being called down from the pulpit. I thank our most gracious God that He removed us from that situation rather forcefully and in a way that greatly humbled me. We have discovered another wonderful assembly in the Houston area which we are going to become members of, Lord willing (link to website).
I hope that provides you some information that you were seeking. By all means, read his books (they send them out freely still), chew up the meat and spit out the gristle.
In Christ,
Kyle
Last edited by melted; 01-08-2007 at 01:41 PM. Reason: fixed url
Gal 6:14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
Wow, Kyle, WE Best is even worse than I thought! I'm glad you're away from that place!
Ditch the Garbage! - Too many people are proud of their humility - I, on the other hand, am not humble - and am proud of it!
"Luther's New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity." - A complaint by German humanist Johann Cochlaeus.
Follow me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/kraftb
Follow Predestinarian Network on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/predestinarian
Follow Predestinarian Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/predestinarian
Interestingly enough, a writing of W. E. Best around 23 years ago was the catalyst that God used to end the doctrine of the "Free Offer' in my thinking! Back then, of course, everything of value to consider had to be obtained by word-of-mouth, snail mail, and paper book or booklet. I have no idea how I first got some of his material or who/which publication led me to it. It was only about a year after I firmly embraced sovereign grace teaching.
Anyway, his affirmation that "Christ is not to be offered but proclaimed" made so much biblical sense to me from the start that I have held it near and dear ever since!
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
I am reading a couple of Best's books.
In his book "Free Grace versus Free Will" he claims Adam had free will before the fall. Augustine also had this view at one time as well. Best writes, "The change of the will in regeneration is as radical as was the change in Adam's will when he fell. He enjoyed freedom prior to his fall; then his will became enslaved. No person since Adam has ever had a free will" (Free Grace Versus Free Will, page 16).
Martin Luther correctly pointed out in "The Bondage of the Will" that no rational created being has ever had free will at any time. Luther writes, "For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and foreordains all things; that He cannot be deceived or obstructed in His foreknowledge and predestination; and that nothing happens but at His will (which reason itself is compelled to grant); then, on reason's own testimony, there can be no 'free-will' in man, or angel, or in any creature"
(The Bondage of the Will, Revell, January 2003, page 317).
Best is inconsistent.
He reminds me of Confessional Lutherans like Theodore Muller and Francis Peiper on Predestination and evil. By the way, has anyone read Muller's prolegomena in his "Reformed Dogmatics?" There is an interesting contrast in that Lutheran systematic theology and Gordon H. Clark's book "Religion, Reason, and Revelation."
Red Beetle
Last edited by red beetle; 01-09-2007 at 08:36 AM.
W.E. Best has also shown himself to be inconsistent within his own writings.
Let me show you a few of his contradictory propositions.
(P.1) Freedom of the will is attributable to God Alone [page 6 and 37]
(P.2) Adam is the one person which had free will [page 16]
(P.2) is the logical converse to the statement found on page 16 which reads, "No person since Adam has ever had free will."
Best attempts to use (P.1) as an attempt to establish the sovereignty of God, but then engages (P.2) in an attempted theodicy to the problem of evil.
(P.2) is based upon the assumption that there is a permissive will of God, yet Best offers no exegetical proof that God does allow Adam to choose apart from His determinate counsel. A fact that clearly contradicts Ephesians 1:11.
Let (P.3) represent the proposition: God is a being that releases Adam from His determinate counsel for the purpose of Adam choosing apart from God's causative power
If (P.3) implies that Adam's will can be induced by the strongest motive, let's say the forbidden fruit, then how can (P.3) be thought to be true in light of the fact that God is in constant preservative and providential control of his creation? (P.3) does not aid (P.2) in the slightest.
If (P.3) implies (P.4)--which is: Adam's will is not induced by motives, I would not know how to begin to prove this assertion. How can or does Adam will in the first place? And, how can God or Adam know what Adam will possibly will if (P.3) can be connected to (P.4)? Let (P.5) be God is omniscient.
Can (P.5) be held to be consistent with (P.3) if (P.4) is true? I don't think so. Therefore, (P.2) must be avoided if (P.5) is to be maintained. It is not a correct theodicy to claim that (P.4) can alleviate God from the atheist's charges stemming from his problem of evil. For, (P.4) can still be the atheist's ground to say this is why God should not have created Adam in the first place (for Adam might fall), and therefore this present world does not reflect the workings of a perfect, loving, omniscient, and omnipotent God.
Red Beetle
Last edited by red beetle; 01-12-2007 at 03:11 PM.
Hi Monty,
I agree that he has inconsistencies within his writings, even within the same books and sometimes within very close paragraphs. When I taught on this topic there, I was unaware of his position (I made wrong assumptions given his confession of God's "absolute sovereignty"). After being made aware, I researched as much of his writings on the topic as I could (that being God and evil) and came to conclude that he presented a confusing position in an attempt to reconcile God's sovereignty with God's holiness. I believe he went about this in the wrong way, trying to form reasons why God does not do certain things in order to protect His holiness rather than stating that anything God does is holy simply by the reason that He has done it.
