The Baptist Church
Glenn B. Ramsey

The Baptist church is not mentioned in the entirety of the Bible.  Not once in the 66 books of the Bible is the word Baptist applied to a church.   The only use of the term Baptist is used in describing John who was the forerunner of Jesus.  Fourteen times in Matthew-Mark the word "Baptist" is used, each time in reference to John "the immerser."  Therefore, for a brief history of the Baptist church one must go to secular history—history written by men who observed this denomination, or by men who promoted it.

Origin of the Baptist church

It is often heard among Baptists that they have no founder but Christ and that Baptists have been preaching and practicing from the days of John the Baptist.  That is true in a limited sense; there were certainly men and women holding what have come to be considered distinctly Baptist principles all across the years.  But as a church, or as organized churches, they began in Holland and England."¹

Frank Mead points out that "when the Reformation set the Bible and men free early in thesixteenth century, scattered groups appeared advocating the convictions of faith which are today the warp and woof of Baptist theology and idealogy.  We find the name Baptistin various forms in Germany and Switzerland: Pedobaptists, among whom, however, there were no 'Baptists in the modern sense,' inasmuch as they baptized infants and children; Anti-Pedobaptists, who opposed infant baptism; and Anabaptists, who rebaptized adults once baptized as children.  The Anabaptists were the left wing of the Reformation and held to a literal application of the word of God in social matters; they were communistic and pacifistic, opposing capital punishment, oaths in court, the holding of public office, and the payment of taxes and interest.  They rejected infant baptism as unscriptural, insisted on the separation of church and state, and defended this belief historically and to the point of fanaticism and martyrdom." (Handbook of Denominations in the United States, page 33.)

The Mennonites (from Holland) followed their leader, Menno Simons, and taught that the Scriptures were the sole authority for man's faith and practice, that baptism was a believer's privilege (they believed one was saved WHEN he believed and BEFORE he was baptized), that church and state were forever separated and that church discipline should rigidly be enforced in business, family and personal affairs. (Ibid, p. 33).

A little group of British Separatists had taken refuge in Amsterdam from the religious persecution under James I. One of their leaders, John Smythe, was completely captured by the Mennonite argument.  He rebaptized himself and his followers in the Anabaptist, or Baptist faith and with them organized the first English Baptist church in 1609.  He tried to make Mennonites out of them.  They refused and he was excommunicated, and died in 1612.  When the persecution waned, John Smythe's people drifted back across the Channel and established yet another Baptist church in London.

These first two Baptist churches were General Baptists, believing in a general atonement for all men.  Later the Particular Baptist church began, holding to the predestination teaching of John Calvin and preaching a "limited atonement."  The first Particular (British) church dates to 1638.

Three years after their founding, a third body, known as Immersion Baptists, broke away and in 1644 wrote a confession of faith which is still held by many modern Baptists.  It was this confession (creed) that stamped these people popularly for the first time as Baptists.

Time and space forbids our discussion of all the MAJOR Baptist churches and their various Associations.  We list them to show the extent of their divergent views:

Southern Baptist Convention, American Baptist Association, Bethel Baptist Assembly, Inc. (Evansville, Indiana), Christian Unity Baptist Association (North Carolina), Conservative Baptist Association of America, Duck River (and Kindred) Associations of Baptists (Baptist Church of Christ) in Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Free Will Baptists (from Welsh background—settled on a grant of land in Pennsylvania known as the Welsh Tract (1701) then settled in the South in 1727 by Paul Palmer and in the North in 1787 by Benjamin Randall, General Baptists, General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc. General Six-Principle Baptists, Independent Baptist Church of America, Landmark Baptists, National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A., National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.S. (Formerly called Colored Primitive Baptists), North American Baptist Association, North American Baptist General Conference, Primitive Baptists, Regular Baptists, Separate Baptists in Christ (General Association of Separate Baptists), Seventh Day Baptists, Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists (Two seed entered the life stream of humanity in the Garden of Eden.  One seed was good, planted by God; the other was evil, from the devil.  The two seeds have been in conflict in humanity ever since.  Every baby is predestined, born with one seed or the other.  Nothing can be done for him one way or another.  Inasmuch as nothing can be done, missions are useless; they are, moreover, an institution which "usurps the privileges of God."  The seed is in the spirit, not in the flesh; this is the cardinal point of the group.), United Baptists, United Free Will Baptist Church.²

