Truth Magazine

By Billy Williams

Weldon Warnock wrote a review in Truth Magazine, March 16, 1978, of one of my bulletin articles in which I discussed our use of the term “plan of salvation.” In order that I might be allowed to reply and because of the many months since its first publication, his comments have been reprinted in this magazine. If you have not read Brother Warnock’s article, please do so now.

All of the objections he raised were answered in a lengthy article which I published Dec. 26, 1977, and which he received. Why didn’t he review that article? Probably because he could not argue against the truth thus presented. But instead, he and the publishers of this magazine chose to prejudice the thinking of their readers with his dishonest and misleading article. And now I will give my answer to those slanderous words. Space is limited and I must be brief. Be sure to read each reference.

The plan of salvation is not belief-repentance-confession-baptism. Nowhere in all of God’s Word will you find any such notion – nor do you find that phrase. But you do in fact find a Plan of Salvation, and that Plan is Christ (Eph. 1:3-14). It is precisely set forth in those verses. Redemption through Christ was God’s will from the beginning of man’s fall (Gen. 3:15) – for He “purposed in him . . . to sum up all things in Christ.” It was a mystery and was “hid in God,” but now is revealed “according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (5:9-12). “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Cor. 5:17-21). We were hopelessly lost because of sin (Rom. 3:23; 5:12). Then Christ redeemed us through the shedding of His blood. He was “made to be sin on our behalf” (2 Cor. 5:21) and died for us all (vs. 14). He “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26). Jesus is the Savior (Matt. 1:21)! And in Him we receive all spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3). “If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17). For we are God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph. 2:10). And we could expand on this subject forever. Now, will anyone deny that Jesus is the Plan of Salvation?

Brother Warnock says Jesus has given a method of action to alien sinners which is a “plan of salvation.” To expedite matters, look up “plan” in a good dictionary. Now the “plan” he is talking about is belief, repentance, confession, baptism (BRCB). He says those things are a plan (method or scheme of action, procedure, arrangement, mode of action) by which the “alien” is saved. In other words we are saved by doing this Plan. But what happened to the crucifixion of Christ? I thought His death was what brought me reconciliation, being justified by His blood (Rom. 5:9-11). Christ is the Savior (Eph. 5:23). But looking at the phrase “plan of salvation” as it is generally used today, it is taught that the plan (steps for attainment of some object, scheme, design) of salvation is BRCB. And doing that “plan” is our method of salvation. Where does it say that in the Bible? Christ is our Savior. He said it plainly: “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:6). He is our method, procedure, arrangement, plan. Not the things that we do. We are not entitled to salvation because we have “worked the plan.” We are justified by the grace of God through Christ.

Semantics? Indeed, Brother Warnock is playing a word game by twisting and abusing my words. He refuses to understand what I wrote and in his ignorance hollers semantics. I later wrote an article on semantics (and he received it) in which I made it clear that this is a battle over the meaning of words and the ideas they connote. Words are thought pictures and they mean something. If you call a rose a rock, no one will understand you, because “rose” is its name. And if you call BRCB “plan of salvation” everyone will think that the way we are saved is by BRCB. But if you call Christ and His sacrifice the Plan of Salvation then the thought you have conveyed to everyone’s mind is the truth. Yes, I am disturbed that brethren call BRCB the plan of salvation, because it twists the truth and gives the wrong idea. Many actually do believe that they are saved because they “worked a plan” (believed, repented, confessed, baptized). They think they receive God’s blessings because they have “obeyed commands.” They have worked (earned) salvation for themselves. Now, is that why our Lord came to earth? Did He suffer and die so that He might issue commands? Was not the Law full of commands to be obeyed? Could He not give new commands without dying? If that were so, then the death of Christ was senseless (Gal. 2:21). Didn’t God know that? Note that righteousness, which must precede salvation, is not obtained through law-keeping (vs: 16). What madness the doctrines of men bring!

We are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8-10), any work. And turning BRCB into works is fatal to our souls. To prove the point, the Scriptures say that belief and baptism are not works of men (Jn. 6:29; Tit. 3:5). Neither can repentance be a work. And how can confession be a work? Men turn those things into works and then get upset because Paul said we are saved by grace through faith and not of works? Turning BRCB into commands to be obeyed, by which we hope to earn God’s approval, is the same as works of merit and such is denied in Eph. 2.

