Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

For many years some have advocated that the alien sinner is not under law to Christ and therefore what the Lord taught on marriage, divorce and remarriage does not apply to such an alien. According to this view, the teaching of the Lord on this subject only becomes applicable to him when he enters the kingdom. How many wives he may have had and for what reason he put them away none of that matters. The “blotting out of sin” forgives all of this and grants the right for the sinner to abide in his calling and keep whatever wife he has (whether number two, three, ten or fifteen). In other words, baptism washes away wives.

It is certainly true that when God forgives the sinner he does not hold him accountable any more for the wrong done. But does baptism sanctify an unholy relationship? The Colossians had “lived” in fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness prior to their conversion (Col. 3:5). That was their state of living. Question: When they repented of their sins and were buried with Christ, did he cut off their sins? Col. 2: 11- 13 says that he did. Did he sanctify a state of fornication and the other listed sins of Col. 3:5? Did not repentance require severance from all such practices? Did baptism sanctify covetousness?

But, it is argued, these alien sinners were not subject to the law of Christ on marriage, or any other subject. There are several things wrong with this position.

(1) If the alien sinner is not subject to the law of Christ, then why preach the gospel to him? Jesus required that the gospel be preached to every creature in all the world (Mk. 16:15-16). Why do that, if they are not amenable to it?

(2) If the alien sinner is not subject to the law of Christ, then how did he get to be a sinner in the first place? Does God have two different laws in operation at the same time? Sin is a transgression of the law. But what law?

(3) This position robs repentance of its fruit. Repentance requires a change of mind which results in a change of conduct. John preached, “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance” (Matt. 3:8). According to this idea, what was adultery before baptism is no longer adultery. One of the basic issues in this whole controversy is the nature of repentance.

(4) The notion under review assumes that marriage is a church ordinance; that is,’the Lord’s will on the subject does not affect one until he becomes a member of the church. But God ordained marriage in the garden of Eden, not in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.

(5) This position soothes the consciences of those in adulterous marriages, and makes them think all is Well when they are still in adultery. It thus contributes to an already frightening disregard for the permanency of the marriage bond.

I made these specific objections to James D. Bales several years ago when he sent me a copy of his manuscript for the book Not Under Bondage and requested a critique of the material. He thanked me for my comments, made some changes in his manuscript in an attempt to strengthen his argument, and published the book anyhow.

For a number of years, my esteemed brother, Homer Hailey, has taken essentially the same position on this subject as brother Bales. For the most part, he has been content to hold his view as a private opinion and not press it in his public teaching. But he told me personally that he thought Bales “has the truth on this.” I told him I certainly did not think so. But now, our highly respected brother is openly preaching this. In a sermon of over two hours at Belen, New Mexico, he made the most definite statement of his position to date. He also stated that he had preached on it not long before that in California, all that while he had been disposed not to say much about it in the past, that he intended to be more outspoken on the matter in the future.

That is cause for alarm. No man of this generation has been held in any higher regard than he. It was my good fortune to study under him in the late 1940’s and early 19501s. Through the years since, our paths have crossed a number of times and we have spoken several times on the same meeting or lecture programs. He was a wise counselor to me at a very critical point in my life when the exciting call of show business put me in a temporary dilemma. It was he who excited my interest in the study of prophets. But he also taught me, and a host of others, not to think of men “above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). It is now time to apply that in the case of our beloved brother. What he is saying is welcomed with open arms by some who are in unscriptural marriages. They will be lulled into a false sense of security. Souls are at stake. This position is already contributing to a weakening of the moral fiber of congregations where it is advocated. There are already signs that his increased militance on the subject has emboldened some others to start circulating materials advancing this cause. The age, knowledge and experience, not to mention the fact that so many stand in awe of this good brother, only adds to the seriousness of the problem. I earnestly entreat my friend (I hope, as a father), to back off, take a good look at this position and its consequences and the potential for all-out war it portends.

It is a time to watch and pray, a time to keep our armor on and our swords sharpened and ready. (Quoted from Searching The Scriptures, September 1988).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, p. 688
November 17, 1988

By Ron Holbrook, Harry R. Osborne, Lee Stewart, Tim P. Stevens

(An advance copy of this article was sent to brother Hailey with our request that he prepare any comment or response which he would like to have published along with this article. He declined to offer anything at this time but is “more convinced now than ever before of the truth of the position I hold.”