Gal 6:14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
As a sheperd this quote from Melted bothers more than anything.
The man is one of the harshest most unforgiving persons I've met in my life. The assembly over which he was elder is practically terrified to discuss the Lord openly for fear of saying something wrong and being called down from the pulpit.
But I dont know him and wonder why RB is concerned about him. Perhaos we should change the title to "Outing of W E Best"
Again as an aside, it is an awesome name though. To use both initials is rare!!!!
Last edited by lionovjudah; 01-12-2007 at 03:54 PM.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.GALATIANS 5:22
5Solas.org Participants, “Red Beetle”, and “Melted”,
My name is Craig Swain. I am a member of Kingwood Assembly of Christ in Houston, Texas. W. E. Best has been my pastor for about 19 of the last 24 years. He has shepherded the same flock for just about 60 years. Pastor Best, at his initiative, retired from being our elder effective December, 2006 due to his health. He is diagnosed as being in the second stage (of three) of Alzheimer’s disease, where he is suffering from some brain impairment, but is still taking care of himself for many day-to-day activities. He has had what may be symptoms of the disease for the last four years, but he continued to serve the Lord in preaching as long as he could.
Our assembly is looking for an elder currently, so without someone more competent to address some of the issues and questions raised by the contributors to this thread, I’ll try to answer. Please know that at my best, I am not 1% the student, and apologist, of and for God’s word that W. E. Best is.
I’ll address the background questions and comments first, then give my answer to the logical argument and an appeal to Martin Luther presented by “Red Beetle” for the supralapsarian view of God’s decree since that is the heart of the issues in the thread. Then I’ll also provide my thoughts on “Melted”/Kyle’s posting regarding his experience with our assembly and our pastor.
BACKGROUND:
1. “…any of his books?”
They are all freely available online at http://www.webbmt.org. Hardcopies are also available on request. Additionally, his last six years of messages are also freely available online at http://www.kaoc.org/sermons.htm.
2. “I think he is a baptist who rejects free will.”
W. E. Best does reject the concept of free will for fallen man. He holds to God’s free grace and sovereignty. His book “Free Grace Versus Free Will” is available at: http://www.webbmt.org/EngHTML2/Free%20Grace%20Versus%20Free%20Will.htm.
He is not a “Baptist” in that he left the Southern Baptist Convention many years ago due to its apostasy, particularly in teaching peccability, or that Christ could sin. He objects to taking the name “Baptist” because he does not think it Biblical or God-honoring to form church hierarchies, conventions, or associations beyond that of the local New Testament assembly. Nor does he believe in using names for the assembly other than that of Christ and a location, as was the NT practice. This includes using doctrine or practice in assembly names to help form extra-church associations such at “Baptist” or other denominational ties. He explains it much better than I do; please see his pamphlet, “No Proper Name Given To Christ’s Assembly”. A copy is available at: http://www.webbmt.org/EngHTML2/noprop.htm.
While not a “Baptist”, he is “baptistic” in doctrine in three areas. First, he practices believer’s baptism by immersion (instead of pedobaptism of unbelieving children by sprinkling), and that as a public testimony of the new birth and being raised in Christ, as an ordinance of the NT assembly pointing to Christ and His work, and as an act of personal obedience to God’s word. (My understanding of Scripture is that, like physical circumcision was the sign of the old covenant, a “circumcised heart” -- regeneration and its fruits -- is the parallel sign of the new covenant – not baptism, as taught by pedobaptists. See Jer. 31:33, 2 Cor. 3:5-6, Heb. 8:8-13, and Heb. 9:15.) Second, he also has a similar view of separation between the assembly and worldly governments as many “Baptists”, with churches not being state sponsored or exercising worldly governmental authority, and seeing local churches/assemblies as independent local gatherings whose head is Christ and whose focus is on proclaiming the gospel and knowing and pleasing God by studying and living out His word. He also teaches that all true Christians are part of the bride of Christ, the entire body of God’s elect. (My perception is that this was the practice of the New Testament churches, not the grasping for state authority and the subsequent justification of such effort with amillennial doctrine.) Third and lastly, similar to most “Baptists”, he teaches and has practiced a form of congregational church government in recognizing elders and deacons and in conducting worldly business for the local assembly.
3. “I think he is in Texas.”
Yep. Our assembly has met in a couple of locations in the Houston area over the last several decades. W. E. Best is still a member, and he currently resides in an assisted care facility in Friendswood, Texas.
4. “In fact, I think his books are FREE!”
Yes, see above. Several of the titles are also available in Spanish.
5. “I will start examining the site I found and comment on anything I find wrong.”
How about anything you find right? Or more importantly, how consistent is his material with God’s word?
6. “I am reading his book on regeneration and conversion and I have to say that he is very good at using clear simple language to cover a good amount of solid theology.
Thanks LOJ.”
Amen!
7. “Kyle left that chuch because they deny absolute predestination - or that God actually causes all things - including evil.”
Again, please read “Free Grace Verses Free Will” (http://www.webbmt.org/EngHTML2/Free%20Grace%20Versus%20Free%20Will.htm).