What kind of work is meant in Eph. 2? There are only two possibilities: a deed precipitated by man’s own inherent goodness, or an act in obedience to God’s command. Actually both are included in this passage. Salvation is not given because of one’s own goodness (“that not of yourselves”). Man cannot do enough good (Lk. 17:10; Isa. 64:6). Nor is it a reward for obeying commandments (“not of works”). If one obeys God’s commandments, has he not done a good work? Of course he has. But such cannot be the basis of our justification before God (Rom. 4:2). The Jews made the same mistake (Rom. 9:30-10:4). They could not understand that salvation is not of law but of grace (Rom. 3:20; Eph. 2:8).

Now do not misunderstand me. I have not said, nor do I mean that we need not BRCB. Indeed, we must do those very things to receive the blessings of God’s heavenly kingdom. But what Christ has done saves us, not what we do! We read in 2 Cor. 5:14-21 that He died for us, bore our sin, and reconciled us to God. We become righteous in Him. The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Whether it is true or not is made the most crucial point of our faith, and our hope (1 Cor. 15:12-19). But it is true (Rom. 1:4)! He was raised. The apostles were commissioned to go into all the world and preach it (Mk. 16:14f). Believing that Jesus is the Christ and that he yet lives is primary to our salvation (Mk. 16:16).

What has Christ done? He overcame sin and death. And now offers redemption to us. He is the Way of Salvation. What do we have to do to receive it? We answer His invitation (Matt. 11:28-30) The gospel is good news – it is a message from heaven. How do we answer it? We believe Him and His message, which is that He is alive and can also save us! We confess it (allegiance) (Rom. 10:5-13). We are baptized into the likeness of His death and resurrection (6:4f). And are raised to walk in a new life in Christ. Repentance is a change of heart and direction. We turn from sin unto God. Our conversion is our repentance.

Now what is it that we have thus done? We have only responded to what Christ has done. We have begun to obey Him and stopped listening to our own lusts.

Brother Warnock does not want me to say we “respond.” He says we “obey commands.” Why does he insist on the distinction? Because he wants to turn the gospel into a second law system as did the Galatians (Gal. 1:6-9; 3:1-3). Warnock says the “plan of salvation involves Jesus and His grace.” Indeed! I’m sure our Lord is glad to hear that concession on our brother’s part. The Plan of Salvation does not involve Christ – it is Christ.

He also accused me of teaching “Jesus the Man, but no gospel demands.” I never taught any such thing. The gospel when correctly understood demands of us sinners far more than any commands of law (Rom. 6:15-23). Furthermore, by innuendo and the subtle association of words he has labeled me a Baptist and a Calvinist. Such is a lie and he knows it. He wonders if I ever preach on faith, repentance, or baptism. Let him ask his own relatives and friends who were in the congregation where I preached at the time I wrote the bulletin article. They can testify to what I taught. And not one would say that I taught false doctrine. When asked, they were surprised that anyone could think it. My “reviewer” has used the tactics of a gossip and a backbiter.

Did the apostles preach BRCB? They taught Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:23). Peter told the Jews to repent and be baptized in the name of Christ – after preaching Jesus unto them (Acts 2:14-36). And when they gladly received His word (about Jesus), they were baptized (vs. 41). Peter was also sent to tell Cornelius words whereby they could be saved (11:14). What were the words? The story of Jesus (10:34-43).

Brethren, let us stop this pettiness. I am not teaching against baptism. I am upholding that doctrine. It is essential! But baptism means nothing without Christ. You must first convict the hearts of men and convince them to respond to Christ, answering His call in the act of faith called baptism (Gal. 3:26f). To tell someone to be baptized because it is commanded does not convert him. He must be given a reason to respond. And that reason is Christ and His work for us. One must be convicted of his need for a Savior. Herein lies the problem of so many weak Christians. They have not been convicted of their need for a Savior nor convinced that Christ can save completely. Preaching BRCB does not convert anyone. But teaching Jesus will do it for sure. That is what the apostles taught. Did they tell people to be baptized? Yes, after they converted them to Christ. And that is why I say that our “plan (BRCB) is no better than anybody else’s “plan.”

One final point. Warnock argues from 1 Pet. 3:21 that baptism saves. Peter was arguing for the necessity and logic of baptism, showing its symbolic nature. In doing so he does not say that baptism saves of itself. Instead he emphasizes why it saves: “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Brethren, this is not a strange or false doctrine. I urge each of you to study your Bibles and seek to learn the will of God and strive to please Him. Those who have attacked me seek to bind a perverted gospel on you. Their gospel is just another law system that no one can bear, Jesus nailed the Law (which was from God, hence it was perfect) to the Cross and gave a system of grace (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 6:14).