The reader should be aware that the four authors of this article have checked and cross checked each other as to the facts recorded here. We have not contrived to make anyone appear good or bad, but have labored to be as objective as possible. Our aim is to supply the reader with accurate information and to let him reach his own conclusions about the course followed by the people involved in this matter. Above all, we urge every reader to focus his faith in the principles of truth involved rather than in the person involved [see 1 Cor. 4:6].)

Over the past few months, each of us has received a number of calls about our recent studies with brother Homer Hailey regarding the issue of Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage. Brother Hailey says that he also has received inquiries from all around the country. We have become aware of a number of stories being circulated which do not accurately present the facts. Our purpose in this article is merely to inform all who are interested with the facts. As Christians, all of us have a responsibility to halt rumors which Satan may use to injure the cause of our Lord. We have serious differences with brother Hailey’s teaching upon this matter, but we are trying to study the question in an effort to unite upon a “thus saith the Lord.”

Our respect for the good work of brother Hailey in so many areas of Bible teaching continues to be beyond our ability to express. His tireless efforts in studying and imparting the truths of God’s Word demand the thanks and admiration of every child of God. Three of us (R.H., H.R.O, & T.P.S.) have had classes under him and have stood in awe of his command of the Scripture and ability to expound upon it. It is a source of deep sorrow to all of us to find ourselves publicly differing with brother Hailey. This is not a place that we sought. Each of us would prefer not to be involved in this problem, but we feel compelled to teach that which we believe to be true when called upon to do so. We hope that we will come to see as one on this issue with brother Hailey and be able to add a hearty “Amen” to the other’s teaching.

The Background

In early March 1988, brother Harry Osborne held a meeting in Belen, New Mexico. The evening that he spoke on “The Family,” it was requested that he briefly discuss the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. The request came from some of the members who feared that one young lady, recently converted, was in an unscriptural marriage. In the sermon, Harry showed that only the innocent party in a divorce for the cause of fornication had the right granted by God to remarry while his spouse was alive (Matt. 19:9). He also taught that both alien sinners and Christians are under that same law. Under the reign of Christ, God has only one marriage law for all humanity. Therefore, if two people continued in a marriage which did not comply with Christ’s teaching (whether the marriage occurred before or after baptism), they would be living in adultery.

After the sermon, a young lady came to talk with the local preacher, Lee Stewart, and brother Osborne. She said that she was in a marriage which did not comply with Christ’s teaching since her, husband had been married twice before and was divorced for a cause other than fornication. The woman expressed her intent to put away the husband if it was necessary that she might be right with God. This conclusion was reached upon her understanding of the Scriptures involved, not by further teaching of brethren Osborne and Stewart.

The next day, a couple who had come from a liberal church told the young lady that her husband’s situation did not matter since it all happened before she was baptized. The couple cited brother Halley as teaching the same thing. (He had expressed this to them while visiting in their home during a gospel meeting he held a few months earlier at Belen in October 1987.) The last day of the meeting in March, brethren Osborne and Stewart tried to reason with them to no avail. Several times, brother Hailey’s name and influence were used in opposition to the teaching of brethren Osborne and Stewart. When brother Osborne departed Belen, he left the matter in the hands of the local brethren for them to discuss and resolve.

Presentations By Brethren Halley and Holbrook

About a week after the meeting, brother Osborne received a call from Tim Stevens who got the work started at Belen in June 1987. Tim explained that there had been much disagreement among the members over the issue. Therefore, they had decided to study it more thoroughly. They were searching only for truth. Brother Stevens said that brother Hailey was coming to Belen the next day to teach his views on the issue to the church. The meeting was arranged in lieu of a previous plan for several of the men to spend a day with brother Hailey at his home in Tucson, Arizona, to learn about his views. Brother Hailey offered to save them some money by coming to Belen where all who wanted to hear his position could do so.

In view of the impending meeting, brother Stevens and Harry discussed the advisability of having Harry come for an informal discussion so that he could defend the truth which he had only briefly taught during the recent gospel meeting. The question was how best to provide the church with a thorough presentation of both views. It was finally concluded that it might put the cause of truth at a disadvantage for a young man like brother Osborne to dispute with one of brother Hailey’s age and wisdom. Brother Hailey also expressed serious disagreement with any format which included a second speaker to review and answer his presentation.

