Why I left...

This dedicated to Presbyterian Nathan

Why I Left

The Presbyterian Church

By Keith Mosher, Sr.

No dishonesty is intended by enlarging for publication the original motives for departing, but it is hoped that any readers will be better able to grasp the thinking of this writer as Biblical truth was first discovered and the clash with Presbyterian Calvinism began.

Initial contact with Bible doctrine occurred in Erie, Pennsylvania as the result of a campaign by young people from Abilene Christian University. Two of the campaigners knocked on a door, asked the woman of the house whether they could “talk to her about Jesus,” and that week she was immersed into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27). A few weeks later her husband, this writer, also obeyed the gospel and a new family was born into the kingdom of God (John 3:1-5; Colossians 1:13-14). The Covenant Presbyterian Church had lost two members. Why?

The fervent desire of this essay is that all who read it will ask themselves why they are pursuing their particular religions and confront their creeds with the Biblical standard (1 John 4:1). This essay will focus on four areas of concern about Presbyterian Calvinism that led to the severing of ties with that man-made group:(1) Their teaching about God’s grace pictures God as a “horror!”(2) Their teaching about becoming a Christian falls far short of Bible truth.(3) Their teaching is false concerning God’s “choosing” of individuals.(4) Their teaching binds one to Calvinism, not to Christ.

more to come

God’s Grace had been Pictured as “Horror!”



Is God’s grace a horror or a help? Some dear reader may wonder at such a question, but the persistent doctrine of Calvinism that permeates the Presbyterian Church leads to such an inquiry. Calvinists believe that every minute thing that happens is caused by God. Listen to Boettner:



It is almost universally admitted that God determines when, where, and under what circumstances, each individual of our race shall be born, live, and die, whether it shall be male or female, white or black, wise or foolish. God is no less sovereign in the distribution of His favors. He does what He will with His own. To some He gives riches, to others honor, to others health, to others certain talents for music, oratory, art, finance, statesmanship, etc. Others are poor, unknown, born in dishonor, the victims of disease, and live lives of wretchedness. Some are place in Christian lands where they receive all the benefits of the Gospel; others live and die in the darkness of heathenism. Some are brought through faith unto salvation; others are left to perish in unbelief. And to a very large extent these eternal things, which are not the result of individual choice, decide the person’s life course and eternal destiny. Both Scripture and every day experience teach us that God gives to some what He withholds from others. If it be asked why He does this, or why He does not save all, the only available answer is found in the words of the Lord Jesus.“Yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in Thy sight.” Only the Scripture doctrine of the fall and redemption will give us any light on what we see about us.



Notice that God is said to be responsible for every failure and/or success of man! Every horror of life and every help in life is the selective result of the sovereignty of God (according to the above) and man can do nothing to alter these events. Man according to Calvinism, Augustinianism, and now modernism, cannot contribute one whit to his situation and/or salvation!

More to come

Calvinists start their argumentation with the thought that if any perfection in God’s divine (to them predestined) plan is denied then no stopping place can be found in thinking about God short of atheism. God did not need to create – says the Calvinist, but since God did create even the sinful acts of man have to be included in God’s plan! The Bible verses usually quoted to “prove” this theory by Calvinists are Acts 2:23; 4:28; Ephesians 1:4; 3:11; 2 Timothy 1:9 and 1 Peter 1:20. Those who argue for man’s part in salvation are said, by Calvinists, to deny God’s eternal purpose and to be saying further that man’s fall in the garden changed God’s purpose which fall “drove” God to the expedient of a scheme of redemption. That is, if the crucifixion of Christ was in the eternal plan, then all the acts that made the crucifixion necessary were also planned by God says the Calvinist and any other teaching is atheism!

Note the following quote carefully:“The fact that the Scriptures often speak of one purpose of God as dependent on the outcome of another or on the actions of men, is no objection against this doctrine”(of Calvinism, KM). Oh, so it does not matter that the Bible teaches against this doctrine of election, predestination, and the horror and help of grace! Well, it does matter and no Calvinist on earth has the authority to say that those verses that do not agree with his doctrine are just “man-talk” and not significant: that is, those scriptures are just figurative and not literal that mandate some action on man’s part in the scheme of redemption (cf., Hebrews 5:8-9; John 14:15; Acts 2:38; 1 John 2:3; 5:3; et. al.).