The condition of God’s grace is not a series of works whereby we earn His favor. But it is our faith in Christ. That does not mean “faith only.” but it does mean the principle of faith alone, faith that is comprehensive and all inclusive. (Read John 1:12, 17; 3:16-21.) If one places his trust, his life in the hands of Christ, he will willingly obey Him. For he will desire to please Him. One thus converted does not quibble over baptism, which Jesus requires as an act of faith.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 18, pp. 297-298
May 3, 1979

By Weldon E. Warnock

Editor’s Introduction:

In the 16 March 1978 issue of Truth Magazine, Weldon Warnock reviewed an article of Billy Williams. The article was printed in its entirety and reviewed by Brother Warnock. At that time, Brother Williams was preaching for the Sciotoville, Ohio church; since then, he was moved to Mesquite, Texas. Upon moving into the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex, Brother Williams identified with the church where Brother Arnold Hardin preaches.

The exchange of articles between Brother Williams and Brother Warnock will stand or fall on its own merit. However, from my point of view, this exchange has smoked out another undercover liberal. You will have to form your own opinion based on the evidences of this exchange; you have the material available to you to make that judgment.

I never cease to be amazed at some of the things false teachers are willing to do. For example, Brother Williams wants to charge that the means whereby a man appropriates God’s grace as taught by Brother Warnock (which is what I understand most gospel preachers to be saying) is false doctrine. Yet, he wants to be considered a “sound gospel preacher” by those who believe this “false” doctrine and becomes upset when those who believe what he labels as false doctrine are unwilling to support him. Why doesn’t Brother Williams just plainly state that he no longer believes what we believe and allow the chips to fall where they may? Frankly, I would-have much more respect for him would he do that instead of charging that he is writing such deep thoughts that we cannot understand him. I understand him and disagree with what he is writing.

Let us not forget that Brother Williams has identified himself with the church where Arnold Hardin preaches. That, my brethren, tells me something about what Brother Williams himself believes. He apparently does not believe that Arnold Hardin’s favorite doctrine, the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the believer’s account, is wrong. He apparently does not see the Calvinism in Hardin’s teachings which have been repeatedly espoused. In fact, Brother Williams in agreement with the major tenets being preached by Brother Hardin and that is why he identified with the Sceyne Road Church.

You will also notice that this exchange shows that Brother Williams accepts the tenets of the anything-goes-so-long-as-you-are-honest-and-sincere position which denominationalists have espoused for years; the only difference is that he makes application of the doctrine to only baptized believers. On this basis, he is willing to extend the right hand of fellowship to those in the Christian Church and liberal churches of Christ. Read the following exchange which will be concluded in next week’s issue of the paper and weep

Following is an article that appeared recently in a church’s bulletin. It was written by the preacher of the church that publishes the bulletin. The article does not represent the congregation.

Much is said about the “plan of salvation.” It is preached more than any other subject. Brethren proclaim the “plan” everywhere. They go door-to-door and tell their neighbors about it. And few listen, and hardly any respond. Frustration has set in throughout the Lord’s body. Why can’t people see the plain truth of the “gospel plan of salvation”?

The answer to that question should be obvious to everyone. Because the “plan of salvation” is not scriptural! The words “plan” or “scheme” do not appear one time in the entire Bible. Yet we speak of the “plan” as if it were really there. Now, what we are talking about is belief, repentance, confession, and baptism, which when lumped together we have been calling the “plan of salvation.” The kindest thing we can say about the expression is that it is a misnomer. But if we look at it honestly and clearly, we would see that calling these things “plan of salvation” borders on false doctrine. For when we speak of belief, repentance, confession and baptism, and call that the “plan of salvation”, we turn those things into our Savior. But the Bible teaches that Jesus is our Savior (Matt. 1:21). Furthermore, it sounds like we are saying that our doing of those things will save us because we therefore are entitled to it. But the Bible says we are “saved by grace” . . . . through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of Cod, not of works, that no man should glory” (Eph. 2:8, 9). I say it sounds like it. I know that my brethren do not believe such. (But to hear some talk-I wonder).