Also, in response to Kyle’s teaching that God caused and causes sin, one of our Pastor’s last messages, that directly addresses this, can be found at:
http://www.kaoc.org/Sermons/2006-06-04%20The%20Relation%20Between%20God%20and%20Man's% 20Sin.htm
The main passage I’ve heard used to justify treating God as the author of sin is Isaiah 45:7. The first part of the pastor’s message highlights the context of Isaiah 45:1-7 to understand the passage. Only by ignoring the context can one stretch verse 7 to be the definitive statement by God on authorship and causality of evil in the creation. Again, please see the sermon by W. E. Best stating his understanding of the Scriptures on this.
I’ve pasted in the concluding portion of the message since it encapsulates W. E. Best’s teaching that is the source of much of the disputing comments in the thread:
“Man’s sin was, in a sense, necessary to God’s purpose in Christ. God did purpose to will sin, but that does not designate Him the Author of sin. Jesus Christ died for the sins of the elect, according to the purpose of God. One cannot believe that God is sovereign without also believing that He purposed or willed sin.
“The idea of what is called causality is perplexing at this point. Here, the necessity of man’s sin is forged as a necessary link in a causal system. Adam fell. If God had not purposed that fall, it would not have occurred. He also purposed that Jesus Christ should come and die for sin. The Son of God is the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world.
“The point that must be emphasized in the thought of causality is that guilt cannot be attributed to God. He is not Author of, or guilty of, sin. Author is maker of anything—Creator. The difference between authorship of and purposing sin is that God did not originate sin, but He did purpose that sin come into being.
“God created Adam upright. Sin began in mankind subsequent to Adam’s creation. Sin in anticipation is not identical with the actuality of sin in time. Adam had no sin within, but he was capable of sinning. His uprightness was finite. Whatever God creates must be inferior to Himself. God cannot create God.
“The apparent inconsistency of God decreeing sin, yet not being the Author of sin, is explained when one realizes that God’s purpose is not the originating cause of man’s sin. These things cannot be explained to an unsaved person. He can only be shown the actuality of sin. When he recognizes sin’s actuality, he will also recognize that he is guilty of sin.
“God created man in His own image and after His likeness. Therefore, sin was no part of Adam’s creaturely reality. If sin had been a part, one could only conclude that there was a being that did not have God as its Author, or God must be the Author of sin. No person who names the name of Christ could attribute authorship of sin to God. That would be blasphemy.”
W. E. Best does teach that God is the Creator, Sustainer, and the One predestinating all things, including the purposing or decreeing of sin, but he also teaches that God does not cause or author evil. Why? Both are taught in the Scriptures. Now, is it more consistent with our human logic to treat the sovereign Creator of the universe Who willed/decreed sin as the author or cause of sin? Maybe; but, it is not Scriptural! W. E. Best always has done his best to teach the Scriptures, whether what they are asserting fits well into our logical systems or not. He has always sought to teach the full counsel of God, even when some of it may strike us as paradoxical. God’s sovereignty, man’s responsibility, God’s holiness, and sinning by men and angels/demons are all taught in the Scriptures.
8. “Mean, Harsh, and Arrogant - Wow, Kyle, WE Best is even worse than I thought! I'm glad you're away from that place!”
W. E. Best has not been mean in my experience. He has been harsh where the Scriptures are harsh (such as on sin and sinners, on heretics, and on apostates), and he does get emotional where our scriptural examples are emotional. He has done so both in deed and word, and with emotions appropriate to the issues at hand, whether love for the brethren, compassion for the lost, or righteous anger towards sin and false teaching. Arrogant? Not in my experience. I can see how his confidence in his knowledge of the Scriptures after a life of study might be perceived that way. I also know that Kyle’s time with our assembly coincided with some heavy trials for our pastor when he is very near the end of his race. Maybe that contributed to some of Kyle’s perception, but I think it is probably more the pastor’s steadfastness in holding to what the Scriptures teach and in not going beyond them to support Kyle in his un-Scriptural doctrinal position of God causing sin.
9. “Interestingly enough, a writing of W. E. Best around 23 years ago was the catalyst that God used to end the doctrine of the "Free Offer' in my thinking! Back then, of course, everything of value to consider had to be obtained by word-of-mouth, snail mail, and paper book or booklet. I have no idea how I first got some of his material or who/which publication led me to it. It was only about a year after I firmly embraced sovereign grace teaching. Anyway, his affirmation that "Christ is not to be offered but proclaimed" made so much biblical sense to me from the start that I have held it near and dear ever since!”
I shared that experience too. Up until hearing W. E. Best, and newly exposed to God’s sovereignty, I was looking at how to reconcile typical Arminian “invitations” (long, drawn-out emotional appeals, sometimes with slick marketing techniques) with the sovereign God. Brother Best taught, preached, and is today still witnessing with “repent and believe”.
REBUTTAL TO RED BEETLE’S ARGUMENT:
“W.E. Best has also shown himself to be inconsistent within his own writings.
