This is a refutation of water baptism as a condition of salvation. Here I am taking aim at the Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, that teach this heresy. The premise of these people as well as others is to add the “work” of water baptism before a person is saved.
The Pentecostal Fascination with Demons is actually a mark of modern Pentecostalism. They promote their movement because of this “sign.” As a preacher and pastor, I can half-way accept the old Methodism, that tried to seek holiness in their membership. I can accept even the Nazarene and old school Pentecostals which went down that same erroneous path as John Wesley in Methodism. But modern Pentecostals are just too radical for me.
In this post I want to give my views of Methodism, and John Wesley. Let me say that I am kind of unique in some of my views, and I have read a lot in some of these different denominations and groups. But I have also studied cults and religious sects, and I am keenly interested in separating biblical Christianity from man’s creations.
I know Methodists, and let me state my position from the beginning. I am not a Methodist by choice. I have studied it enough to know that I do not agree with some of the foundational tenets. Over the course of my ministry, I have seen where Methodism and the foundation laid in Methodism by Wesley, and I do not agree with where that takes you.
But on the other hand, I do not agree with Calvinism either, and their foundations are just as equally opposed to Scripture that I know. Of the two, each has certain beneficial aspects of their movement. Calvinists study Scripture intensely, maybe too intensely because they are trying to justify their unbiblical position. But the good thing about Calvinists is that they do exposit Scripture (as a habit), and they rely heavily on Scripture to make their arguments. Their downside (besides jumping to unbiblical conclusions in election and other things) is that they are a bunch of “cold fish”. Calvinists have a hard time getting any passion raised about prayer, preaching, or soul-winning. I see that passion in Jesus, the apostles, Paul, etc. That tradition or primitive church element is just lost on modern Calvinists.
The good thing about Methodists is that they are a passionate bunch of people that will move your soul if you will allow yourself to be carried along in their stream for a while. Works like those by Andrew Murray, E.M. Bounds, and others of similar vein that were born and worked in the Methodist structure are great works to get your soul fired up. The downside of Methodists though (besides their unbiblical position on a second work of grace) is that they rely way too heavily on experiences and emotions, and the modern Tongues and Charismatic movements are greatly off-base scripturally because of this foundation from their background. I would also say that Methodists in general have a great desire to love Jesus (emotionally), and they put a lot of emphasis on holiness and piety. As I meet Calvinists that are conceited in their own personal “election” and live like devils, I greatly appreciate the Methodists as a contrast.
It would be great if we could take the best of each, and avoid their disadvantages.
By David Cox
Congregational churches are Protestant Christian churches practicing Congregationalist church governance, in which each congregation independently and autonomously runs its own affairs.
Many Congregational churches claim their descent from a family of Protestant denominations formed on a theory of union published by the theologian Robert Browne in 1592. These arose from the Nonconformist religious movement during the Puritan reformation of the Church of England. In Great Britain, the early congregationalists were called separatists or independents to distinguish them from the similarly Calvinistic Presbyterians. Some congregationalists in Britain still call themselves Independent. continue reading wikipedia.org
I think that it is improper to judge men of times past by our standards today, thinking that every Christian and preacher from the time of Christ has to be and think like we do today. Would I change my beliefs and positions to theirs? no, not necessarily. Some would say Martin Luther was a great man of God, and some Baptists even make him to be the “best Baptist” that ever walked the earth from their praise of him. He was a Catholic priest. You cannot get around that main point. However, in his day, in his situation historically and religiously, he was a great man, because being a Catholic priest, he was honest with his Bible, and he took a standard for the truth, and paid a heavy price for that stand. I can give the man that praise very much. Lutheranism reflects Luther, and their beliefs about the Lord’s Supper, for example, would show where Luther didn’t separate himself sufficiently from the Roman doctrines.
I would consider that the Congregationalists are a group “coming out of” or “in the same vein as” the Puritans. I think that they desires were purity and faithfulness to the Scriptures, and they reacted against the Anglican and Catholic church structures and heresies of their day. I would highly recommend them for these stands. Furthermore, they understood the error of “rule by select few” that the Roman Catholics and Anglicans drove into the extreme. Their charter Savoy Declaration clearly rejects an earthly government more than the local assembly. The Congregationalists placed a tremendous importance on decisions being made at a member level instead of behind closed doors by Popes and Archbishops. Again this is a heroic stand that they made against all religions of their day that did things in an unbiblical way. According to this article, The Congregationalists, (http://www.pamphlets.org.au/australia/acts1213.html) the forces and tendencies within the group today are working to overpower the individualism and replace it with an over arching organization, and basically that is the way things go with all independents, they succumb to pressures to “join”, “associate”, and “submit to” losing their independence.
I would also see a lot of the historic Baptist beliefs and practices being completely in sync with this group, such as universal priesthood of EVERY believer and no special priests.