More importantly, when we proclaim this “plan” we give the impression to those we are trying to convert that the “plan” saves. In fact, we do without doubt try to convert them to “our plan”. The Baptists have a “plan”. So do the Methodists, Pentecostals, etc. So we counter “their plans” with one of our own. It’s not unlike a group of children quarreling over the rules of a game. The world looks at all us “Christians” fighting over a “plan” and they wonder why. And we wonder why they can’t see the difference. From their standpoint one plan is as good as another.

THEREIN LIES THE KEY. If our salvation depended on a plan or procedure or our own doing, it would not matter which “plan” we chose. The Jews had a “plan” but failed (Rom. 9:31ff). They could not see that the “real plan” was Christ (Rom. 9:33; 10:4). The real scheme of redemption is what God purposed to do through Christ, which He has done. Read Eph. 1:3-14 and see the real plan of salvation (vs. 9), which is the gospel of Christ (vs. 13; 1 Cor. 15:1-4), which is Christ crucified (I Cor. 1:23). The apostles did not preach: “believe, repent, confess, baptize”. They preached the gospel; which is Christ! (1 Cor. 1:17).

It is necessary for us to believe, repent, confess and be baptized? YES! But only as our response to what Christ has done. What we do does not save us (Emphasis mine, wew). Christ is our Savior and He is our Plan.

-by Billy C. Williams

The above author, as you probably noticed, has no qualms in calling the gospel the “plan of salvation,” even though he says the expression, “plan of salvation,” cannot be found one time in the entire Bible. How about “way of salvation” (Acts 16:17), or “way of truth” (2 Pet. 2:2), or “way of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:21)? He is disturbed about calling belief, repentance, confession and baptism the “plan of salvation.” If he means the whole plan of salvation, certainly belief, repentance, confession and baptism are not the sum total of it. But if he means that the conditions of obedience for an alien sinner are not a plan for their salvation, then he is dead wrong. And, he is dead wrong because this is what he said.

A plan means, “Methods or scheme of action, procedure, or arrangement” (Webster). Has not Jesus given a method of action to alien sinners? He surely has! Then, He has given a “Plan of salvation.” To call the specific acts that aliens obey, “plan of salvation,” no more excludes the rest of the gospel than Peter excluded grace or belief or repentance when he said, “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21).

What kind of semantical game is the writer trying to play when he declares that calling belief, repentance, confession and baptism, “plan of salvation,” as bordering on false doctrine? Since when is it false doctrine to call something what it is? The commands to an alien sinner constitute the plan, method of action, for his salvation. He says the reason for it bordering on false doctrine is that we make the acts of obedience, by calling them, “plan of salvation,” our Savior. If this is true, there is no bordering on false doctrine-it is false doctrine. But he goes on to say that none of his brethren believes they are the Savior, so I do not know why all the “fuss” over brethren calling something what it is.

Salvation Is Conditional

Brethren, does Jesus save an alien, conditionally? “Oh, yes!” Then, He has a plan of salvation for aliens. Call it “conditions of salvation,” or “scheme of salvation,” or “plan of salvation.” After it is all said and done, there are conditions incurred in the saving of sinners. Calling it “plan of salvation,” in its proper context and within the frame of reference is not a misnomer, but is identifying the scriptural procedure enjoined upon alien sinners.

Certainly, the plan of salvation involves Jesus and His grace. Paul said, “. . . by grace ye are saved” (Eph. 2:5). But does grace save us without conditions? Absolutely not! Neither does the cross or the gospel. The Bible says that faith saves (Acts 16:31), repentance saves (2 Cor. 7:10), confession saves (Rom. 10:10), and baptism saves (1 Pet. 3:21). Were these inspired writers bordering on false doctrine when they said these things save us? Peter told the Jews, “Save yourselves (emphasis mine, wew) from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). Was Peter denying that Jesus was Savior by such exhortation?

Notice that he underlined in Eph. 2:8-9, “gift of God, not of works . . . . ” What is this supposed to mean in regard to belief, repentance, confession and baptism? Is he implying that these works of righteousness are the meritorious works that Paul was writing about in Eph. 2:9? Maybe you can figure out what he meant. Apparently, he is confused as to what kind of works Paul had in mind. Paul certainly did not mean works of faith (Jn. 6:28-29) or works of righteousness (Acts 10:34-35) as these works must be done in order to be saved. In fact, Paul gave faith as a condition in Eph. 2:8 and faith is a work (Jn. 6:28-29).