Therefore, brother Hailey alone presented his views and answered questions in a two and one-half hour session on March 22 which was video taped with brother Hailey’s knowledge and consent. This meeting was conducted at the regular meeting place of the Rio Grande Valley church of Christ in Belen, New Mexico, with an open invitation for all the members to attend (approximately 8-10 members were present). in a straight forward manner and without rancor, brother Hailey taught that alien sinners are not amenable to the law of Christ on marriage.

Some in the audience that day immediately felt the church at Belen had been “straightened out” on this issue by brother Hailey while others felt the need for further study. Although brother Hailey meant well, there was greater confusion among some in the church than there had been before he came. Clearly, the matter was not resolved, but needed further study.

When brother Stevens first called about the meeting with brother Hailey, Harry suggested that an older man be invited to answer brother Hailey’s teaching. The brethren agreed and asked who could do such. Brother Osborne suggested Elmer Moore and he was contacted. Brother Moore was in Maryland on a meeting and was having some health problems which prevented him from going. The brethren asked for a second recommendation and Ron Halbrook was suggested. Ron agreed to the task and called brother Hailey to express his deep regret for the necessity of differing with him. Ron received a copy of the video tape of brother Hailey’s presentation from Belen, but under certain conditions. It was not to be copied or any quote from brother Hailey published until the church at Belen had written brother Hailey and supplied him a copy of the two presentations (his and Ron’s).

On March 31, Harry Osborne accompanied Ron Halbrook to Belen where Ron answered brother Hailey’s teaching. Ron’s discussion of the issue was also video taped with his knowledge and consent. This study was held at the same place and with the same invitation as the first study. In a straight forward manner and without rancor, Ron taught that God has only one marriage law for all humanity under the reign of Christ.

In a letter from the church at Belen to brother Hailey dated April 13, brother Hailey was encouraged to view the tape of the two presentations to ascertain that he had not been misrepresented or misquoted by brother Halbrook. A response from brother Hailey was requested, but none was made. Out of respect for brother Hailey and in order to give him plenty of time to respond, much restraint had been exercised in withholding the tape from circulation. When it became evident that there would be no response, the church finally decided to release the tape so that “truth may abound.”

In regards to the new work at Belen being confronted with such a difficult issue, the church has been strengthened rather than weakened. This Atustion has forced the brethren there to go to their Bibles and study. Those who have refused to study the issue further have left and reverted into liberalism once again.

Major Differences

Our differences with brother Hailey’s teaching are in three main areas. f7rst, he claims that the alien sinner is not amenable to the law on divorce and remarriage as stated by Jesus in Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 since the passages pertain only to those in the kingdom. Second, he says that 2 Corinthians 5:17 gives the new convert a totally new start in fife including the cleansing of past marnages so that God holds only the present mate to his charge. Third, he takes the position that 1 Corinthians 7:15 gives the right of remarriage to a Christian who is deserted by an unbelieving mate. These positions were all declared in detail by brother Hailey during the session at Belen, New Mexico.

Some brethren may criticize us for waiting so long to publish this report, but there is a very good reason for the delay. We have been exploring avenues for private study with brother Hailey. At one point, it appeared he would study with brother Osborne by letter, but recent communications suggest brother Hailey plans to publish a pamphlet of his views instead. Then brother R.J. Stevens talked with brother Hailey about the possibility of a few days of private study including brethren Hailey, R.J. Stevens, Marshall Patton, Ron Halbrook and Harry Osborne. We thought it was arranged and were waiting for brother Hailey to set the time, but now he says he does not plan to have the study with us. Follow-up appeals by brethren Stevens, Halbrook and Osborne have been unsuccessful. We have tried to leave no stone unturned in terms of openness, willingness to study, private efforts, patience and fairness in dealing with this matter.

An Appeal To Study

All of us need to study these issues carefully and prayerfully. Special attention needs to be given to the concept that the alien sinner is not amenable or accountable to Christ’s law regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. The seriousness of the issue can be seen from the fact that three families have left the church at Belen because of being convinced that the alien sinner is not accountable to Christ’s marriage law. Among that number is the aforementioned young lady who, at this writing, has left the church and continued to live in an adulterous marriage.

We would not wish to imply that brother Hailey is the only one teaching this view. Material authored by brother Jerry Bassett has recently been given wide distribution in the Northwest advocating the same positions taken by brother Hailey. Discussion of the issue is becoming common in many areas of the country. Tberefore, each Christian should understand the need to study the Word of God to find the truth regarding this subject.