Is it a wonder then, that one would want to leave a system where God was said to be arbitrary and that taught that one could not know whether one had been elected or rejected without some “convulsion” or “experience” directly from God! A child, growing up under such teaching, lives in fear – not knowing whether God loves him or not! The grace of God becomes a “horror” rather than a help. It is a tremendous relief to learn that the Bible teaches that anyone can respond to God and that God desires all men be saved (Matthew 11:28-30; Revelation 22:17; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). One leaving Calvinism knows well what is meant by being “transformed out of the power of darkness into His marvelous light”(1 Peter 2:9).

more to come

Salvation Teaching was Short of Truth



The creed of the Presbyterian Church to which this writer had confessed stated:



Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; those whom God effectually calleth He also freely justifieth:…not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (The Westminster Confession of Faith).



Man is totally depraved and cannot respond to God, yet is called to do so (Matthew 11:28-30; Revelation 22:17; et al) according to the creed above. So, God must call one, operate on one’s heart, and give one faith in order to save one elected before creation to be saved! When asked,“Is not God unjust in requiring of man in God’s Law what man cannot do?” the answer given is that God did create man with the ability to obey but man lost said ability in the fall of Adam and Eve (Westminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism). Did Adam and Eve obey God and leave the garden? Presbyterianism denies man’s self-will and denies clear Bible statements. Man can obey God (1 John 2:3; 5:3, etc.) and must obey God (Hebrews 5:8-9).

Presbyterianism sprinkles water on infants (only the “elect ones” of course) and labels the acts as “baptism.” Baptism is seen by them as not necessary to salvation, but as an outward joining to the church and as a sign of a covenant with grace already accomplished by God. The Bible teaches that baptism is immersion or burial in water in order to salvation (Romans 6:3-4; 1 Peter 3:20-21; Acts 2:38). Only those who can believe can be immersed (Mark 16:16). Infants cannot believe, therefore are not candidates for baptism.

The Presbyterian creed also looses God’s law of divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:9).“Willful” desertion (leaving one’s mate) that cannot be “remedied by the Church or civil magistrates, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage”(The Westminster Confession of Faith). Christ stated that ONLY fornication was reason to dissolve a marriage and that ONLY the innocent could remarry (Matthew 19:9-12; Mark 10:11-12). Paul reiterated this (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). Presbyterian doctrine therefore adds to God’s Word (Proverbs 30:6).

more to come

God’s “Choosing of Individuals” was Incorrectly Taught
No better illustration of how God can use a person to fulfill His purpose and yet not interfere with that person’s ability to choose or reject the salvation of God could be located in all history than Pharaoh.“For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even, for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth”(Romans 9:17). Pharaoh openly defied God, therefore God’s will hardened Pharaoh (Exodus 9:16). God intended to show mercy to the Israelites through Pharaoh, but Pharaoh hearing the same messages from God that Moses and the Israelites heard, rejected God’s plans and so was said to be hardened by God and at the same time to harden Pharaoh’s own heart (Exodus 9:7, 12, 34). Truly the Word of God is a “two-edged sword”(Hebrews 4:12). God chose Pharaoh to show mercy to Israel, not to condemn Pharaoh. Pharaoh condemned himself by refusing to be a part of God’s purposes. The sincere Bible student will recognize that even Moses was in the same position before God when Moses was called to lead Israel (Exodus 3-4) as Pharaoh was when God called that ancient Egyptian to show mercy to His Hebrew slaves. Moses responded in a positive way, but Pharaoh did not. Pharaoh could have been part of salvation’s plan, but he chose to rebel. The sincere Bible student will also recognize that God would have accomplished His purposes whether Pharaoh obeyed or not and that is the whole point here. God works His purposes through man, but such working does not affect man’s individual choice of obedience or rebellion (Romans 6:16-18).
God has the power to use individuals and nations as He chooses (Romans 9:21). However, each person has the power to choose the character of the vessel so chosen by God. Romans 9:21 is not teaching that God chooses some to be saved (honor) and some to be lost (dishonor), but does teach that in working out God’s purposes certain individuals were used.