Let me show you a few of his contradictory propositions…”
W. E. Best does assert (P.1) that freedom of the will is attributable to God alone and (P.2) Adam is the one person which had free will (before the fall only, per Best). W. E. Best makes these assertions based on the Scriptures he is quoting. Go check the books you refer to and read the relevant sections and covered Scripture. Is that what these verses are teaching? (P.2) is not based on any assumptions other than the Scriptures quoted. Brother Best makes no assumptions regarding the “permissive” will of God because the passages do not. W. E. Best has never asserted (P.3) God is a being that releases [emphasis mine] Adam from His determinate counsel for the purpose of Adam choosing apart from God's causative power, again, because the Scriptures do not. You set it up as a straw man argument. He is not worried about the argument, just about proclaiming the Scriptures clearly. Since he doesn’t assert (P.3) he is certainly not implying (P.4), another of your non-Scriptural straw men. W. E. Best does assert (P.5) God is omniscient. Why, because he quotes the Scriptures on it. So, while you are concluding that “(P.2) must be avoided if (P.5) is to be maintained”, W. E. Best is asserting what the Scriptures teach, both assertions, and explicitly not asserting what they don’t teach, which here includes both God’s full predestinating sovereignty (all 3 “omni’s”) and Adam’s sinning without God compelling him to do so. Regarding atheistic objections to your (P.4) “…Adam's will is not induced by motives, I would not know how to begin to prove this assertion.” I join with you in not knowing how to prove it. W. E. Best doesn’t attempt to. Neither will I. Why not? God did not choose to explain this in His revelation or has not chosen to open my eyes to it yet. Why doesn’t W. E. Best attempt to either make the assumption or prove it? I don’t know, but he has always been busy studying and preaching what is in the Scriptures, and not worrying about the fables and reasoning of finite men. This last sentence may strike you or other readers as “mean, harsh, and arrogant”, but that is literally what the man does – he preaches the Scriptures as best and as systematically as he understands them. He does it without trying overlay his logic between perceived doctrinal “gaps”, and he has always tried to preach the whole counsel of God.
I think I understand your logical presentation, but while you propose God’s omniscience, you are also assuming your own omniscience in the realm of this discussion. In particular, you are assuming that God has already revealed all the relevant facts that you need to “prove” the causality of sin beyond that stated in Scriptures. W. E. Best does not make the assumption that all needed facts are revealed for this complete logical system of false doctrine you and Kyle are possessed by.
Do you have all the relevant facts to fully understand the hypostatic union? If you read enough of his books and sermons, you’ll find W. E. Best also teaches what the Scriptures teach as to Christ being fully human and fully divine. He doesn’t try to teach what they don’t teach in some of the mechanical details of such a union. The cases are parallel in that W. E. Best tries to go where the Scriptures go, and not go where they don’t. In his preaching, and in my understanding of God’s word, Kyle makes a nice logical jump to where the Scriptures do not go. The consequences of the jump make God out as the cause and author of sin. This strikes me as a most, literally, ungodly form of heresy. I hope it is a mistake of his youth in Christ, and that the Lord will impress upon him not just God’s consistency, but His holiness and the scope of His revelation, both in what is revealed and in what is left a mystery for now. Two passages come to mind here. First, Deuteronomy 29:29, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” And second, the passage below from James (which you acknowledge in your profile is a part of the canon of Scripture):
“Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.“
REBUTTAL TO MARTIN LUTHER / RED BEETLE’S QUOTE:
‘I am reading a couple of Best's books. In his book "Free Grace versus Free Will" he claims Adam had free will before the fall. Augustine also had this view at one time as well. Best writes, "The change of the will in regeneration is as radical as was the change in Adam's will when he fell. He enjoyed freedom prior to his fall; then his will became enslaved. No person since Adam has ever had a free will" (Free Grace Versus Free Will, page 16).
Martin Luther correctly pointed out in "The Bondage of the Will" that no rational created being has ever had free will at any time. Luther writes, "For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and foreordains all things; that He cannot be deceived or obstructed in His foreknowledge and predestination; and that nothing happens but at His will (which reason itself is compelled to grant); then, on reason's own testimony, there can be no 'free-will' in man, or angel, or in any creature"
(The Bondage of the Will, Revell, January 2003, page 317).
Best is inconsistent…’
W. E. Best is consistent with the Luther quote above excepting Mr. Luther’s conclusion where he ranks “reason’s own testimony” beyond God’s clear testimony about Himself in His word. God appears inconsistent only to the degree that His Scriptures may appear inconsistent to some where He chose tobe (1) repeatedly explicit regarding His sovereignty, (2) repeatedly explicit regarding His holiness, (3) repeatedly explicit regarding His creatures, and not Himself, as originating, willing and acting to sin, and (4) not as repeatedly explicit regarding the causality of sin as our finite human need to systematize would prefer. If you prefer obvious, spelled out logical human consistency, both the Scriptures and W. E. Best’s understanding of them may frustrate you here.
RESPONSE TO “MELTED” / KYLE’S POSTING:
1. ‘…us being practically kicked out (though in the end we asked to be removed, I believe we were officially "unchurched" or excommunicated -- we never received "official word" on anything pertaining to the finality of the situation except through 3rd parties).’
