Articles
Methodists Angry, Calm Study Needed
[This article was published in the Brazoria County News (published in West Columbia, Texas) in two parts, November 10 & 17, 1994 in response to Kenneth Calhoun’s letter to the editor. Kenneth was the local Methodist preacher. After agreeing to debate, he backed out and the debate never occurred.]
When Robert Jackson was a Methodist, he was angered to hear his denominational error exposed by the simple truth of the gospel of Christ preached in a plain manner with love. He “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). This led him to see that the church he could read about in the Bible did not wear the Methodist name, had Christ and not Wesley as its founder, did not teach salvation by faith alone, practiced immersion and not sprinkling or pouring, sang without instrumental music, and raised money without pie suppers and rummage sales. As calm Bible study replaced blind anger, Robert Jackson obeyed the original gospel of Christ and left the Methodist Church to become a simple New Testament Christian. Speaking the truth in love, he has told his story in the article “Why I Left the Methodist Church.” After we put this article in our newspaper column, “several angry members” of the Columbia United Methodist Church complained to their preacher, Kenneth Calhoun, who responded in the newspaper. We pray calm Bible study will replace blind anger.
Someone will say, “You should preach only a positive gospel so as not to make Methodists and others angry.” The true gospel is emphatically positive in upholding truth and emphatically negative in exposing error (2 Tim. 4:2). Some people were offended and even enraged by the preaching of Christ and those who followed His example (Matt. 15:12; Jn. 5:16-18; Acts 7:54, 57; 22:22-23). True gospel preaching always results in acceptance or anger, repentance or riots, baptisms or blasphemies, conversions or controversies. Anger is caused by a lack of truth, by resisting truth, and by the inability to overcome the force of truth. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32). “Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16).
The Methodist preacher’s response means the difference between truth and error really matters. If it did not, he would have said nothing. The two views being examined cannot both be true at the same time. In a calm way without anger, let us examine the arguments of Mr. Calhoun by “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).
Is The Name Methodist Scriptural?
If the name Methodist is scriptural, we can find authority for it in the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Mr. Calhoun does not appeal to the Bible but to Shakespeare (“What is in a name....?”) and to “our critics” who originated the name. He says Saul persecuted “the people of the way (Acts 9:2),” but was that the way of Methodism or of Christ? Christ said, “I am the way” (Jn. 14:6). Since Mr. Calhoun cannot find the name Methodist authorized in the Bible, he suggests the “collective name” for God’s people does not matter because God can “raise up children to Abraham” from stones (Matt. 3:9). Actually, God gave the children of Abraham the “collective name” Israel meaning “prince of God,” and John rebuked some who failed to live up to their lineage and name (Gen. 32:28; 35:10-12; 2 Kgs. 17:34). If God had raised up children unto Abraham from stones, He would have called them Israelites and not some human name devised by their critics.
There is nothing in a manmade name, but when God gives a name and attaches some importance to it, there is something in a name! There is salvation in the name of Jesus Christ as God’s Son. “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Also, God promised that when Jews and Gentiles received the gospel, His people would “be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name” (Isa. 62:2). This prophecy was fulfilled under the inspired preaching of the Apostle Paul: “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26).
Each follower of Christ thus was to wear the name of Christ as the badge of his identity. Christians assembled collectively in each community were identified as belonging to Christ as “the churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). When some Christians began to wear human names, they were rebuked and commanded to “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you.” They were commanded to wear only the name of the one “crucified for you” and by whose authority they had been baptized. God condemned manmade names as carnal and sinful (1 Cor. 1:10-13; 3:3-4). Such names as Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon, Pentecostal, and all other manmade names in religion are carnal and sinful. Let us abandon every human name and wear the name of Christ alone.
If Mr. Calhoun were asked to defend his faith in the resurrection of Christ, he would give abundant evidence directly from the Bible. If he had such evidence for the Methodist name, he would have given it from the Bible rather than citing Shakespeare and “our critics.” We speak the truth in love when we say there is no Bible authority for the name Methodist in religion.