more to come

Before the time of Christ, the Jewish nation had long been “fitted” for destruction (Romans 9:22). The Jewish nation, through her leaders, had also executed the Son of God (Acts 2:36). But God “endured”, why? Because God was doing exactly what God intended to do, bring in the Gentiles and those Jews who would obey the gospel –“vessels of mercy”(Romans 9:23-24). The Jewish prophet, Hosea, had foretold of God’s purposes in these matters of salvation (Romans 9:25) and Paul uses that Old Testament passage (Hosea 2:23) as his proof text for arguing that the intentions of God always supercede the character of the human vessels involved. God intended that the Gentiles hear the gospel and used the Jews to bring the message. That fact never did mean that God must save every Israelite nor does God’s usage of any person mean that automatically salvation is due the one so used. Everyone must obey from his own heart in order to be saved (2 Peter 3:9; Hosea 1:10; Romans 9:26).
One Was Bound to Calvin Not Christ!
The only route to having the God of heaven as one’s Father is through the Christ (John 14:6). But, Presbyterianism binds one to Calvin’s doctrine NOT to Christ’s teaching since only “ordained” Calvinistic preachers may administer “sacraments.” Any person trying to come to Christ simply by obeying the Scripture is told he has no ability to do so, may or may not be one of God’s elect, and must join the Presbyterian Church through baptism (i.e., sprinkling) by one ordained as a Presbyterian preacher! The Bible records Christ as saying “Come unto Me”(Matthew 11:28)!
There are numerous unscriptural and non-scriptural practices by this denomination, from “clergy-laity” errors, worship errors (including the instrument), and organizational errors. In short, Presbyterianism is heir to all the faults of the Church of England and the Reformation. Any or all of the above should cause the reader to want to separate from such horror and heresy. This writer did!

http://home.earthlink.net/~heartlandcoc/id56....

www.roysecitycoc.org

I thought that you believed ACU was in error? How can you claim that and then support that they taught her about Jesus?

Double standard...

There's the problem. The Bible is not enough for Shawn Heath. He must have the Bible AND biblical scholarship from all faiths.

Katherine wrote:

I thought that you believed ACU was in error? How can you claim that and then support that they taught her about Jesus?
Double standard...

Apostasy usually takes several years.

www.roysecitycoc.org

Hilarious.

I have read that article before. It is part of a very strange tract called "Why I left." Some super hardliner church in Oklahoma published it. It has a bunch of stories like "why I left the Catholic Church, Mormonism, Freemasons, and just about every denomination (except the CoC of course).

My Grandmother gave me that handout when I was about 11 years old. I was not sure if anyone else had ever seen it. I probably still have it somewhere.

Is yours white and blue too Heath?

And by the way, don't get me started on "Why I left..." type of things. Just click over to the ex-church of Christ bulletin boards to see the emotional and mental scarring that went on with lots of those people at the hands of people in hypercon C'sofC.

http://www.setbb.com/exchurchofchris/index.ph...

I've got a LOT more material to cut and paste than you do on this one, SHP, not to mention the personal testimony of Gail, Katherine, and Manzi.

Heath wrote:

<quoted text>
Apostasy usually takes several years.
www.roysecitycoc.org

Running away again, eh?

Nathan wrote:

And by the way, don't get me started on "Why I left..." type of things. Just click over to the ex-church of Christ bulletin boards to see the emotional and mental scarring that went on with lots of those people at the hands of people in hypercon C'sofC.
http://www.setbb.com/exchurchofchris/index.ph...
I've got a LOT more material to cut and paste than you do on this one, SHP, not to mention the personal testimony of Gail, Katherine, and Manzi.

Yes, the poor crybaby liberals that get their little feeling hurt all run and blog about their alleged "abuse".

Bleeding liberal hearts unite!!!

And notice Presbyterian Nathan did not refute ANYTHING in the article I posted. That speaks volumes.

www.roysecitycoc.org

DMH wrote:

Hilarious.
I have read that article before. It is part of a very strange tract called "Why I left." Some super hardliner church in Oklahoma published it. It has a bunch of stories like "why I left the Catholic Church, Mormonism, Freemasons, and just about every denomination (except the CoC of course).
My Grandmother gave me that handout when I was about 11 years old. I was not sure if anyone else had ever seen it. I probably still have it somewhere.
Is yours white and blue too Heath?

Good for Grandma!

www.roysecitycoc.org

Heath wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, the poor crybaby liberals that get their little feeling hurt all run and blog about their alleged "abuse".
Bleeding liberal hearts unite!!!

www.roysecitycoc.org

Wow, the love of Christ is just shining through!! Can't you just see it pouring out of Heath's heart?!

Katherine wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, the love of Christ is just shining through!! Can't you just see it pouring out of Heath's heart?!

Matthew 23

I'm sorry, that chapter only applies to "hyper-conservatives " like me right? lol

www.roysecitycoc.org

Heath wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, the poor crybaby liberals that get their little feeling hurt all run and blog about their alleged "abuse".
Bleeding liberal hearts unite!!!
And notice Presbyterian Nathan did not refute ANYTHING in the article I posted. That speaks volumes.