Jesus and the Plan

The author tells us the Baptists, Methodists and Pentecostals have a “plan,” and if we have “plan,” we are just like them. But their “plan” is somewhat like the writer’s above – Jesus the Man, but no gospel demands. In fact, a Baptist preacher could have written the article in all good conscience. I wonder how the writer would convert a Baptist if he does not teach them, among other things, what Jesus said on baptism. Is he just going to tell them about the death, burial and resurrection in order to change them on the purpose of baptism or the establishment of the church or the impossibility of apostasy? I was under the impression that Baptists already believe in the death, burial and resurrection.

Listen friend, the gospel contains facts to be believed, commands to be obeyed and promises to be enjoyed. The above writer wants us to think that the gospel just consists of the facts. But there are commands to be obeyed, also. He wrote, “The apostles did not preach: `believe, repent, confess, baptize.’ They preached the gospel, which is Christ )I Cor. 1:17)!” Here we learn (?) that “believe, repent, confess, baptize” are no part of the gospel. I wonder if this brother ever preaches a sermon on faith or repentance or baptism? If he does, according to him, he is not preaching the gospel. Judge yourself as to whether the apostles preached faith, repentance, confession baptism. On Pentecost, Peter told the Jews, “Repent and be baptized . . .” (Acts 2:38). Again, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41). Sounds like Peter preached baptism somewhere along the line. At the household of Cornelius, Peter was sent to tell them words whereby they could be saved (Acts 11:14). Among those words was baptism (Acts 10:48). I am getting the feeling that Peter preached baptism – that he was a “plan” preacher.

Observe the preaching of Paul. At Philippi, he spoke to Lydia and she was baptized. How did she learn of baptism if Paul did not preach it? The Philippian jailer was baptized the same hour of the night after Paul spoke the word of the Lord unto him (Acts 16:30-33). By the way, Paul preached first that he must “believe” (v. 31). Yet, the writer of the above article said the apostles did not preach “believe, repent, confess, baptize.” They preached much more, but to say they did not preach these commands is inexcusable blindness.

Finally, this brother wrote, “What we do does not save us.” Yes, you read it correctly. No, a Baptist preacher did not say it, but a preacher in the church of Christ. He stated that we have to believe, repent, confess and be baptized, but only in response to what Christ has done. He did not say “in response to What Christ has commanded,” but “in response to what Christ has done.” I thought we were to be baptized, for example, because Jesus commanded it (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:16; Acts 10:48). How could one properly respond to Jesus if he were not told in the gospel what to do?

If what we do does not save us, then why did Peter say, “baptism saves us” (1 Pet. 3:21)? Did not Peter know that the gospel saves or that Jesus saves? Certainly he did, but Peter knew that the gospel has conditions and these must be met. Whatever man is told to do by Jesus Christ has a part to play in man’s salvation. Man complies with these conditions and thereby saves himself (Acts 2:40; cf. I Pet. 1:22).

Let’s not be guilty of trying to separate Jesus from what He said. We can only know Jesus by His Word. We can only come to Jesus by His Word. We will be judged by His Word.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 18, pp. 294-296
May 3, 1979

By Mike Willis

In our previous article, I wrote regarding the establishment of the Lord’s church. In that article, I presented evidence to demonstrate that the Lord’s church was established on the first Pentecost following the resurrection of the Lord. Those who have any knowledge whatsoever of the New Testament know that the Lord only established one church (Eph. 4:4); any other religious body stands condemned of God. Reconciliation of man to God occurs in this one body (Eph. 2:16).

Where did all of the denominations of the world come from? The answer to this question lies in the annals of human history. The religious reference books relate the establishment of the various denominations. I propose in this article to mention the date and circumstances of the establishment of several of the major denominations in America today. The historical circumstances in which they were born will demonstrate that they cannot be the Lord’s church because of the differences in time in their establishment and that of the Lord’s church.

A word needs to be said here regarding this method of argumentation. Some of today’s denominations are departures from God’s revealed truth at a time that can be historically marked. (For example, the Christian Church departed from God’s word regarding the instruments of music and church support of missionary societies. They were at one time, however, faithful to the Lord.) Others were never a part of Christ’s blood-bought body because they have never taught the truth regarding salvation. Hence, whereas some of these denominations must trace their history from their departure from some specific truth to the acceptance and practice of false doctrines, others can be mentioned from their very beginning as religious bodies separate and apart from Christ’s church.