Teachings of the Baptist Church

Salvation by "grace."  "The salvation of sinners is wholly of grace, through the mediatorial office of the Son of God who by the Holy Spirit was born of the Virgin Mary and took upon him our nature, yet without sin; honored the divine law by his personal obedience, and made atonement for our sins by his death.³   This is a mere assertion.  No Scripture supports this view.

Spiritual Regeneration through the Holy Spirit.  "Regeneration or the new birth is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit, whereby we become partakers of the divine nature and a holy disposition is given, leading to the love and practice of righteousness."⁴  Baptists believe that this spiritual regeneration comes in addition to, or separate and apart from, the teaching of the Word of God.

"Baptists believe that the mysterious thing called spiritual life is given to every penitent sinner who trusts himself to the mercy of God in Christ Jesus.  With Baptists regeneration does not mean reformation.  It means a new creation within.  We cannot explain it (John 3:8).  We believe that such a person is a child of God in a very real sense.  Regeneration comes not from man but from the Holy Spirit ... we utterly dissociate it from good works or human effort.  All the good works of a Christian, which are acceptable to God, are the RESULT of the new birth and follow it as AN EFFECT."⁵  Thus, Baptists who get their name from "baptism" reject "Perseverance of the Saints."  "We do not believe that all who PROFESS to be Christians will go to heaven, but that all who are ACTUALLY BORN AGAIN will go there.  Good works are evidences of the new birth; but bad lives indicate the lack of regeneration."⁶  "All real believers endure to the end.  Their continuance in well-doing is a mark which distinguishes them from mere professors.  A special Providence cares for them, and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation."⁷ Baptists do not believe Galatians 5:4.

Baptism.  "There were two ordinances in New Testament churches.  They were baptism and the Lord's Supper  (Baptists believe in 'closed communion' or 'restricted communion').... They, like all the ordinances of the Old Testament, are symbolical and teach by the manner of their administration.  They are declarative and not procurative.  All  the baptisms of all the ages of the world could not blot out the least sin.  This is true because the New Testament says, "The Blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin" (I John 1:7)."⁸  Baptists do not believe Acts 2:38, I Pet. 3:21, Acts 22:16, etc.

"Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  The act IS A SYMBOL of our faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour.  It is prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation and the Lord's Supper, in which members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ."⁹  So one has to be baptized to get into the Baptist Church, but he does not have to be baptized to get  to heaven!

Premillennialism. "...And it is the duty of all Christ's people to pray and labor continually that his Kingdom may come and his will be done on earth as it is done in heaven."¹⁰ Baptists do not believe that the kingdom is now here—in the form of the church (See Colossians 1:13, etc.)

Predestination.  Some Baptists believe that one is predestined to either go to heaven or to hell and that one cannot do anything that changes that destiny.

Total Depravity.  Some Baptists believe that one is born in sin.  Thus, they contend, it takes an act of God (by the Holy Spirit) to bring one out of this state.

A faithful Christian cannot believe any such false doctrine.  A faithful Christian cannot fellowship anyone who upholds false teachings.

ENDNOTES
¹Mead, Frank S. Handbook of Denominations in the United States, (Fourth Edition) 1965, p. 33.
²Ibid., Mead, pp. 34-53.
³Ibid, Mead, p. 30
⁴Ibid, Mead, p.31
⁵Ibid, Mead, p. 45
⁶McConnell, D.D.McConnell's Manual for Baptist Churches,   The Judson Press, Philadelphia, 1926.  p. 46.
⁷Op. Cit. McConnell, p. 33.
⁸Ibid, p. 48
⁹Ibid, p. 34
¹⁰Ibid, p. 41.