Who Founded The True Church: Christ or Wesley?
When Simon Peter confessed, “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus promised that upon this bedrock of truth, “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:16-18). This church is the kingdom of God which was established in Acts 2 by preaching the gospel of Christ in its original purity and simplicity. “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47).
The Apostles of Christ revealed the gospel of Christ and the church of Christ. When we preach and practice exactly what they taught, we build upon the solid foundation of Jesus Christ. “But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:10-11). Christ alone is the founder and “the head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22). The Word of God is the original seed of God’s kingdom (Lk. 8:11). That original seed made Christians only and churches of Christ after the New Testament order only.
The inspired Apostles often warned about future departures from the original pattern of teaching (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4). After the close of the first century, many steps of apostasy were taken through the centuries which led to the formation of Roman Catholicism. When the corruption of Catholicism became unbearable, efforts to reform it resulted in the formation of the Protestant denominations: Lutheran in 1520, Anglican in 1534, Presbyterian in 1536, Baptist in 1607, and Methodist in 1739. As Mr. Calhoun noticed, John Wesley tried “to reform the Church of England,” which “led to the formation of the Methodist Church.” Mr. Calhoun then surmises that “in precisely the same way Thomas and Alexander Campbell are the founders of the Church of Christ.”
No, the Campbells did not try to reform a corrupt religion and to start a new denomination, as did Wesley. Their aim was to restore the original gospel and church of Christ which we can read about in the Bible. They avoided the corruptions of Catholicism and abandoned the traditions of denominationalism to restore New Testament Christianity in its original purity and simplicity. They left behind denominational names, conventions, creeds, and dogmas and went back to the New Testament standard of teaching in all things. They sowed the original seed of the kingdom of God just as God had left it in His Word. That Word in its original purity made Christians only and organized them as churches of Christ only, and the same teaching has the same results today.
Mr. Calhoun speaks of “members of that denomination” being known as “Campbellites.” Churches of Christ today like churches of Christ in Bible days are not a denomination and accept no denominational name. When Paul taught the original gospel of Christ, he forbad men wearing his name or any other manmade name (1 Cor. 1:12-13). When men obeyed the gospel of Christ as preached by Paul, they became simply Christians and not Paulites. When people hear and obey the simple gospel of Christ today, that makes them simply Christians and not Campbellites. The name Campbellite was invented by people who were angry when the original gospel was preached and denominational error was exposed.
In short, here is the difference. Wesley’s efforts to reform the Anglican Church resulted in the formation of a new denomination, the Methodist Church. Campbell left the Presbyterian and Baptist churches in order to return to the original church of Christ about which he read in the New Testament. The church of Christ here in West Columbia is resolved to be not a denomination but the same church of Christ about which we can read in the Bible.
Is Salvation By Faith Only?
The doctrinal traditions of Methodism have long taught, “That we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.” Jesus did not teach Methodism or faith only but commanded, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16). Mr. Calhoun says that only “those who do not believe” are condemned.
The passage teaches two conditions are necessary for salvation, both faith and baptism, but only one step is necessary to be lost. He who eats and digests his food shall be healthy, but he who does not eat shall starve. Two steps are necessary to be healthy, but only one to starve. If a person does not eat, he cannot digest his food and be healthy. If a person does not believe the gospel of Christ, he cannot be baptized in order to be saved. The gospel declares the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and calls upon sinners to believe and be baptized. Those who do not believe what Jesus said about receiving salvation “shall be damned.”
Mr. Calhoun clouds the issue by briefly referring to the miracles which Jesus said would accompany the gospel (vv.17-18). Verse 20 explains that the miracles of the first century were designed to confirm the Word as a revelation from God. Once the Word was fully revealed and confirmed, the miraculous signs ceased because they had fulfilled their purpose according to the promise of God (Heb. 2:3-4; 1 Cor. 13:8-13). The miracles recorded in the New Testament confirm the truth of the gospel, including this, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
When Jesus said, “He that believeth,” he taught salvation by faith, but when he said, “and is baptized,” he taught faith must be obedient in order to save. “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (Ja. 2:24). Some people believe but do not have enough faith to obey the gospel; “the devils also believe, and tremble” (Jn. 12:42-43; Ja. 2:19). Perhaps they would find the doctrine of “faith only...very full of comfort,” but it is a perversion of the true gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:6-9). The truth cannot be answered by blind anger, but can be recognized by calm Bible study. (The next article will report on my effort to make personal contact with Mr. Calhoun for further study of these matters.)