Kyle submitted a resignation letter, he did not attend the service after he submitted it, and he did not call any of the officers of our assembly that I’m aware of to determine how it was handled. In this case, after the letter was read to the assembly, I made the motion to accept the resignation and remove him from the assembly’s membership. The motion was seconded and was passed unanimously by the men of the assembly. I erred in not including in the motion an explicit statement to withhold further fellowship from him while he persists in teaching God causes evil and is the author of sin, though I think practically that has been the case except where family ties compel some earthly fellowship.
2. “It was not originally our desire to leave that assembly, but he would not discuss things with me and he preached "at us" (you have to know Best to understand that fully) for 8 Sundays, including one in particular on church disciple [sic] followed up by a public push to have us voted out.”
W. E. Best was 87 years old at the time and probably four years into Alzheimer’s. Kyle’s few visits with him were generally along with his wife and their young child and so treated as fellowship occasions instead of study and work sessions. W. E. Best came to understand, along with the rest of our members, that Kyle is holding to and teaching to the exclusion of almost anything else the heresy of accusing the holy God of creating evil and authoring sin. When under intense pressure to conform to one of our core beliefs regarding the Scriptural teaching of God’s holiness and man’s responsibility, Kyle could not see the truth of this position. He continued holding to and quietly advocating what W. E. Best and all other of our members believe to be error. If he had not voluntarily resigned, at some point, and probably before another month had passed (we wanted to give him the time reconsider his position in light of the specific teaching the Pastor provided) we would have had to cast him out. If he comes to a more scriptural understanding of this subject, repents of the error, and seeks forgiveness, our fellowship with him in the truth once delivered to the saints will be there.
3. “He denies supralapsarianism (God's Eternal Decree) [actually he tries to take pieces from Supra and mix them with pieces from Infra - very confusing booklet, read it entirely]”
Like Kyle, I’m exhorting you to “read it entirely”, too. W. E. Best states in the pamphlet near the beginning of chapter 3, “Searchers of truth find areas of Bible study where they can take only the supralapsarian view and other places where they can take only the infralapsarian view. There are true and false assertions in each theory.” This statement shows the difference in approach. W. E. Best searches the Scriptures for truth where Kyle, to me, appeared to search the scripture for bricks of truth he could use to build and support tidy, logical theories.
4. “He affirms "passive reprobation" (God's Eternal Decree) and that Sin causes reprobation, not God (The Most Neglected Chapter in the Bible, p140)”
Yes, because that is the Biblical language. Please check out the book, (http://www.webbmt.org/EngHTML2/Most%20Neglected%20Chapter.htm), the quoted passages, and their context.
5. “He teaches that God "reacted" to Pharaoh's hardening his own heart (The Most Neglected Chapter in the Bible, p146; God's Eternal Decree).”
6. “He denies double predestination (God's Eternal Decree)” and…”
7. “He believes the "lump" of Romans 9 was already fallen men (God's Eternal Decree)”
W. E. Best teaches a version of double predestination, but does not use that language since supralapsarians use it as a short-hand notation for God being the author of sin. The three paragraphs below from God’s Eternal Decree contain the points Kyle is choking on. Is Pastor Best going beyond Scripture in these? Again, read the pamphlet.
“There are two aspects of reprobation--negative and positive. When God elected some to salvation, He passed by others. Passing by is negative reprobation. He did not positively condemn those He passed by. In positive reprobation, God condemns a person to punishment for his own sin. Therefore, sin is taken into account in positively reprobating a person.
Pharaoh illustrates positive reprobation. God's action in hardening Pharaoh's heart was His reaction to Pharaoh's action of self-hardening (Ex. 4:21-14:8). Every Scripture reference to God hardening an individual is always associated with the sin of mankind. An illustration is given in Romans 1. God gave people up because of what they had previously done. They had "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things" (Rom 1:23). God reacted to their self-hardening and gave them up to follow their wicked ways. Positive reprobation is always associated with committed sin. God did not predestinate men to hell to the exclusion of their association with sin. To say that God created man to damn him, one would have to ignore the fall, sin, etc. Therefore, double predestination--in that sense--will not stand the test of Scripture. Reprobates are ordained to condemnation, but they are ordained thereto because of their sin.
Reprobation is not on the ground of God's foresight that man would be a sinner. If it were, all would be reprobated because God saw all men dead in trespasses and sins. Sin did not enter the world from the act of reprobation. If sin came only by reprobation, reprobates alone would have been tempted and fallen. However, Scripture teaches that Adam sinned, and all men sinned in him. Therefore, all fell in Adam (Rom. 5:12).”
The pamphlet shows what the Scriptures teach of God’s decree and of Adam’s fall, and as part of that shows problems with both the consistent supra- or infra- view of the decree. Again, W. E. Best works to be consistent in proclaiming the Scriptures, and not in lining up behind one or another man-made system of understanding.
8. He affirms "self-determination" to sin (The Most Neglected Chapter in the Bible, p138; God Forgives Sinners, p13)
W. E. Best definitely affirms this in Adam’s case, but as I stated earlier, he also affirms God’s will is immutable and carried out in His creation exactly as He plans. Is this logically tidy and consistent with human reasoning? Not if you assume personal omniscience to the degree of knowing the mechanics of Adam’s representation of mankind in the fall. But, Pastor Best’s explanation is consistent with all the Scriptures addressing the subjects, and he does not go beyond them.