Denominational Origins

1. The Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church came into existence through a gradual apostasy from the New Testament in areas too numerous to mention. The Bible itself foretold the falling away which occurred, leading to the establishment of the Catholic Church (Acts 20:29-21; 2 Thess. 2:1-12). The apostasy took centuries to develop into the Catholic Church as we know it under the leadership of a pope. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that “pope” is “an ecclesiastical title now used in the West exclusively to designate the head of the Roman Catholic Church. In the 4th and 5th centuries it was frequently used by any bishop (Du Cange, s.v.); but it gradually came to be reserved to the bishop of Rome, becoming official” (Vol. 18, p. 222). Williston Walker wrote, “In 502 Bishop Ennodius of Pavia urged that the Pope can be judged by God alone. The later claims of the medieval papacy were, therefore, sketched by the beginning of the sixth century . . . . The full realization of the papal ideal, thus early established, was to be a task of centuries, and was to encounter many vicissitudes” (A History of the Christian Church, p. 124).

During the course of their digression, the Catholics have accepted numberless false doctrines including the following: (1) salvation by works; (2) unauthorized acts of worship such as (a) mechanical instruments of music, (b) choirs, (c) candle, (d) rosaries, (e) veneration of saints, (f) use of holy water, and other items; (3) development of a separate priesthood; (4) purgatory; (5) penance; (6) perverted the Lord’s Supper. The list could be extended indefinitely.

The Catholic Church is, therefore, an apostate religion which came into existence as early Christians forsook the Lord’s commandments and established their own kind of worship. This Catholic Church has evolved through many centuries to become what it is today. It is not the Lord’s church; its deviations from revealed religion make this abundantly apparent.

2. The Baptist Church. The Baptist Church came out of the Reformation period of history. They were a group which rejected infant baptism and the administration of “baptism” by sprinkling and pouring. They are usually dated to have begun in 1608 under the leadership of John Smyth. They began in Holland, not in Jerusalem. Though the Baptists have departed from this to a wide extent in recent years, most early Baptists were strongly Calvinistic (most accepted all five points of Calvinism whereas today most Baptist groups only hold to two points of Calvinism).

3. The Presbyterian Church. This Protestant denomination traces its history back to John Calvin (1509-1564). They were founded in Geneva. The main tenets of Calvinist theology are (a) Inherited total depravity, (b) Unconditional election, (c) Limited atonement, (d) Irresistible grace, and (e) perseverance of the saints. The group was generally a reaction to the apostate Catholic Church of the 14-15th centuries.

4. The Lutheran Church. The Lutheran Church can be dated from the time when Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five objections to the Roman Catholic Church on the door of the church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. The doctrines held by Martin Luther and John Calvin were, in many respects, similar inasmuch as both movements were reactions to the work-righteousness of Roman Catholicism.

5. The Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church is a direct descendant from the Church of England, also known as the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church is usually dated from the time when Henry VIII threw off the supremacy of the Pope in England during the Protestant Reformation. The Church of England came to America with our English forefathers but it nearly died during the revolution. In 1789, the Church of England in America officially became a separate denomination from its mother in England and took the name of Protestant Episcopal Church. There is very little difference in belief in the two groups inasmuch as the Episcopal Church was formed in America to offset the general animosity that Americans had toward the English.

6. The Methodist Church. Another American religious movement which has come from the Church of England is the Methodist Church. Under the leadership of John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield, this church was borne in 1739. This group originally became involved in a good bit of emphasis on emotional religion (especially as it was associated with conversion). Though the Wesleys’ sought to work within the Church of England to bring about their reforms, they were forced to officially separate from them, which they did in 1779.

7. The Christian Church. As many of our readers know, the Christian Church was formerly a group of people committed to the restoration of New Testament Christianity. However, in 180 the American Christian Missionary Society was started; church support of this society led to a division in the ranks of brethren. The Christian Church people opted to support these societies-from their church treasury. Soon the mechanical instruments of music were brought into the worship services. These innovations were but the beginning of a number of other departures from the word of God by this group. In 1906, the breach between the disciples who were faithfully clinging to God’s word and those who decided to accept these innovations was officially recognized by the U.S. census. The exact date when these people actually became a denomination is difficult to give; perhaps only God knows for sure. However, the Disciples of Christ, the most liberal wing of the Christian Church, officially reorganized to become a full-fledged denomination in 1968.

8. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). This movement was founded in Fayette, New York in 1830. Joseph Smith is supposed to have received a special revelation from God which was written in the Book of Mormon. Other revelations which Smith is thought to have received include the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. The Mormon group believes in present day miracles and continuous revelation, as seen in their recent “revelation” that the priesthood could finally be given to the Blacks.

9. Jehovah’s Witnesses. Though the Jehovah’s Witnesses acknowledge no human founder, they were started in 1884 under the leadership of “Pastor” Charles Taze Russell. His work was started in Pittsburgh in 1872 but was moved to Brooklyn, New York in 1909. Their peculiar doctrines include the belief that Jesus is a created being, the denial of the immortality of the soul, the denial of the existence of a place of eternal punishment, and other doctrines.

10. Seventh-Day Adventists. Adventism in general can be traced back to the work of William Miller who predicted the end of the world to occur on March 21, 1843 and on March 21, 1844. As each successive prophesy of the end of the world failed, he predicted anew the end of the world. Finally, the movement began to deteriorate to such a degree that collapse seem inevitable. At this point the work of Ellen G. White became important as she moved to salvage the collapsing movement. The result was the birth of the Seventh-Day Adventists. In addition to observing the seventh day in worship to God, these people also cling to dietary regulations of the Old Testament, tithing, foot washing, etc.

11. Christian Scientists. The Christian Scientists came into existence because of the work of Mary Baker Eddy. The first Christian Science church was established in Boston in 1879. It is the Mother Church of all other Christian Science churches. This movement is based on accepting the idea that the writings of Mrs. Eddy in Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures are inspired Scriptures.

Conclusion

One could proceed through the lists of denominations in America citing the pertinent information. relative to the establishment of each. I hope that you will excuse my brevity in this list; for more detailed information on this subject, you can write to Truth Magazine Bookstore (Box 403, Marion, IN 46952) and order a copy of Frank S. Mead’s Handbook of Denominations. It details the origin, history, and basic tenets of each of America’s denominations.

Why give such a history as this? I have recorded this to demonstrate that these various religious groups cannot be the church of our Lord Jesus Christ because they were not established at the time and in the place which the Lord’s church was established. The Lord’s church began in Jerusalem, not in Boston, Wittenberg, Geneva, England, Holland, New York, or some other place. It began on the first Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not during the Protestant Reformation, 1830, or some other date. Any church which began this side of the events which occurred on the day of Pentecost cannot be considered the Lord’s church.

Is the Church of Christ any different from these denominations? Some would answer, “No” and point to the work of Alexander Campbell to mark the beginning of the Church of Christ. If an individual went into Podunk to start a Baptist church and took a copy of one of the Baptist Confessions of Faith, would the establishment of that church be the first time that a Baptist Church had ever been established? If not, why is it considered true that when Alexander Campbell (and others both before and after him) went into West Virginia and took the Bible to establish the church of the Bible, that this is the first time that the church which you can read about in the Bible existed? Hence, Alexander Campbell is not the founder of the churches of Christ; indeed, we can read of them existing in Rom. 16:16, nearly 1800 years before Alexander Campbell was born. Therefore, he cannot be considered the founder of the Churches of Christ.

What is happening in the churches of Christ at the present, however, is leading to the formation of a Church of Christ denomination. The apostasies of the liberals among us is following in exactly the same footsteps as that of the Christian Church which preceded them by one hundred years. These liberals are in the process of establishing a Church of Christ denomination. Only God knows when the process will be complete.

Those committed to the establishment of New Testament church have no interest in being a part of modern, twentieth-century denominationalism. They are determined to be a part of the church which you can read about in the Bible. What they believe, teach, and practice is found authorized in the Scriptures; they are committed to ceasing to practice anything for which they cannot find Bible authority.

If any of my brethren who think that the Church of Christ is a denomination would be so kind as to tell me what I would have to do to become a part of the church which is mentioned in the New Testament, I would be glad to forsake the church of which I am a member and become a part of the church which one can read about in the Bible. Let these brethren kindly tell us what we should call ourselves, what kind of organization we should have, what kind of worship we should offer, what works we should be involved in, and other such important information necessary to being just like the church you can read about in the Bible. When we have a list of such things which we must forsake to be like the New Testament church, we can busy ourselves with becoming like the New Testament church.