Of course I didn't refute anything. I don't read your cuts and pastes. Life's too short, and I waste enough time on topix to waste more on that. I have no idea what that article said, and frankly, I don't care.

"Yes, the poor crybaby liberals that get their little feeling hurt all run and blog about their alleged "abuse".

Bleeding liberal hearts unite!!!"

What kind of a man would write such words to others? Wow, heath; your Sect really has your heart all messed up inside! The Message of the Cross last night at the Johnson St. Church of Christ really humbled YOUR heart, didn't it?
Go get saved, Heath!

Why I Left

The Baptist Church

By Lynn Matheny

This writer has always admired a good painting. Some artists paint and there seems to be no real message in the painting. Others paint and when you look at their work you readily see the message the artist had in mind. You may look closer at the artist’s work and see how the details of the painting bring out the overall message of the painting. I will endeavor with the following words to try and paint for you a mental picture of why I left the Baptist Church. I will first give you the general theme of the picture and then fit together the details to prove, to every lover of truth, the general message of the picture. It will be clear to all that there was nothing left for me to do. I had to leave the Baptist Church!

At some point in my early years, I became serious about truth. I mean truth on any subject. There is something unique about being a lover of truth. You also become subject to change. The truth you learn changes your mind and then you must change your ways to fit that truth.

Now for the pointed and plain reason that I left the Baptist Church. The overall message that I would like for my mental picture to show is: you can’t be serious about truth and remain in the Baptist Church! The truth of the Bible just will not allow it. This statement comes from a heart that is filled with love for all men. Please do not stop reading this material because you think that I just made a mean and unkind statement. If you stop now, then I must question your love for truth.

After being discharged from the Army and being back with my family I became much more serious about my religion. In a few short months I dated and married a young lady that was a Methodist. This turned out to be a tremendous spiritual blessing to both of us. It made us take a much closer look at why we were Baptist and Methodist. I had to admit, that for the most part, I was Baptist because that’s what my family was, and my wife was a Methodist for the same reason. But even so, we both had some convictions concerning our religions and problems arose. I had been immersed at age twelve and at age thirteen she had been sprinkled. She was brought up with teaching that a Christian could “fall from grace” and I was taught it impossible for one to do so. I had been taught that the “Lord’s Supper” was “closed” except to those of our Baptist fellowship. That included my wife whom they said was a Christian and would go to heaven but would not be allowed to eat the “supper” with us Baptists. If she wanted to eat the “supper” with the Baptists she would have to be baptized into the Baptist Church. But she had been baptized according to the Methodists and according to the Baptists she was a Christian. Why was it that she could be sprinkled and be a Christian and had to be immersed to be a Baptist? What was the TRUTH about such matters became the overriding question for both of us.

more to come

We found the answer in the most taught book (for the Baptists) of the New Testament, the book of John:“Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had believed Him, if ye abide in My word, then are ye truly My disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”(John 8:31-32). We determined for the sake of our souls, and the souls of the four daughters that had blessed our marriage, that we would abide in Jesus’ Word and be ‘truly’ His disciples.

The “details” of this mental picture that I would like to paint for you are those spiritual truths that I found that would not allow me to remain in the Baptist Church. Nor would what my wife learned allow her to remain in the Methodist Church.

If I had remained in the Baptist Church I COULD NOT HAVE PRACTICED NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE! This is a very serious matter and I say this with all prayerful concern in my heart for the many honest and sincere people that are involved in Baptist error. Very kindly, my Baptist friend, you are not allowed to follow plain New Testament teaching!

I know that for most Baptists not being able to practice Bible doctrine is not a problem. They admit there can be a difference in Baptist doctrine and Bible doctrine. The Baptist Church Manual states on page 41 that “Doctrines of a church” means “What a church believes the Bible to teach.” I knew that one could be a Christian (according to the Baptists) without having to believe Baptist doctrine when they said that my wife, who was a Methodist, was a Christian. The Standard Manual for Baptists says on page 21 that “A body of Christian disciples may fail to meet some of the requirements of the gospel, and still be a true church of Christ, providing it fulfills the fundamental conditions of scriptural faith and practice.” If one does not have to believe Baptist doctrine to be saved, but does have to believe Bible teaching to be saved, then it is very evident that there can be a difference in the two! But remember, I had determined to follow the truth of the Bible (John 8:31-32). To do that and remain in the Baptist Church posed a problem.

more to come