9. He teaches that damnation is based off of God's "infallible foresight" (The Most Neglected Chapter in the Bible, p122) and that God merely foreknows & anticipates sin (God Forgives Sinners, p12)
10. He believes that "sin became a reality only as God's creatures perverted His will" (God Forgives Sinners, p12; and see The Relation Between God and Man's Sin, sermon preached on 6/4/2006)
The referenced sermon is at: http://www.kaoc.org/Sermons/2006-06-04%20The%20Relation%20Between%20God%20and%20Man's% 20Sin.htm.
W. E. Best is remaining consistent in his understanding of all the Scriptural teachings on the subject of God’s foresight, and I’ve included the context for Kyle’s two quotes here:
“As God foresaw that none would believe and elected some to obtain salvation, He foresaw that those He passed by would continue in sin and be punished for their sin. God appointed no man to wrath merely from His sovereignty but from the rule of justice. Positive determination is not grounded upon what God will effect but on what the creature will do through the instigation of sin. I might determine to cut down a fruitless tree and cast it into the fire before it is actually cut down. Did my determination necessitate the fruitlessness of the tree? When God passed by, He simply left those He passed by in their state of depravity to go on and continue operating in their state of depravity. But God is not the author of their depravity. Do the objections from men to such truths as election and predestination make them better theologians than Paul? Paul believed and preached these great truths, and He was inspired to write them.”
“God’s foreknowledge of the reality of oncoming sin does not make Him author of sin. Anticipated sin and actual sin, after Lucifer’s or Adam’s fall, are entirely different. Foreknowledge of sin does not indicate eternality of sin. Some believe in dualism (the principles of good and evil are coexistent). Election is not salvation itself. It is “unto” salvation. As Divine election or foreordination does not indicate one’s actual redemption, foreknowledge of sin’s occurrence does not indicate that sin is eternal.
“Sin became a reality only as God’s creatures perverted His will. It has no original substance in itself. Sin has no thesis. It has only antithesis. Since sin came by God’s creatures, it is a secondary, not primary, consideration. Conclusively, God’s foreknowledge of sin is not identical with His suffering or allowing sin.”
11. “W. E. Best also denies that there is ANY aspect of God's kingdom here now.”
That is correct. The church is not the kingdom. Numerous passages demonstrate this.
12. “He believes in a physical Israel which will be saved in the end times.”
There is a physical Israel today, by the way. The Scriptures teach in many places that a remnant of Israel will turn to God and be saved. W. E. Best has written pretty extensively about it. See his books and sermons.
13. “He is a rabid premillennialist who verbally puts amillennialists in the same boat as Arminians.”
W. E. Best is a strong premillenialist after a lot thought and study. Again, I recommend his books to you. I find the use of “rabid” to be inaccurate (since it depicts a thoughtlessness that, agree with him or not, does not characterize his study and works). It is also harsh, unbiblical, and an emotionally-charged use of a pejorative to attack the messenger in the place of the messenger’s message – an ungodly logical fallacy. He does teach the amillennial view of Scripture to be almost as warping a lens of false teaching as Arminianism is to being true to God’s word. Watching an amillennialist twist many passages clearly teaching we are not yet in the kingdom will demonstrate this to any fair observer.
14. “He has some good work, especially on the impeccability of Christ, which he is well known for.”
Agreed.
15. “Oh, and if you called him a baptist to his face, he might hit you! ...Even though he used to be one.”
He would not hit you, but given an egregious enough context he may well want to. Even then, he’d repent of the desire to accomplish by force what can only be accomplished by grace. He did lead his flock out of the Southern Baptist Convention and does not teach any associations beyond local New Testament assemblies and the universal assembly, the bride of Christ, composed of all God’s elect.
16. “The man is one of the harshest most unforgiving persons I've met in my life.”
This is absolutely untrue, and a slanderous lie. Forgiveness from W. E. Best is always quick to come with repentance. Without repentance you may get false, Arminian-style forgiveness, but what’s that worth to you? I have seen real repentance and real forgiveness from the pastor on a couple of occasions. In this instance, Kyle is certainly not repentant, so I do not understand where he is expecting forgiveness.
17. “The assembly over which he was elder is practically terrified to discuss the Lord openly for fear of saying something wrong and being called down from the pulpit.”
I’m a member and I’m not afraid of saying something wrong because I might have been called down from the pulpit or spoken to, corrected, or rebuked even, by my pastor, any other member of our assembly, or any discussing this response. I am afraid of saying something that doesn’t please my God. I treat Him and His word as holy and deserving the greatest of reverence from me. Some additional fear of God and awareness of His holiness will only help, and I pray for it for Kyle, other readers, and me especially.