Moreover, some of their main preachers were men of God that God greatly used in their day to do the work of God. Their basic mind-set was/is to find out what the Bible says, and believe that without getting so involved in church polity, religious political movements, etc. as the deciding factors of doctrine and practice. In heart, I would see them as basically the same thing as a good Baptist, a good separated Fundamentalist, although those exact words may not have been applied to them.
I would heartily recommend Congregationalist works in general.
George Campbell Morgan – After Spurgeon, I consider G.C. Morgan to be one of those “princes among preachers”. I say that not so much from examining and studying their sermons, (I don’t get a whole lot out of Spurgeon’s sermons either even though both he and I are Baptists), but because of the rapport that these men had with their audiences. God has men for each age, and the men that have a ministry like these men preach in such a fashion as that they “strike a note” with their congregations, and because a “success” (probably more in men’s eyes than God really), and they become very popular among Christians in their day. In general, some of their sermons would seem to be “light” on Bible exposition, and light on applications, but I say that judging them from our perspective of today. In their day, their sermons were what God sent for those people. The people of yesteryear were more simple, and life was not as complicated as today, and a preacher’s resource were not what we have today with all the volumes and volumes of books available, and even computer programs and libraries that are available (www.twmodules.com). Having said that, let me recommend Morgan, because his works are very good, even though they may not be exactly what a sermon of today would be, his sermons are very good instruments of God for probing the heart.
Dwight Lyman Moody – This is another man that was a “prince of preachers” in his day. His works would all be highly recommended as well as Morgan’s
Having recommended Congregationalism, and having identified it with the basic tenets of Baptist and Fundamental doctrines and practices, I must digress and add that there are some logistical and theological problems with Congregationalism. See the article in the link below. I would agree with Burk that there are logistical and theological problems in submitting everything to a vote. While the NT churches did involve the members in the activities and decisions of the local church, there are problems with this. My view is that a church, a family, a business, a country are all the same. The value of the whole is made up by the value of the individuals, plus or minus some by putting them together. If a church has strong men of God, the church will probably be strong. If the men there are weak, of poor discernment and doctrine, and don’t stand for God and His principles (i.e. aren’t true men of God), the church will reflect this plus some.
See also Denny Burk – Is Congregationalism from Satan?
While this system could be good, I see it as a reaction against regular ministers running a local church. The New Testament has Peter, Paul, Barnabas, Titus, Timothy, etc. as being in charge of works. These are ministers obviously. What do you get by removing this “minister” element and replacing it with a straight vote of the congregation?
You cannot talk about Anglicanism’s (Church of England) without talking about its spiritual problems. To be frank, the church is slowly disappearing. While the Roman Catholic Church is in the same disarray, Anglicanism is worse.
By Pastor David Cox (Baptist Fundamentalist).
A narrow view of the term “protestant” is anybody protesting the Roman Catholic Church. Few “Protestants” would consider themselves “Protestants” because the term in itself has the idea that “we all began as Roman Catholics”. Personally, I hold to the belief that this is not the case.
For a more historical presentation of Anglicanism, please read this article from Wikipedia.org first.
Anglicanism – Wikipedia.org
My opinion of Anglicanism is that it is more or less “warmed over Catholicism”. Much of the structure and practice of Anglicanism comes directly from Catholicism. Once you understand the origin of the Anglican church (a refusal of Catholics to submit to Rome), then you see their historical and philosophical framework, i.e. they are Catholics of a non-Rome sort. During the formation of Anglicanism in England, there were a group of Catholic priests that went into Anglicanism, and there was a group that refused and stayed loyal to the Roman Catholic church (even until today). In reference to this, please see the Oxford Movement, which is a movement of returning Anglican clergy back into the church of Roman. Bishop Newman was one that returned to Roman Catholicism from being an Anglican priest.
This post explains some distinctive points of the Church of Church. My purpose in giving this evaluation is not to refute every error ever mentioned in one of their books, but rather to outline the areas where I and others have seen doctrinal impropriety in the Church of Christ. My purpose and point is so that when you read Church of Christ authors that you can be on the look out for these particular problems, and “filter them out” (reject them).
(Note, I am using “Campbellite” here because this traces back to the founding of this group, although they probably do not like it. I mean no offense by this. Additionally, it is my understanding that the Disciples of Christ technically is a branch off of the main Church of Christ group, and the Disciples of Christ deny many of the fundamentals of the faith. They should be distinguished although they have a common heritage.)
I have read a lot of Church of Christ material, and a lot of it seems right down the line with the Bible. I have read the sermons of Mark Copeland, and most every one of them would seem to exactly something that I would preach. (Water baptism is one element that I disagree with him totally, see below.) But some of their teachings are definitely off in left field. I would also note that in my own personal opinion, the diversity in doctrinal positions is extremely wide in this group, and while some are pretty close to Baptist beliefs, others are far afield. Some seem to be pushing things towards a more biblical stance and practice, while others are just a cult and work towards making their beliefs and practices as different from other groups as possible, whether they misinterpret the Bible in doing or not.