If this issue is a matter of personal faith like the eating of meats, we must receive those who differ with us in the bonds of Christ (Rom. 14.) If this issue is a matter of divine revelation, we cannot extend the right hand of fellowship to those who go beyond the limits of the teaching of Christ (2 Jn. 9-11). Only diligent study of God’s Word will allow each individual to determine whether this issue is a matter of personal faith or of divine revelation. The four of us are convinced that the marriage law of God given through Christ applies to all men and we cannot compromise that law without losing our souls.

Various helps in studying this subject are available. Numerous articles have been written on the question in various bulletins and papers among brethren. We have found a workbook entitled And I Say Unto You. . ., by James 0. Baird, of great help in studying the problem in Bible classes. However, we must not allow ourselves to decide the truth about tins issue based upon winch preacher concludes what. We must let whatever helps we use guide us to an understanding of the text of the Scripture which is the ultimate answer to every question.

While we are saddened at the events of the past few months which have forced the issue publicly, we hope that an open and thorough investigation of the subject will result as we lovingly discuss the oracles of God. We ask for your prayers on our behalf as we attempt to discuss these differences with our beloved brother. Our trust is that God through his providence will bring good out of these efforts that his cause might be strengthened. May God grant us the wisdom to understand his will, the proper attitudes to discuss it, and the courage to obey it.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, pp. 689-691
November 17, 1988

By Steve Wolfgang

(The previous article in this series was written by Ed Harrell, it was inadvertently attributed to brother Wolfgang who submitted it for Publication.)

Footnote Joseph Franklin and J. A. Headington, The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin (St. Louis: John Bums, Publisher, 1879). pp. 304-305.

In the autumn of 1855, a meeting was held in Kentucky, called, “A Convention of Delegates from Christian Churches of Garrard, Lincoln, Casey, Mercer, and Boyle Counties, held in Danville.” After “much discussion” a constitution was “unanimously adopted.” The constitution named the organization based upon it, “The Central (Ky.) Christian Union.” The membership was to include all the preachers in those counties, one “elder” from each church, and one representative for each one hundred members of the churches. The “Union” was to receive information concerning the condition of the churches, hear any case which might be laid before it, discipline any who should “teach things tending to the injury of the churches and the cause which we plead. ” It was “to take into consideration the subject of education, both general and ministerial,” and “consider and act upon plans for Bible distribution, missionary objects, tract distribution, Sunday schools, and upon whatever else may tend to the welfare of the cause of our Divine Master.” It was also to “Cooperate with any other association of our brotherhood, whether district or State meeting, or general convention,” to which it “may appoint delegates.”

[Mr. Franklin] filed three objections, which were a few years later brought to bear upon missionary societies:

“1. A meeting for such a purpose as this is wholly unknown to the New Testament.”

“2. This meeting calls into existence a new set of officers, wholly unknown to the New Testament.”

“3. The New Testament knows nothing of meeting annually or semi-annually, in the ‘Central Christian Union.’ This is wholly a new order of things, and throws wide the gate for all kinds of mischief.”

The comment on the “Central Christian Union” concluded with the following paragraphs, expressing sentiments which he, at least, carried to an unlimited application:

“God has constituted the church the pillar and ground of the truth, and it is the duty of the church, the whole church in every place, as the only organization having any authority from God, to act for itself and do its own business. No officer in the kingdom of God, has any authority over the churches or preachers except the officers of the individual congregations. The New Testament knows no jurisdiction of any office beyond the individual congregation, except where an evangelist is building up and establishing new congregations.

“Let the churches go into such a Central Union as these brethren have, and the first difficulty that shall arise among the leading men will infuse confusion and distraction throughout all the congregations combined in it. A general division cannot take place, while the individual, congregational, and, as we are confident, the scriptural, organization prevails. Combine the churches in an association and then let some difficulty occur among the leading men, and they will sunder the churches from one side of the country to the other.”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, p. 687
November 17, 1988

By Aude McKee

Introduction:

I. Thus far we have studied in detail the origin of the following denominations:

A. Catholic Church, 606 A.D. – Rome, Italy.

B. Greek Orthodox Church, 1054 – Constantinople I (Istanbul, Turkey).

C. Lutheran Church (First Protestant Denomination), 1521 – Whittenburg, Germany.

D. Church of England (Episcopal Church in America), 1534 – England.

E. Presbyterian Church, 1540 – Geneva, Switzerland.

F. Baptist Church, 1608 – Amsterdam, Holland.

II. As churches multiply, the religious confusion becomes greater.

A. Eph. 4:4 states plainly that there is “one body” and that one body is the church (Eph. 1:22-23).

B. The church, the only church, the right church is the one revealed on the pages of the New Testament and the one to which obedient believers are added by the Lord (Acts 2:36-47).

C. The only answer to religious confusion is back to the Bible. Study the Bible, believe the Bible, obey the Bible – pay no respect to the doctrines of men (Matt. 15:9) – and each one will be exactly what God intends.

III. In this article we study the origin of another major Protestant body – the Methodist Church.

Discussion:

I. Origin of the Methodist Church.

A. During the years 1717-1719, two brothers, John and Charles Wesley, were studying at Oxford University.

1. They were the sons of a Church of England clergyman.

2. John was ordained a priest in the Church of England.

3. These young men, along with George Whitefield, began to meet together and formed a religious club.

4. They had no intention of starting a new denomination, but they were protesting the formality, coldness, indifference and ungodliness in the Church of England.

B. This group was given nicknames by other students: “Bible Moths, ” “Bible Bigots, ” and the “Holy Club.”

1. Because the members adopted strict methods of study, diet, exercise, etc., they were also dubbed “Methodists.”

2. This is the name that eventually was chosen as their official name.

C. Some historians give 1729 as the beginning. Others give 1737-1740.

1. Historical Statement, Methodist Discipline, (1908, p. 15): “In 1729, two young men in England, reading the Bible saw they could not be saved without holiness, followed after it, and incited others so to do. In 1737, they saw, likewise, that men are justified before they are sanctified; but still holiness was their object. God then thrust them out to raise a holy people. This was the rise of Methodism, as given in the words of its founders, John and Charles Wesley, of Oxford University, and Presbyters of the Church of England.”

2. “The Methodist Church is young, barely two hundred years old. It was born in 1738 when John Wesley’s heart was strangely warmed at Aldersgate, in London, England” (From a Methodist tract, The Methodist Church, by James S. Chubb).

D. In 1736, the Wesleys came to Georgia; Charles as a secretary to Gen. Oglethorpe and John as a missionary to the Indians.

1. This mission was largely unsuccessful, but on the ship John met a group of Moravians who inspired him by their piety.

2. Upon returning to London two years later he attended a Moravian service in Aldersgate St., London. Here he heard Luther’s preface to the book of Romans read.

3. Wesley said, “I felt my heart strangely warmed; I felt that I did trust in Christ, in Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.”

4. With this experience, Wesley was ready to propagate the doctrine of “faith only.”

E. As these men went out to preach, they found the pulpits of the Church of England closed to them.

1. They preached on the streets, in homes, barns, mining pits.

2. Converts to their doctrines came thick and fast.

3. In 1740, an old abandoned government building known as “the foundry” became the headquarters for the movement.

F. Prior to the Revolutionary War, the Organization invaded the colonies.

1. Methodism “Americanized” quickly and grew during the war.

2. Today the Methodist Church is divided into perhaps 15 to 20 groups, with a total membership exceeding 11,000,000 in the U.S.

II. Organization.

A. Local congregations called charges.

1. Trustees manage property interests; stewards handle finances and guide in spiritual affairs.

2. The Pastor is appointed by the Bishop at the annual conference.

B. Government invested in conference.

1. Quarterly – meets in local charge. Fixes salary of pastor; elects, church officers; sets budget; sends delegates to annual conference.

2. District – meets annually if authorized by the annual conference. Inquires into the spiritual condition, work, etc., of each charge.

3. Annual – covers a deemed geographical area. Ordains preachers; supervises pensions and relief Every 4th year elects delegates to the General Conference.

4. Jurisdictional – meets every four years. Main function, elect bishops.

5. General – meets every four years. Law making body of the Church.

III. Doctrines.

A. In 1784, the Methodist Church adopted its discipline.

1. It was an abridgement of the Episcopalian Prayer Book.

2. In the 1908 edition, p. 3, this statement is made: “Dearly beloved brethren: it is our privilege and duty to recommend most earnestly this volume to you, which contains the Doctrines and Discipline of our Church, which we believe are agreeable to the Word of God, which is the only and the sufficient rule of faith and practice. Yet the Church, in the liberty given to it by the Lord, and taught by the experience of many years, and by the study of ancient and modem Churches, has from time to time modified its Discipline in order to secure the end for which it was founded.”

3. Then on page 4: “During the period in which this work has been extending, the Church has revised and enlarged its legislation to meet the demands created by its own success.”

4. Note: If the discipline and the New Testament taught the same, the discipline could not be modified (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19; Gal. 1:9-9)!

5. An illustration of the changes in the Methodist Discipline:

a. “Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin. (M.D., 1908, p. 349).

b. “Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are heirs of life eternal. . . ” (M.D., 1948, p. 349). Note: Up until 1910, babies were born in sin and would go to hell if they died that way. Since 1910, they are bom in Christ and will go to heaven. Babies began to be born differently in 1910, according to the Methodists.

B. Baptism.

1. Three “modes,” “Let every adult person, and the parents of every child to be baptized, have the choice of either sprinkling, pouring, or immersion” (M.D., 1908, p. 349). (Read Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:4; see the meaning of the word “baptism” in the Greek.)

2. Infant baptism. “It (the Methodist Church) baptizes them (babies) in anticipation of their joining the church” (from The Beliefs of a Methodist Christian, by Clinton M. Cherry, p. 67).

a. Not a single person was ever baptized in the New Testament who did not first believe, repent, and confess faith in Christ. (See every example of conversion in the book of Acts.) b. Actually, Methodists do not know why they baptize babies since they discarded Calvin’s doctrine of inherited total depravity in 1910! c. Baptism is non-essential in Methodist doctrine. “No baptism is valid,. regardless of its mode or the ritualistic words used, unless there is repentance, forgiveness, and a new life in God for the believer” (Ibid., p. 68). (See Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:27; 1 Pet. 3:21.)

C. Salvation by faith only.

1. “Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort” (M.D., 1908, Art. IX).

2. James says (2:24) that justification is “not by faith only.” Which will you believe, James or the Methodist Discipline?

D. Instrumental music.

1. At the dedication of an organ in worship, the minister is to say, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we dedicate this organ to the praise of Almighty God” (M.D., 1948, p. 550).

2. “In the name of” means “by the authority of.” Where in the Word of God does the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit authorize the organ (or any kind of musical instrument) in the worship of the New Testament church?

3. The New Testament teaching concerning “music” is in the following verses: Matt. 26:30; Mk. 14:26; Acts 16:25; Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; Jas. 5:13.

E. Jew died to reconcile God to man.

1. “Jesus truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us” (M.D., Art. II).

2. Read 2 Cor. 5:18-21. The Bible and man-made creeds always contradict.

F. Members wear the name “Methodists.

1. No such name is authorized by Christ (see Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16).

2. Any name but Christ’s is inferior. There is salvation in no other name but Christ’s (see Acts 4:11-12; Phil. 2:9-11).

IV. Observe A Few of the Contrasts Between the Methodist Church and the Chareb of the New Testament:

Methodist Church	Church of Christ
1. Origin: England	1. Origin: Jerusalem (Acts 2)
2. Date: 1729	2. Date: 33 A.D.
3. Founder: John Wesley	3. Founder: Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18)
4. Name: Methodists	4. Name: Christians (Acts 11:26)
5. Baptism: Sprinkling and pouring	5. Baptism: burial (Col. 2:12)
6. Baptism: Infants and adults	6. Baptism: believers who have repented (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38)
7. Baptism: Non-essential	7. Baptism: Necessary to be in Christ (Gal. 3:26-27).
8. Authority: Methodist Discipline	8. Authority: God’s Word (1 Pet. 4:11)
9. Salvation: Faith only	9. Salvation: Obedience to the gospel (Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:17-18; Heb. 5:8-9)
10. Organization: One bishop ruling many churches	10. Organization: Each church had plurality of bishops (Acts 14:23; 20:27; Tit. 1:5)
11. Worship: Instrumental music	11. Worship: Singing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)

Conclusion:

1. As the Methodist Church is compared with Bible teaching, but one conclusion can be logically and faithfully reached -. the Methodist Church is not the church the Lord established. Since there is only one way to heaven (Matt. 7:13-29), and since we only have one soul and only one opportunity to prepare here on earth for eternity, our prayer is that you will determine to study the Bible, obey its truths, and be nothing more than nor less than the Word of God will make of you.

2. “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:6-9).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, pp. 678-679, 694
November 17, 1988