“Red Beetle” also commented on these last two assertions by “melted” / Kyle, and concluded ‘Perhaos [sic] we should change the title to "Outing of W E Best"’
How do you “out” someone who freely publishes his works on the internet. If you read them seriously, I think you’ll find that even if you disagree with what he understands the Scriptures to teach, you’ll still see a serious student of and servant to the Lord Jesus Christ and all His word - “outing” not required!
18. “I thank our most gracious God that He removed us from that situation rather forcefully and in a way that greatly humbled me.”
Resistance to an evil teaching about God’s nature should be pretty forceful, but Kyle should not forget that the way God removed him is via his resignation letter after being unwilling on his part to change from focusing almost all the time he shared with our assembly on the study, teaching, and “worship” on the author of sin and cause of all evil.
19. “We have discovered another wonderful assembly in the Houston area which we are going to become members of, Lord willing (link to website).”
I hope Kyle was forthright with that assembly and their elder(s). To my knowledge, we have not been contacted by the elders there regarding the circumstances of his departure.
20. “I hope that provides you some information that you were seeking. By all means, read his books (they send them out freely still), chew up the meat and spit out the gristle.”
This is pretty good advice for studying anything; I’ll add a portion – don’t go where the Scriptures do not go for the sake of the reasoning of men.
-Craig Swain
Thank you Craig for posting. It is good to have this record of W.E. Best on these issues. I'm glad PNET was here for that.
I agree with Kyle though. Denying that God created evil is to deny His Sovereignty. Kyle, I am very proud of you for standing up for this Gospel conviction and suffering for it.
Brandan
Ditch the Garbage! - Too many people are proud of their humility - I, on the other hand, am not humble - and am proud of it!
"Luther's New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity." - A complaint by German humanist Johann Cochlaeus.
Follow me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/kraftb
Follow Predestinarian Network on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/predestinarian
Follow Predestinarian Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/predestinarian
In reviewing Craig's letter, it becomes clear to me how much we differ A LOT from SO MANY of these pastors on what constitutes sound biblical interpretation and the truth of God revealed in the scriptures. But I'm not going to respond point-by-point; each issue should be discussed separately in a thread.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Hi Craig,
Good to hear from you, thank you very much. Here are some responses:
Craig: Kyle submitted a resignation letter, he did not attend the service after he submitted it, and he did not call any of the officers of our assembly that I’m aware of to determine how it was handled. In this case, after the letter was read to the assembly, I made the motion to accept the resignation and remove him from the assembly’s membership. The motion was seconded and was passed unanimously by the men of the assembly. I erred in not including in the motion an explicit statement to withhold further fellowship from him while he persists in teaching God causes evil and is the author of sin, though I think practically that has been the case except where family ties compel some earthly fellowship.
I actually thought about attending the service, but I ended up concluding (and those I asked for advise also concluded) that this would be seen as arrogance on my part. My question has always been whether we were "handed over to Satan" (ie: excommunicated) or if we were simply removed from the local assembly's role (or is there another option?). One would think that if we were handed over to Satan that we would be informed of this by someone. Your indication that members of the assembly should not fellowship with us seems to indicate to me that it was not merely an acceptance of our asking to be removed as members, but an "unchurching" of us. If you would like to clear up to me which of these actually happened, please feel free to do it privately. And, you are right, this is the first contact outside of family members I have received from persons inside of the assembly, so you can rest easy about that.
Kyle: “He is a rabid premillennialist who verbally puts amillennialists in the same boat as Arminians.”
Craig: "I find the use of “rabid” to be inaccurate (since it depicts a thoughtlessness that, agree with him or not, does not characterize his study and works). It is also harsh, unbiblical, and an emotionally-charged use of a pejorative to attack the messenger in the place of the messenger’s message – an ungodly logical fallacy."
Of course you are right. I should learn to not use adjectives which are emotionally charged. I like your wording much more, that he is a "strong premillennialist". I have heard him put amillennialists on the same footing as Arminians though, which I believe you affirmed in your statements.
Kyle: “Oh, and if you called him a baptist to his face, he might hit you! ...Even though he used to be one.”
Craig: He would not hit you
I hope that you and any others who read that took it how I meant it, which was very tongue in cheek, of course he would not hit a person who said such a thing, though he would not appreciate it (which was the point I was making, however poorly I went about it).
Kyle: “The man is one of the harshest most unforgiving persons I've met in my life.”
Craig: This is absolutely untrue, and a slanderous lie.
It is my opinion and not a lie. Others may believe it to be incorrect, but I know what my personal impressions of Pastor Best are. If you repent to him in the way that he alone requires, yes he may be forgiving then. My personal opinions mean little though, so I should have kept that to myself in the first place. Forgive me, please.
Kyle: "The assembly over which he was elder is practically terrified to discuss the Lord openly for fear of saying something wrong and being called down from the pulpit.”
My wife and I's observation was that you talk about the weather, your family, or your illnesses when gathered together. Not once in 2 years can I recall having a serious theological discussion with anyone in that assembly, including the pastor (excluding some family members who also attend there). I recall a short discussion I had with a man who approached me following one of my few pitiful attempts to teach, and that man was bad mouthed on multiple occasions directly to me by the pastor for him having approached me to discuss my sermon. Simply approaching me after my sermon to discuss it with me caused the pastor to bring this man up to me on multiple occasions in derogatory terms. WHY?? How I LONG for people to discuss theology with me openly. Even you, Craig, indicated that you were going to send me something which detailed some reasons you did not agree with what I had taught, yet I did not receive communication about these things verbally or in writing.