Editorial

I want to thank brother Kent Bailey for writing about me in the May 2004 issue of Contending For The Faith.  This gives me a chance to deal with him so that others can see where I am in the faith and where he is with reference to where he thinks I am.  I have been waiting for this type of thing to happen for a long time but have been unable to get this type of action going.  It has been practically impossible to get the Gospel Advocate, the Firm Foundation, and other smaller papers to deal with Christian fellowship--where it starts, what it is, and when it should be cut off.  They refuse to deal with it because they have disobeyed God in the matter and they know it.  They know well that they condemn themselves when they teach the truth on the matter.

And where has Alan Highers and The Spiritual Sword been when it comes to dealing with the total issue of Christian fellowship?  And what about William Woodson, Tom Holland, Windell Winkler, Wayne Jackson, Dr. Bert Thompson, Phil Sanders, Jerry Jenkins, David Pharr, Gary McDade, Dan Jenkins, Hugh Fulford, David Sain, Paul Sain, and a host of others been when it comes to dealing impartially with the total issue of Christian fellowship?  Brother Kent Bailey's action needs one more step added to it and that is public discussion on Christian fellowship.

There is one big hindrance, if not the largest hindrance, that has kept the preachers, elders, deacons, teachers and church members from dealing totally and completely with Christian fellowship and that is flesh and blood.  There is hardly a family that is not touched with the liberalism and digression in the church today.  I know of several preachers' children and grandchildren who have gone into liberalism and some into extreme liberalism.  So aunts and uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters, elders, deacons, and church members have blocked the battle against the onslaught of liberalism.  We may preach loud and long that God is to be loved and supreme in our lives but to live it is something else (Matt. 10:35-39; Matt. 22:37-39).

Back to Kent Bailey and his article in Contending For The Faith May 2004 issue.  He is so far out in left field it is deplorable.  (1)  Brother Bailey says he takes issue with me and what I said but never cites what I said and where it can be found.  (2)  I have never taught that it takes more than the word of God to convict and convert the alien sinner.  Please cite this from my writings, brother Bailey.  This is trifling business when preachers will do a thing like this.  (3)  Bailey cites Ben M. Bogard and for what reason I know not.  All Baptist preachers are wrong on the plan of salvation to my knowledge.  (4)  Deity does work in forgiving the alien sinner when the sinner obeys the gospel and it is direct forgiveness.  How could it be indirect forgiveness brother Bailey, and why would it need to be indirect forgiveness? (5) Bailey then mentions Glenn Jobe, Mac Deaver, and the late Bob Berard and says they believed in the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  I am not going to get into a semantics problem.  I know that Jobe and Deaver do not believe in miracles today.  (6) Brother Kent Bailey mentions my debating Mac Deaver or Glenn Jobe.  No, I want to debate you, brother Bailey on Christian fellowship.    I say you have sinned and have practiced open fellowship.  Now brethren, let us see how much backbone brother Bailey has.  Please write him or phone him and encourage him to meet me in a public discussion on Christian fellowship.  Reverse the order and see if I would debate him if he said I had  sinned in Christian fellowship.  I plead with him to meet me in a public debate on Christian fellowship.  (7)  I could not believe my eyes when I read that Kent Bailey said the issue about the Holy Spirit is not about the mode and manner as to how the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian.  Then why all the fuss?  If someone believes in miracles today, then we need to say  whoa, and come back to the Bible.  But if one believes the Holy Spirit personally indwells him today in his very person, why have a big fuss going about this?  Make no mistake about it, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a Christian is connected to prayer and providence.  If the Holy Spirit could work in divine providence without it being a miracle, then why could He not work in a Christian today and it not be a miracle?  If God can answer the prayer of a Christian through the Holy Spirit without it being a miracle, then why cannot God work in the Christian without it being a miracle?