I predict that such a list will never be compiled by those who claim that the Church of Christ is a denomination. It will not be compiled because when the list is completed, it would include things which are already being practiced in the Churches of Christ across this nation and on foreign soils. If I am incorrect in this statement, let them point out in what respects we have departed from the Scriptures in order that full correction might be made. The truth is that these brethren who claim that the Church of Christ is a denomination have no appreciation for a plea to be like the church which you can read about in the Bible. They have no interest in becoming like it. They have no interest in getting together to discuss the points of difference between us with a view of change being made where each one departs from the word of God. Rather, they are interested in becoming a part of twentieth-century Protestant denominationalism and the statements that someone is only the New Testament church irritate them. Hence, they charge that the Church of Christ is a denomination. I repeat, maybe the church of which they are a member is a denomination but the church of which I am a member is simply the church you can read about in the Bible. If they know something about the church of which I am a member which shows that it is not the church which you can read about in the Bible, let them enumerate the points in which we have apostatized in order that we can correct them. Otherwise, let all recognize that this charge is unfounded and that it is a smokescreen created to remove attention from their abandonment of New Testament practices.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 18, pp. 291-294
May 3, 1979

By Ron Halbrook

In the introduction, let us explain the descriptive terms which we will be using. Webster says that “liberal” means: “not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms in political or religious philosophy; not conservative:” The word “conservative” means: “disposed to maintain existing institutions or views; opposed to change.”

I believe these two terms describe the views of churches of Christ today. Many churches of Christ no longer hold to the New Testament as a blueprint that is to be followed in every detail. They do many things for which there is neither command, example or necessary inference. On the other hand, there are many churches of Christ who are opposed to these departures from the New Testament pattern. They believe we must have book, chapter and verse for all we do and practice.

Let us contrast some of the views and practices of the two groups:

“Liberal” Churches	“Conservative” Churches
1. Have missionary, benevolent and educational organizations to execute the work of the church.	1. Have no missionary, benevolent and educational organizations to execute the work of the church. They believe the local church is God’s only organization to do His work (Phil. 1:12; Acts 14:23).
2. Have “educational directors,” “associate ministers,” “youth directors,” and “superintendents” over their human organizations.	2. Have evangelists, elders (pastors), and teachers (Eph. 4:11).
3. Seek to get crowds with “youth meetings,” “rallies,” carnal rewards such as trips to Opryland and all kinds of promotions (such as the “bus ministry”).	3. Engage in none of these things, but seek to draw men to Christ with the preaching of the gospel (John 6:45; Rom. 1:16).
4. Emphasize society and the physical man by appealing to the carnal nature with “church banquets,” “church kitchens,” “church camps” and “fellowship halls,” and all kinds of parties.	4. Do not believe the church is to provide the social needs of man (Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 11:33, 34; John 18:36).
5. Elevate their preachers above the rest of the members by using such titles as “doctor.”	5. Reject all such titles as unscriptural (Matt. 23:7-12).
6. Support and operate schools for secular education, beginning with kindergarten and going through schools of higher education.	6. Do not support or operate any schools. They believe that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
7. Do much of their work through what they call the “sponsoring church” arrangement – many churches pooling their funds under one eldership to do a general work all churches are equally related to.	7. Reject this arrangement as a violation of the New Testament pattern of congregational cooperation. In New Testament times one church only helped another church when the receiving church was in want (or need) – unable to do its own work (Acts 11:27-30). (Cooperation in such work does not require the centralized “sponsoring church.”)
8. Base many of their practices on the silence of the scriptures, and appeal to the traditions of the past.	8. Base all their practices on the unadulterated gospel of Christ (Matt. 28:18; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
9. Expect their preachers to be modern-day “pastors,” running after the members and visiting the hospitals on a regular basis and to be the “head planner” of all their projects and promotions.	9. Do not expect their preachers to leave the work of God to serve tables (Acts 6:2). They have deacons and godly women to take care of the “physical needs” of the congregation and elders to do the planning (Acts 20:28). The preacher is left free to study, meditate, pray and carry on the work of preaching the gospel to the lost (2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Tim. 4:12-16). The preacher is to visit the sick because he is a Christian (Matt. 25:36), not as a “preacher duty.”
10. Have “special singing” in the assembly – different choral groups are invited in to sing.	11. Have nothing but congregational singing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).

 

NOTE: The above article was written by Donald Townsley and slightly modified for use here. It fairly well sums up the specific issues and differences which have been dividing churches of Christ for thirty years. The innovations listed above are idols to which Ephraim is so committed that warnings and pleas for a return to the New Testament pattern are ignored, in most cases.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 18, p. 290
May 3, 1979