Analysis of Wilbern Elias Best
by Pastor David Cox
Wilbern Elias Best, according to the biography note on their website was the pastor of Kingwood Assembly of Christ, which has apparently disbanded. http://www.kaoc.org/
This group is not very easy to pin down as to their specific history and beliefs. There are other churches using the “Assembly of Christ” “handle”, and basically they all appear to be within or a branch off of the “Church of Christ” who insist that churches should have no name. The Church of Christ particular viewpoint is sound on many doctrinal points, and their chief “aberation” would be on the place and importance of baptism, which probably the majority of the group would demand a water baptism before or as a condition of a person being saved. Having talked to Church of Christ people, I recognize the fact that within their own pastors and “theologians”, there are many who argue right strongly just the opposite. They insist that water baptism is very necessary in obedience to Christ, and it should be as soon as the person is saved as possible.
My evaluation of Best is that he does not lean towards the Church of Christ as much as towards a Reformed-Calvinistic viewpoint in his writings, but I haven’t read his writings extensively.
Best is pretty much identified in his books as being Reformed-Calvinist. His teaching on election is pretty much down the line Calvinist. As with all true Calvinists, he believes that salvation is totally on God’s side, with man’s inability (Total Depravity) preventing ANYTHING within man that would in any way affect God’s grace towards that person.
In Justification by Faith, Chapter 1. Introduction, he states…
“(9) Saving faith is not a prerequisite to election, justification before God, or regeneration.”
In the same book, Chapter 2. The Author of Saving Faith
The synergistic (cooperative) theory of regeneration is heresy. Two persons cannot cooperate unless they are equal in rank and occupy the same relative position. Therefore, God and the sinner can never work together in either the purposing, purchasing, or applying of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. How can the sinner assist God in a re-creative work? The law which governs the association of antecedents and consequents prohibits the introduction into the process of regeneration a means different in nature from the antecedent. Thus, a noncreative means cannot be associated creatively with a creative antecedent. That means a sinner cannot be associated with God in the application of salvation. God justified the elect sinner on the basis of His own faith, assurance, and confidence in the work of His Son (Rom. 8:33).
So according to Best’s conception of God, two persons who work together (a synergy) cannot work together unless their are completely equal. This statement is just false. When a poor person comes to a king to beg help, the asking of the poor is a working with the king’s wisdom, power, and resources. We should never confuse such a thing into thinking that the poor man does the work, the King does with his person. But there is no basis nor truth in demanding that two persons in a synergy be equal.
Moreover, Best understands salvation as being the faith of God in his own Son. This is clearly nowhere established in relation to a single human being. It is not the faith God in Christ that saved David, or Peter or Paul. This is ridiculous, and because the Bible consistently lays faith and repentance as actions which the unsaved sinner does, and justification, sanctification, etc are actions which God does in response to the sinner’s “saving faith” and repentance, Best and the Calvinist position cannot cope with the truth of Scripture and have to work their way around this great obstacle to their false doctrine. Note that it is to redefine faith to mean that faith is God’s action. Jesus being lifted up on the cross CAUSES faith in others, but the person responsible for that faith is each and every person possessing it, and the faith is not “God’s position” somehow in that person. This breaks the Scripture presentation of faith.
I would question their position on water baptism, which I will study as I get time to see if I can find a clear positional statement (for water baptism as necessary for salvation or as being only an act of obedience, and not necessary for salvation). If anybody has found such a point, please post a comment on this page and I will add the quote to clarify this point.
Are we a country of Laws? Are we a country of Laws? Is an examination of the question of we are a country of laws, and nobody is above the law, and what is really happening in our country. This is an opinion piece written in light of the news of the day. Topics: The Greatness of the United States of America | "Nobody is above the Law" | Comparisons | Defund the Police | No one is above the law | What one would ask for...
Excerpts from the article...
I say "for a person to have a right walk before God" meaning that what you personally do is acceptable in a level of being fair and just both what you do to others, and in the context of what others do to you. You only have a claim of somebody doing something "wrong" in a moral context, and this moral context has to begin with God's existence and God's laws over us before you get to what happens in a court of law in a country, state, county, or city.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
This verse fully backs up this concept. To "please God" who is the Judge... The concept of "rewarder" is somebody that looks at actions and gives a reward or a punishment. This is ultimately God's task, and earthly judges must also answer to God, as those in their courts have to answer to that earthly judge. We posit God "must believe that he is" means they must accept the authority and controls (of blessing or curse, of reward or punishment) from the Judge. He exists. He has a forceful interaction with our lives.
The system that is built on this is a system where one person doesn't get anything different from another. Are there abuses? Yea, but life is full of injustices. But taking something from one person to give to another person is not the answer here especially when the person you are taking away things from really hasn't done anything wrong. Black people (Asians, etc.) need to enter shoulder to shoulder with every other person on an equal ground, and they need to compete. That is life. If they of their own merit and effort get ahead, so be it. But nobody owes them a living. Reparations are the opposite of this.
Read the article: Are we a country of Laws?