Some have tried to catch me in inconsistencies relative to Christian fellowship.  In every stage of the fellowship movement for the past 25 or 30 years I have done my best to do as the Bible teaches on fellowship.  Brother Kent Bailey has made the same mistake others have made along this line.  He brings up brother Herb Alsup of Woodbury, Tennessee, and gets after me for using him on the Tennessee Bible College lectures.  You see, brother Kent does not know all that goes on at Tennessee Bible College.  I talked with Herb before the lectures about several things and he was willing to meet with his opposers but they did not want to meet with him.  Brethren, if we are going to accuse a man we should be willing to do so in his presence and this includes all men.  Bailey said brother Herb endorses the concept of Easter Sunday.  Herb denies this.  Call him and see.  Kent said that Herb endorsed the Nashville Jubilee.  Herb denies this. He says he never announced nor attended a single session.  Call him and see.  He is a friend with Paul Rogers and he and Paul have talked but I will let Herb tell you about that.  Brother Bailey was wrong on all three of these accusations.  If you can have confidence in this kind of man and this kind of activity, then go to it, but I cannot.

I am greatly opposed to religious politics and have been all of my life.  Showing partiality is an abomination to Almighty God (James 2:1-9).  Believe me when I tell you Kent Bailey knows about church politics.  If I started a religious journal and called it Brotherhood Gossip, I would want Kent Bailey to be the editor!
--Malcolm L. Hill

The Catholic Church
Kerry Duke

A group of us from Tennessee Bible College recently went to London to study church history.  One day we saw an old Catholic church building and decided to go inside.  What we saw was a shocking reminder of what Catholicism is all about.  Just inside the front door was a large bowl of "holy water."  We watched as Catholics dipped their fingers in the bowl and then made the sign of the cross on their chest and forehead.  As we walked into the main auditorium, we noticed a large statue of the apostle Peter.  People lined up to the statue to bow before it, do the cross sign, then kiss the foot of the statue!  How ironic!  When Cornelius fell down at the feet of Peter to worship him, Peter said, "Stand up; I myself also am a man" (Acts 10:25-26)!  As we walked through the building, the same symbolism was everywhere.  Catholics were lighting candles, holding rosary beads, and praying to Mary or to one of the "saints."

This ceremonialism is just a small part of the Catholic religion.  Catholics observe mass, baptize babies and burn incense in worship.  They teach doctrines such as purgatory, transubstantiation, last rites and many other unscriptural ideas.  They have a government in which the pope, cardinals, and bishops direct the Catholic church.  Catholicism is a religion full of legends and corruption.

Where is Bible authority for these things?  To understand the inconsistency of Protestant denominationalism and the nature and direction of the liberal movement in churches of  Christ, you must understand the Catholic view of this question.  In the end, Protestants and liberal churches of Christ have the same attitude about Bible authority as Catholics.  They just apply it differently.  That view is that if the Bible does not specifically forbid a thing, then that thing may be permissable.  In Catholicism, the Catholic church decides whether it is permissable.  In Protestantism and liberal churches of Christ, the individual decides whether it is permissable.  Yet neither group feels comfortable with the view itself, for they all claim to have a divine stamp of approval for what they do.  Catholics argue that although they don't have positive authority from the Bible for many of the things they do, they still have "divine" authority from tradition and from the Pope and bishops.  Protestants and liberal churches of Christ say they don't have and don't need Bible authority for some things they do, yet they claim they do have divine approval from the Holy Spirit.  If there is nothing wrong with doing things that are not specifically condemned in the Bible, then why look for divine permission from another source?

Catholics take the principle "if a thing is not specifically prohibited, it is lawful" to its logical end.  The only limits they have to this idea are those the Catholic magisterium imposes on them.  Protestants are more selective in applying it.  They do not accept the office of the pope for which there is no Bible authority, but they have state boards, denominational headquarters, and conventions for which there is no Bible authority.  They do not observe mass and burn incense in worship, but they use instrumental music in worship; yet there is no more Bible authority for one of these than there is for the others.

But Protestants at one time tried to be consistent in rejecting the Catholic view of authority as it applied to instrumental music in worship, and a few today hold that its use is sinful though it is not specifically condemned in the New Testament.  A book written by a member of the Church of England in 1698 protested an organ being placed in one of the congregations:

"Mr. Baxter's fourth argument is this.  No scripture forbiddeth it, therefore it is not unlawful.  This argument as made use of by some men, has frequently been encountered and foiled. (1) If he means that no scripture does expressly forbid it, and from thence concludes it lawful; then will it follow that whatever things the scripture does not expressly forbid may lawfully be used in the worship of God. Which allowed will be a very fair plea for a multitude of popish ceremonies.  Then holy water, crucifixes, altars, oyl, salt and cream in baptism may be harmlessly used.  For the sacred scriptures do not any where expressly caution against them.  Upon this pretence, how many things might be introduced into the Christian worship?" (A. Baldwin, A Letter To A Friend, p. 5).

James Begg, a Reformed Presbyterian, wrote in 1875 against the Catholic view of authority which many of his fellow Presbyterians were beginning to endorse:

"...many things, as crossing in baptism, kneeling at communion, even the mass itself, are not expressly 'prohibited' in Scripture, and yet are manifestly inconsistent with the purity of divine worship" (Anarchy In Worship, p. 7).

Begg went on to say that "pretended priests, altars, altar-cloths, incense, symbolical vestments, or instrumental music are entirely without divine warrant, and therefore unlawful" (p. 13).

Liberal churches of Christ use the same reasoning Catholics have used for centuries.  When asked why they have solos, baby dedications, and Christmas plays in the worship assembly, their reply is that the Scriptures don't specifically forbid these things, so they are free to do them.  They have no consistent reason to reject the pope, the mass, or any of the other innovations of the Roman Catholic Church.  In fact, some of the brethren are moving more toward the symbolism and ceremonialism of Catholicism.  The Abilene Christian University guidelines for chapel services mention "pastoral prayer" and suggest structuring the theme for chapel services around "the liturgical season" (ACU website).  ACU is also stressing art in spiritual development.  At the 2004 lectures, artwork was displayed "to open our eyes to the biblical world" (Lectureship Book, p. 6).

There are only two ways of looking at the matter of authority.  There is the Catholic way, which has been kept by Protestants and adopted by liberal churches of Christ.  Then there is the Bible view stated by Paul in Colossians 3:17: "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."

Please Remove
Malcolm L. Hill

Never has the request been greater from members of the church of Christ to receive the Living Oracles.  We have over four thousand names and addresses to send the Living Oracles to, but we are at this time unable to bear the expenses.  We keep moving up little by little in sending the Living Oracles out, so in due process of time maybe we will be able to fulfill all requests for the journal.

But not everyone wants to receive the Living Oracles and we understand this even though we may not agree with them as to why.  We received a letter from Southwest School of Biblical Studies dated June 14, 2004, that says: "Dear Brethren: Please remove the following name from the mailing list for Living Oracles:
10
Southwest School of Biblical Studies
Library
8900 Manchaca Rd
Austin TX 78748"

I called and asked them if they received the Christian Chronicle and they said they did.  It is rather strange to me that brother Joe Meador can receive the Christian Chronicle, one of the most liberal papers ever, but he refuses to receive the Living Oracles with which he cannot find one scriptural fault.

We distribute all religious journals to our students at Tennessee Bible College, even those that call our names and write against us.  Truth has nothing to fear and students need to be exposed to all sides of an issue at the proper time and in the proper way.  Maybe brother Joe Meador feels led to select the materials the students at Southwest School of Biblical Studies read.  Does he permit them to watch and listen to denominational preachers on TV and radio or does he forbid this as well for fear they might be misled?  Does he have denominational volumes in the library at Southwest or are all the books in their library written by faithful Christians?

I take no personal offense to brother Joseph Meador and Southwest School of Biblical Studies asking us not to send them the Living Oracles.  This saves us money and we can send the journal to others who have been waiting to receive it.  The thing that bothers me is such a narrow view or attitude some brethren have with anything they differ.  The church of Christ has so many splinter groups and so much religious politics in it at the present that it is deplorable.  Many of our brethren who preach against denominationalism are just as denominational as can be in practice. They have the view, "you either join our group or you are out."  They compass land and sea to make a proselyte to their religious club or party (Matt. 23:15; Gal. 6:12).

I have been asked many times if the church has always been like it is today when it comes to religious politics and party spirit.  I suppose it has been but maybe not to the extent it is at the present.  Truth always prevails and sooner or later things will change in the church for the better.

The Methodist Church
David Hill

The Methodist movement began with two brothers, Charles and John Wesley, sent by the Church of England as missionaries to the American Colony of Georgia in 1736.  Their work was not considered successful and they returned discouraged and disappointed.  They claimed to have a religious experience in 1738 that changed everything for them.  Methodist history records this as the beginning  of Methodism and a movement definitely did grow and develop beginning in the Church of England and eventually being realized as a new denomination, the Methodist Episcopal Church.  The first conference of Methodist ministers was held in 1773 in Philadelphia.  The first publication of the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal church was in 1785.  It was accepted as the official creed of the church in 1792.  One may observe the development of the Methodist church and the development of the United States of America happened at about the same time, therefore American history records the influence of the Methodist church on the infant nation.  As you drive through historic sites around the US. it is very common to observe old Methodist meeting houses still preserved and now recognized as historic buildings.

It is interesting to note that the development of the Methodist church in character, nature, and practice is in contrast to most Methodist Churches today.  Fiery evangelists characterized the early days and so-called religious experiences would be observed as Pentecostal or charismatic by today's society.  The early development of this denomination in the U.S. was by so-called lay people (untrained preachers/teachers).  That is not to say that all were untrained, as several of the early prominent evangelists were indeed highly educated men who were very well spoken and even used their education and position to educate the public in reading, writing and arithmetic. Historical Firsts For Women (www.gcah.org/women_ministry.shtml) records the first female "licensed to preach" as Margaret Newton Van Cott in 1869.  She told the pastor of Duane Street Methodist Episcopal Church, "I believe my tongue is my own, John, and I will use it when I please, where I please, and as I please."  Perhaps no truer words were ever spoken by a woman and it is obvious that neither God nor man could get a word in edgewise. By the way, she said the above with her husband also present.  So, a number of things could be observed related to this account, but it adds to a long list of things that have been practiced in the Methodist church which are not authorized by the New Testament.  The contrast today is stark in that the Methodists are not considered fiery; they are most often considered far from charismatic and many now deny the Deity of Christ, miracles, etc.  As long ago as the early 1900s, the Methodists were openly challenging the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and were ashamed of the blood of Jesus.  The late brother Claude B. Holcomb, who was converted out of the Methodist church, wrote, "The blood of Christ shocks their cultured sensibilities, so they do not preach salvation through his blood, but flatly deny the fact of his substitutionary atonement."  (Why I Left The Methodist Church  by Campbell and Caskey, pg. 109).  In more recent years the Methodists have acted on their disbelief and removed songs referring to the blood of Christ from their hymnals.  There's quite a contrast from their beginnings to today.

Methodism, like many denominations, has divided through the years over beliefs and practices.  The most recent, prominent division or as they describe it, merger, formed the United Methodist Church in 1968.  The UMC is one of the largest denominations in the U.S. with 10 million members.  They continue to adhere to Methodism and the Discipline.  They have an ecclesiastical system with a Counsel or College of Bishops who are the highest authority in the church.  They of course practice the pastor, lay system and the use of dance, instruments, bells and most anything else is now accepted as valid expression of worship and praise to God.  Just like the creed and the hierarchal system of government they are not concerned with need for Biblical authority in practice or in worship. Homosexuality has been permitted even among those serving as pastors, and was recently permitted by one of their women pastors in Washington State (UMC.org) receiving a lot of press at the time. Honesty and consistency of reason would lead one to conclude that literally anything could be possible with Methodism since Bible authority is rejected as needed by this group.

While the contrast between then and now has already been observed, current trends in religion are moving some in the UMC back toward their roots.  The newspaper, The Charlotte World, Charlotte, North Carolina, reported on page 8, April 11, 2003, that the Concord United Methodist Church was returning to a more "Pentecostal/Charismatic" worship which has taken the day in religion in recent years.  In the same article by Gary D. Harwood, it is reported that the UMC has lost 48% of its members in the last 50 years compared to a 260% growth rate of the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) and a 371% growth rate for the Assemblies of God.  The Administrative Pastor at Concord, Craig Luper, said he "believes Methodists can learn from Pentecostal and Charismatic churches."

The practice of Methodists has always been an open expression of one's belief in Christ for salvation.  Eternal security of the believer (once saved, always saved) is connected and baptism which can be sprinkling, pouring or immersion as an outward sign of obedience and a ritual for membership in the Methodist church.  What is the answer to Methodism?  The answer is to go back to the Bible.  Why carry the Bible under your arm into a church building if you're not going to follow it?  God would have all to be one (I Cor. 1:10), and if we would be one as Jesus prayed (John 17), then we all must read and follow the word of God (II Tim. 2:15, 3:16-17).  Methodism started wrong (man made) and their practice is and has always been wrong.  Why not remove the teachings of  Charles and John Wesley and listen to the pure words of truth straight from the Bible and the New Testament in specific?  The pure gospel of Christ will never make a believer a Methodist, but has the power to save and is the only power to save.  God sent his beloved Son for all mankind.  Let's hear Him (Matt. 17:5).

The Presbyterian Church
Ronald D. Gilbert

There are about nine different denominations in the USA all wearing the name of variations of the name Presbyterians.  The teachings of John Calvin and John Knox are primarily responsible for the establishment of the Presbyterian church.  During the 1600's, Presbyterians through the influence of Oliver Cromwell dominated the British government.  They began between 1534 and 1560 during the Protestant Reformation in France and Switzerland.  The First Presbyterian Church in America was founded in Philadelphia in 1706. In a General Synod in 1729, Presbyterians adopted the Westminister Confession of Faith together with the larger and the shorter catechism.  Presbyterians began to produce trained ministers.  The College of New Jersey which later became Princeton University played an important role in the history of the Presbyterian church.  This past March, David Hill and I, while on a survey trip visiting churches of Christ in New Jersey, visited the campus of Princeton University.  While there we requested a catalog for the Theological Seminary.  The office secretary informed us that they were not connected with the Theological Seminary.  They seemed to be trying to distance themselves from religion.  Another interesting discovery while we were at the campus of Princeton University was a sign on the gate of the Theological Seminary.  The sign reads, "The oldest Presbyterian graduate school of theology in the United States, the Princeton Theological Seminary was founded by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church.  Three students were present when the school opened on August 12, 1812.  Until the first building was completed in 1817, classes met in faculty homes and in facilities of the College of New Jersey, now Princeton University."  We at TBC are often asked, "How many students do you have?"  Sometimes one is tempted to reply by asking back, "How many do you have to have?"

In 1861, they divided over slavery.  In 1983 the two branches reunited to form the Presbyterian Church in the USA.  They have more than 3 million members.  In 1936 the northern body divided over liberalism.  J. Gresham Machen led the opposition to those who denied the virgin birth of Christ and they also denied the inspiration of the Bible.  This is the same J. Gresham Machen who wrote New Testament Greek For Beginners.

Presbyterians are traditionally very involved in Calvinism.  The five basic point of Calvinism include: total hereditary  depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of saints.

Consider some of their doctrines as stated in the Westminster confession.  "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where and how he pleaseth.  So also are all other persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" (Chapter X, Article III).  "God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."  (Chapter III Article I) "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death" (Chapter III Article III).  "These angels and men, thus predestinated  and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished." (Chapter III Article IV).  "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the lone instrument of justification yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love" (Chapter XI Article II)."Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary, but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person."  (Chapter XXVIII Article III).  "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." (Chapter XXVIII Article IV). Speaking on the subject of Baptism the Westminster confession further states:  "Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." (Chapter XXVIII Article V).

The Presbyterian Church is not the church one reads about in the New Testament.  They teach many things contrary to the doctrine of Christ.  It amazes me to see some of our brethren teaching that the church can accept Presbyterians into fellowship as they move their membership to the Lord's church.  The Lord's church cannot fellowship man made religions and religious error.