Is There a Choice of Baptisms?
Mr. Calhoun claims the Bible gives no “exact description of how baptism was practiced,” and so he attempts to defend sprinkling as true baptism. The English word “baptize” comes from the Greek word baptizo, which is used in the New Testament and which all standard lexicons define as meaning “dip, immerse” (Arndt and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). True Bible baptism requires several things not required by sprinkling or pouring: “much water,” going down “into the water” and coming “up out of the water,” and being “buried” in water and “raised up” from it (Jn. 3:23; Acts 8:38-39; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). The “how” of baptism may involve immersing a person face forward or backward, but sprinkling and pouring are entirely different verbs signifying entirely different actions.
When Mr. Calhoun cannot find scripture to quote, he is fond of citing uninspired writers. He says Origin described “sprinkling as the method used.” Origin (185-254) lived when many apostasies were developing, including so-called clinical baptism and baptizing babies for the remission of their sins (based on the false doctrine of inherited sin). Those errors led to sprinkling and pouring. Whatever Origin may have said, his uninspired words cannot overrule the inspired Word of God (1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Mr. Calhoun claims “our Jewish ancestors...used sprinkling as the only method of baptism” long before John. Actually, the Hebrew language had distinct words for pour, dip, and sprinkle (Lev. 14:15-16). The Jews accurately translated them into the separate Greek terms epicheei (pour), bapsei (dip), and renei (sprinkle) in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible. The Jews did not confuse these three distinct terms which signify three distinct actions. A calm and careful study of the Bible will verify that sprinkling and pouring are not “modes” of Bible baptism. They are not Bible baptism at all.
Is Instrumental Music Authorized In Worship Today?
Mr. Calhoun admits that the Old Testament is filled with references to “musical instruments used in the worship of God” but the New Testament does “not mention the use of musical instruments in worship.” Calm Bible study shows that this difference is striking and significant. We do not live under the Old Testament order of worship with its animal sacrifices, Sabbath days, annual feasts, temple in Jerusalem, separated priesthood, burning incense, and musical instruments. When Christ died, he took this Old Testament order “out of the way, nailing it to his cross,” and put in its place “the New Testament” which is “a better testament” (Col. 2:14; Heb. 9:15; 7:22).
Christ as our new High Priest teaches us to worship in the New Testament by praying, singing, teaching His Word, and on the first day of the week giving of our finances and observing the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Eph. 5:19). We dare not add to God’s revealed pattern of worship lest he add unto us “the plagues that are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18). Instrumental music has been added to worship by the doctrines and commandments of men, but Christ said, “But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Some were offended and angered by this plain teaching of Christ, and even some of his own disciples complained, but Jesus answered, “Every plant, which my heavenly father hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:8-14).
After admitting that the New Testament does not mention the use of musical instruments in worship, Mr. Calhoun attempts to defend the practice by pointing to a supposed inconsistency in those who oppose it. The New Testament, he says, “does not mention fiberglass baptismal” pools. There is no inconsistency, and here is why.
Any command authorizes the details which carry out that command, while also excluding any activity which adds a new command or substitute for the original one. When Christ said, “Go...and preach the gospel,” his command authorizes but does not detail the methods of travel and of teaching which may be used (Mk. 16:15). Similarly, when the Lord commanded baptism, he authorized any details which carry out that command (such as where to provide water) but excluded any other action (such as sprinkling or pouring). When the Lord commanded singing, he authorized any details necessary to carry out that command (such as books and song leaders), but he excluded the addition of other actions (musical instruments, dancing, clapping, foot stomping, whistling, etc.). We can see the truth if our minds are not blinded by anger.
How Is The Church To Raise Money?
New Testament churches were taught by divine inspiration that Christians should give of their financial prosperity for the work of the church “upon the first day of the week” (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Thus we have positive divine authority for raising all the funds necessary to do all the work God ordained for the local church. We are told that bake sale money is often “used for specific charitable activities,” but whatever the Lord authorized the church to do can be financed in the way ordained by the Lord, and that does not include sales.
We are strictly forbidden to add anything to the Word of God on this subject or any other (Rev. 22:18). Yet, Mr. Calhoun says, “I have yet to read any admonitions against bake sales in the Bible.” Denominational error is built on the doctrines and commandments of men. When one such practice is accepted, others will follow in spite of many direct “admonitions” not to add anything to God’s Word or change His message in any way. When Mr. Calhoun defends the doctrine of the resurrection he does not say, “I have yet to read any admonitions against the doctrine of the resurrection in the Bible.” What does he do? He sets forth the passages which teach the doctrine. If he had similar passages to authorize bake sales and other denominational practices, he would have given the passages!
Judgmental, Legalistic, Pharisaic?
According to Mr. Calhoun, those who point out the errors of denominationalism are like the hypocrites condemned by Jesus for trying to remove specks from the eyes of others rather than beams from their own eyes. This alludes to Matthew 7:1-5. Jesus forbids judging others by a standard by which we are unwilling to be judged. In the same context, Jesus taught we must exercise judgment to “beware of false prophets” and to distinguish good from bad fruit (vv. 15-20). We have demonstrated the errors of denominationalism by appealing to the New Testament standard of truth, and we are willing to be judged by that same standard. What error are we teaching or practicing when we follow the New Testament standard of faith and practice, Mr. Calhoun? If the beam to which he refers is exposing the doctrines and commandments of men, Jesus and the New Testament preachers had this beam in their eyes (Matt. 15:1-14; Col. 2:20-23).
Mr. Calhoun considers it “judgmental and legalistic” to expose denominational error, but why is it not “judgmental and legalistic” for him to express that judgment? He says our opposition to his error is “a contemporary example of Pharisaic theology” which “Jesus consistently condemned” in “the religious lawgivers of his day.” Jesus said the Pharisees transgressed “the commandment of God” by “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:1-9). As the Pharisees embraced human theologies and traditions, so Methodism embraces a human name, a human founder, a human plan of salvation, a human substitute for baptism, and human additions to worship. When Jesus exposed the Pharisees, they were offended and angered at him (Matt. 15:12).
Mr. Calhoun suggests that if we love the Lord with all the heart, mind, and soul and love our neighbor as ourself, it will not matter what doctrine we teach. But he omitted what else Jesus said in the same passage: “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. 22:37-40). All of God’s Word teaches us how to follow these two great commandments. That is why it is so dangerous to violate any part of God’s Word. Mr. Calhoun says some think “it’s all about the law and not God’s grace,” but he forgets that New Testament teaching is the Word of God’s grace (Acts 20:32). When we depart from God’s Word, we depart from God’s grace.
Mr. Calhoun concluded that “if the only choices...are to become Pharisees...or leave the Methodist church, then this is one Methodist who is glad to remain a Methodist!” Remember that the Pharisees embraced the doctrines and commandments of men just as the Methodists do today. To remain a Methodist is to wear a human name, follow a human founder, seek salvation in the human doctrine of faith only, defend the human practices of sprinkling and pouring, and accept human additions to the divine order such as instrumental music and bake sales. The real choice is between remaining a Methodist with the doctrines and commandments of men, or else leaving denominationalism to become a simple New Testament Christian.
We appeal to all our readers to move beyond blind anger to calm Bible study. To provide an opportunity for such study, we propose an open forum or debate be held for two nights in the Methodist Church on the proposition, “The church of Christ is scriptural in origin, name, doctrine, and practice,” to be followed by two nights in our building on the proposition, “The Methodist Church is scriptural in origin, name, doctrine, and practice.” “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord” (Isa. 1:18).