The place we attend now is not like this. The Lord Jesus Christ is openly discussed after every sermon. We linger in the hallway just talking about theology. You can tell the pastor is BURNING inside for someone to start talking about theology. That is something we never experienced under Pastor Best. Maybe we just missed it all, and if that is the case then I am so sorry for having missed that wonderful fellowship with all of you in discussing our Lord Jesus Christ together.
Craig: Resistance to an evil teaching about God’s nature should be pretty forceful, but Kyle should not forget that the way God removed him is via his resignation letter after being unwilling on his part to change from focusing almost all the time he shared with our assembly on the study, teaching, and “worship” on the author of sin and cause of all evil.
I spent two years there without saying a single word on this subject. If anyone would like to, they can see the series of sermons I preached on my website and exactly how many of them dealt with this subject. One can see that this statement is inaccurate and an exaggeration.
Kyle: “We have discovered another wonderful assembly in the Houston area which we are going to become members of, Lord willing (link to website).”
Craig: I hope Kyle was forthright with that assembly and their elder(s). To my knowledge, we have not been contacted by the elders there regarding the circumstances of his departure.
I have been as forthcoming as I can with him, even providing him the option of reading the material I presented to KAOC (which I don't believe he has acted on as yet). I will indicate to him that there is concern over this from your standpoint.
Craig: "Kyle makes a nice logical jump to where the Scriptures do not go."
I will not yet respond to any of the theological points in this thread unless prompted, as these topics have been hashed out here before. I would love to discuss these things privately with you Craig, as I have indicated in the past. I am not ashamed of my position and believe that the weight of Scripture is on my side. One does not have to rely on human systems or logical conclusions for these things as Scripture is plain enough (try Isa. 63:17 for example). You referenced Isa 45:7 as the main one, yet it is but a single Scripture in a sea of evidence. God causes all things for His glory!
In Christ,
Kyle
Last edited by melted; 01-16-2007 at 08:21 PM.
Gal 6:14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
As one who has no personal knowledge of the issue and has merely perused this thread, I do object to Craig's repeated statements alluding to how "W. E. Best always has done his best to teach the Scriptures, whether what they are asserting fits well into our logical systems or not" and "the pastor’s steadfastness in holding to what the Scriptures teach and in not going beyond them to support.... (the) un-Scriptural doctrinal position of God causing sin."
It is obvious that WE Best has formed his own (human) system of theology over the years (just as any human who studies Scripture does-- whether they realize it or not) and that he has promoted that belief system to his flock. The question remains as to whether Best's 'system' truly aligns with Scripture or not--either in point or in entirety. This remains to be seen.
Yes Bob!
However we should do such a study without holding our breath in hope that we will even put a dent in the astonishing capacity of what we call "churchianity" to hold to certain beliefs and explain them with terms that for us are so "foreign" to anything that Bible has to say about the Sovereignty of God and then having to bear the suggestion that others are "going where the Bible does not go".
I really appreciate Mr. Swain's coming to us and bringing his defense of Pastor Best. It is good to know that some people still have to fire to fight for their positions and also that there is the old fashion, unfortunately lost, respect for elders in the ek-klesia left in a world of rebellion today. Mr. Swain's respect and devotion for Pastor Best is commendable!
Having said that, in discussing the core issues presented by Mr. Swain's letter, we cannot gloss over some very important details that are hidden at least in the portions of the texts he quotes from Pastor Best. Some of these terms, in my view, have been anathema to us and should continue to be so. One of them and perhaps the most serious of them is "God reacted"...
Any denomination, bible study system, congregation, theological foundation that admits in their foundation the wobbly pillar of a "god" who REACTS to what He apprehends or sees in his foreknowledge is a house built in the sand. In that one I believe here at PN we are going where the Bible leads, or "we are going where the Bible is going" and not where the Bible is not going. To assert that "God reacts to what He foresees and at the same time to say that God has a purpose" is also inconsistent in my view espcially if that is to mean that God "purposed" after He foresaw in His foreknowledge; this is terrible.
Anyway, we also have to consider explaining Mr. Swain that we have stated that the term "author of sin" is inadequate and does not do justice to what the Bible teaches in God's purpose in sin. I believe Kyle/Melted has stated this in here. Perhaps there will be a window of understanding here although this is because of my wishful thinking!
Anyway, PN has now established itself as a "fair" Web Site. We have been fair here from the start giving people all the opportunities possible to bring up their views and defend them. Now we have given an opportunity for someone to defend a man, who in the twilight of his career, afflicted of a terrible disease, cannot defend himself as he would in the prime of his health. Our accusers out there (as if I care) should take this as the biggest pie in their face when they call us one sided and close minded. I am proud of being a moderator here because of this spirit of openness.
Milt
Grace Ambassador
A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace
My pledge to other members:
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks