Truth Magazine

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

By Dennis C. Abernathy

“. . .and whoso marrieth her which is’put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). I have, heard some say that the “whoever” con marry “her which is put away” and not commit adultery in so doing, if the “one put away” changes his state (that is, the y change from a put away one to the one who puts away). How is this accomplished? Follow me carefully. The one who initially did the putting away” later marries, thus, committing fornication. Thus, the first “put away” one now becomes the party who can “put away” the one who has already put them away. We are told that if this is not the case then the “innocent party” (the put away one) has no recourse or is punished unjustly (by being unable to remarry).

But just suppose the one who did the initial putting away did not remarry, would the “put away,” one have any recourse? Would they be punished unjustly (by being unable to remarry)?

Read Matthew 19:9. Do you see two “putting aways” in the verse? Do you see a civil putting away for causes other than fornication and also a mental putting away (in the mind before God alone)? Do you honestly see that in Matthew 19:9?

If this is correct exegesis and reasoning, will the same reasoning apply with regard to marriage itself? Can a couple “mentally” marry (in the mind before God alone)?

Brethren, please be careful. The Scriptures say that whoever marries a put away one commits adultery, but some tell us that whoever marries a put away one does not commit adultery! You must decide.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, p. 691
November 17, 1988

By Don Givens

You, says Paul, have not learned Christ in such a way! You are completely different from the pagan world. You are salt, and light. There is a clear and definite line of demarcation between the church and the world. Are we showing that difference?

Our Lord Jesus Christ could mix with publicans and sinners . . . but he was never mistaken for one of them!

We are not at home in the atmosphere of this world. We are looking for a better one, a heavenly one (Heb. 11: 13-16).

(1) You have been taught by him (Eph. 4:20-21). They had learned Christ. Christianity is not vague and nebulous. “Love” is not enough; there must be this knowledge of sound doctrine. You have learned the right doctrine! You have learned the truth as it is in Jesus.

(2) This message controls you! You have apprehended, truly understood; the truth has not only gripped your mind it has gripped your heart. You have surrendered to it I You are mastered by it I It means that Christ is the chief thing in your life.

(3) You have put off the old corruptions (Eph. 4:22-23, 25-31). The corruption which is according to deceitful lusts leads to final destruction.

Conclusion

The world’s trouble is that lust is in control. Evil desires govern, instead of God. Reason and understanding have been thrown overboard . . . steady decay is all around. . . what a havoc sin has made! Don’t let it destroy your life!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 22, p. 680
November 17, 1988

By Dick Blackford

When a new theory is being advocated, its proponents don’t always look down the road to see the end result of what they are advocating. If an argument seems to meet the present need, that is enough. It is when someone carries the matter a step farther that we often see the consequences. When this occurs it is nearly always too late to go back and undo the damage. On no other theory has this been more true than the doctrine of no patternism.

The Work of the Church

In seeking to justify church support of human institutions from the treasury, some institutional brethren have said there is no pattern regarding the benevolent work of the church. A tract widely circulated in the 50’s and 60’s advocated this. The author “proved” his point by simply omitting all the Scriptures which deal with the church’s benevolent work. In 1976 I had a written debate with an institutional brother who argued that there is no pattern for the evangelistic work of the church.

Now, if you ask whether there is a verse all neatly packaged which gives God’s pattern for the work of the church, we must answer “no.” God’s pattern consists of whatever he has said on the subject. A church cared for its own under its own oversight (Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 5:16). No mention is made of a man-made benevolent organization that is separate and apart from the congregation, and which solicits and receives funds from numerous churches and oversees the work. The church was its own benevolent society. On some occasions churches sent to needy saints in other Places (1 Cor. 16:1,2).

In evangelism, churches sent wages to a preacher (2 Cor. 11:9). There is no example of one church sending to another church that did not have a benevolent need. The modern “sponsoring church” in which large, wealthy churches solicit from others to support their projects was unheard of.

The Worship of the Church

In “justifying” the use of musical instruments in worship, some brethren in the Independent Christian Church have said there is no pattern to the worship of the church. ” Worship is a right thing to do and there is no wrong way to do it. . . There is no such thing as ‘acts of worship'” (Given O. Blakely, Blakely-Highers Debate). Thus, instruments are used. If there is no pattern to follow when we worship, then brother Blakely is right in saying there is no wrong way to do it. Of course this would allow tongue-speaking, burning incense, the rosary, “holy water,” wearing clergy garb, hamburgers and coke on the Lord’s table, and religious dancing. And who could deny that those who handle snakes in worship are every bit as sincere as those in the ICC? Snakes would have to be permitted in worship for if “there is no pattern,” then truly, “there is no wrong way to do it. ” (Nor would there be any wrong way to do the work of the church.)

Now, if you ask whether there is a verse all neatly packaged which gives God’s pattern for five acts of worship in the assembly, we must answer, “No.” God’s pattern consists of whatever he has said on the subject of worship. Primarily he has revealed that when Christians came together to worship, they sang (1 Cor., 14:15f; Col. 3:16), prayed (1 Cor. 14:15f), ate the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20-34; Acts 20:7), gave of their means (1 Cor. 16:1,2), and preached and studied (Acts 20:7; 2:42).

The Plan of Salvation

Many modern denominations have difficulty giving a specific answer when asked, “What is God’s plan of salvation?” The reply is usually a nebulous “acceptance” of Jesus. When asked how one does this, we are told that we must “rely” on him. When asked how one relies on him, we are told by “receiving” him. But how does one receive him? By “accepting” him! On and on the cycle goes in which one is never told any absolutes about God’s plan. Some have also said that sprinkling and pouring are just as pleasing as immersion for baptism (Methodist Discipline, p. 545). In other words, there is no pattern for baptism.

Now, if you ask whether there is a verse all neatly packaged which gives God’s pattern or plan for salvation in five steps, we must answer, “No.” God’s pattern consists of whatever he has revealed on the subject. Primarily, he has revealed that one must hear the gospel (Rom. 10:17), believe the gospel (Rom. 10:10), repent (Acts 3:19), confess (Rom. 10:10b), be immersed in water (Acts 22:16; 8:38; 1 Pet. 3:21), and be faithful (Rev. 2:10).

“No Pattern” In Morality?

Advocates of the New Morality” says there is no pattern in the Scriptures regarding one’s moral behavior. Outside of the fact that we should do the “loving thing,” it is pretty well up to you how you conduct yourself. There are no absolutes, for they would constitute the dreaded pattern. There may be circumstances that would justify stealing, lying, adultery, etc. What the Bible means is “Thou shalt not commit adultery -ordinarily! ” It just depends on the situation. Joseph Fletcher, theological father of the modern movement, “plains it all in his book, The New Morality and Situation Ethics.

Now, if you ask whether there is a verse all neatly packaged which gives God’s pattern for morality, we must answer, “No.” God’s pattern consists of whatever he has revealed on the subject.

Conclusion

And so it goes. But before we complete our look at. this pattern of digression, let us consider a quote worth repeating from a most unexpected source:

Restoration assumes patternism. If there was no pattern to lose there is none to restore. The very validity of the Restoration principle rests upon the preclusion that God wanted certain things certain ways, and men have ignored what God wanted. What is it that we are going to restore? Is it not the restoring of doing Bible things in Bible ways? It seems to me that if this principle is ignored then we have no real reason for trying to restore anything.

. . . Is God a God who deals in patterns? He did with Noah. He did with Moses in the building of the tabernacle. Unless he changes his nature he still deals in patterns with us. His patterns must be respected.

We must go to pattern theology for our very concept of the church. . . . Everything we read in the Scriptures enforces the pattern concept. . . . Redemption follows a pattern or it doesn’t. Worship follows a pattern or it doesn’t. Church government follows a pattern or it doesn’t. The Christian life follows a pattern or it doesn’t. If there is no pattern then one way to be saved is as good as another, one may worship anyway he pleases, govern the church any way he chooses and live any kind of life he wishes to live.

If we assume such a thing as pattern theology, or even admit to the existence of patterns, we are forced to accept limitations, for patterns limit. They restrict to both right and left. This forces us to accept God’s authority in areas of silence as well as in areas of revelation (Reuel Lemmons, One Body, Symmer/88, p. 4).

Already some have crossed from the “no pattern” in the work of the church to “no pattern” in the worship. And some have crossed from “no pattern” in the worship to “no pattern” in the plan of salvation. Walking down steps is easier than walking up. The next step is a little easier. Remember, the college president who wrote “Where There Is No Pattern” eventually left the faith and joined a denomination. It is becoming more and more difficult to put on the brakes. Brethren, where will it all end?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 23, pp. 705, 727
December 1, 1988