liberalism

WHY I LEFT THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

Keith A. Mosher, Sr.

IINTRODUCTION

The assignment to write this essay with the title. "Why I Left the Presbyterian Church," has come nearly thirty years after the fact of departing from that denomination. Certainly any study done since then and any spiritual growth attained over that nearly three decade span will affect what is written here. Thought processes expand over time and so the actual reasons for leaving in 1965 are necessarily explored in greater detail now. However, no dishonesty is intended by enlarging for publication the original motives for departing, and 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 College (then).

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 (Gal. 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; Col. 1:13-14). The Covenant Presbyterian church had lost two members. Why?

This essay is written to explore the motives and answer the question, "Why?" The fervent desire here is that all who read this essay will ask themselves why they are pursuing their particular religions and confront their creeds with the biblical standard (1 John 4:1). Surely all sentient persons are, or should be concerned about what to do to please God and to inherit eternal life (cf. Matt. 19:16). Truth is exclusive (John 8:32; 17:17; 1 Thess. 5:21).

This essay will focus on four areas of concern about Presbyterianism-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.

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 placed 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 external things, which are not the result of individual choice, decide the person's life course and 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 in 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 such events. Man can not, according to Calvinism, nor Augustinianism, and now modernism even in churches of Christ, contribute one whit to his situation and/or salvation! Read further with Boettner:

This doctrine of eternal and unconditional election has sometimes been called the 'heart' of the Reformed Faith. It emphasized the sovereignty and grace of God in salvation while the Armenian view emphasized the work of faith and obedience in the man who decides to accept the offered grace. In the Calvinistic system it is God alone who chooses those who are to be the heirs of heaven, those with whom He will share His riches in glory; while in the Armenian system it is, in the ultimate analysis, man who determines this-a principle somewhat lacking in humility to say the least.

Please, dear reader, peruse the above paragraph long enough to become aware that those who teach that man has anything at all to do with his salvation are said by Calvinists to denigrate the sovereignty of God and to exalt the efforts of man and are, therefore, not humble! When a Calvinist is asked why God saves some and not others, the answer is that such information belongs to His secret counsels. It is somewhat a mystery to those who study the phenomenon of Calvinism to note that everyone of them is one of the elect. How would they know they were elect if such belonged to God's "secret counsels?" The Calvinistic system has an answer for how one knows whether he is one of the elect God just tells him in some convulsion or experience! Too, is one not humble who obeys God and accesses grace (Rom. 5:1-2; Heb. 5:8-9)? The theory also teaches that:

...Calvinism is nearer to the facts, however harsh and forbidding those facts may semi. When all deserve death it is a marvel of pure grace that any receive life; and who shall gainsay the right of Him who shows this miraculous mercy, to have mercy on whom He will, and whom He will to harden? This is admittedly an unpleasant doctrine. It is not taught to gain favor with men, but only because it is the plain teaching of Scriptures and the logical counterpart of the doctrine of Election.

Is it not clear by now that Calvinists believe, even insist, that God, for no revealed reason, just plucks up some and puts down others! Some he condemns to evil and others to good. There is nothing man can do to escape this arbitrary system. Boettner adds:

Luther also certainly as Calvin attributes the eternal perdition of the wicked, as well as the eternal salvation of the righteous, to the plan of God. 'This mightily offends our rational nature,' he says, 'that God should, of His own mere unbiased will, leave some men to themselves, harden them and condemn them: but He gives abundant demonstration, and does continually, that this is really the case; namely, that the sole cause why some are saved, and others perish, proceeds from His willing the salvation of the former, and the perdition of the latter, according to that of St. Paul, He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.' And again, 'It may semi absurd to human wisdom that God should harden, blind, and deliver up some men to a reprobate sense; that He should first deliver them over to evil, and condemn them for that evil; but the believing, spiritual man sees no absurdity at all in this; knowing that God would be never a whit less good, even though He should destroy all men. He then goes on to say that this must not be understood to mean that God finds men good, wise, obedient, and makes them evil, foolish, and obdurate, but that they are already depraved and fallen and that those who are not regenerated, instead of becoming better under the divine commands and influences only react to become worse.' In Reference to Romans IX, X, XI, Luther says that 'all things whatever arise from and depend upon the Divine appointment whereby it was preordained who should received the word of life and who should disbelieve it who should be delivered from their sins and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who condemned' (He quotes Luther from Praefat, KM.).

The convoluted reasoning of Luther and Calvin above quoted as the true way in which God acts in all matters of life and salvation, teaches that God is not to be said to cause evil but that God is to be seen as selecting a few to salvation. Yet, Boettner argued earlier above that everything that took place God did! The Calvinist wants his election and his ejection to harmonize with his view of the sovereignty of God and when pressed to explain such confusion, the Calvinist says that all of this is a secret and can not be known.

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, than 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). 6 To the Calvinist, then, it does not matter what the Bible teaches against their 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. Heb. 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 a system 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 help. It is a tremendous relief to learn that the Bible teaches that anyone can respond to God and that God desires all men to be saved (Mart. 11:28-30; Rev. 22:17; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). One leaving Calvinism knows well what is meant by being "transformed out of the power of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9).

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 effectual 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.

Man, totally depraved, can not respond to God, yet is called so to do (Matt.11:28-30; Rev. 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 fail of Adam and Eve. Did Adam and Eve obey God and leave the garden? Presbyterianism (i.e. Calvinism) 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 (Heb. 5:8,9).

Presbyterianism sprinkles water on infants (only the "elect ones" of course) and labels the act 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. 10 The Bible teaches that baptism is immersion or burial in water in order to salvation (Rom. 6:3,4; 1 Pet. 3:20,21; Acts 2:38 etc.). Only those who can believe are to be immersed according to the Bible (Mark 16:16). Infants can not believe; therefore they are not candidates for baptism.

Presbyterianism teaches that there are only two "sacraments" ordained for the church by Christ and that only ordained ministers may dispense them-baptism (sprinkling) and the "Supper of the Lord." 11 All elect who profess Christ and observe the two sacraments are in fellowship regardless of other beliefs for all churches are "more or less pure." The Bible calls for fellowship on the basis of continuing in all the doctrine from Christ (John 8:31-32; 17:17; 2 John 9-11).

If some of the above sounds familiar to members of churches of Christ, it should. Some of "our" preachers have insisted lately that one can not contribute "one whit" to his salvation and that only some "big F" doctrines are necessary to fellowship. It is extremely sad to hear from "our" pulpits what Calvinism has long taught.

The Presbyterian creed also looses God's law of divorce and remarriage (Mart. 19:9). "Willful" desertion (leaving one's mate) that can not be "remedied by the Church nor civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage." 12 (One hesitates to report this for fear that some members of the church will adopt it!) Christ stated that only fornication was reason to dissolve a marriage and that only the innocent could remarry (Matt. 19:9-12; Mark 10:11-12). Paul iterated this (1 Cor 7:10-11). Presbyterian doctrine adds to God's Word (Prov. 30:6).

GOD'S CHOOSING OF INDIVIDUALS WAS INCORRECTLY TAUGHT

Romans chapters 9, 10 and 11 are a parenthetical statement in that great treatise on the gospel by the apostle Paul (Rom. 1:16-17). Paul pauses in his defense of the new covenant to assure the Jews that God had not forsaken them, but that in fact the Jews had rejected the only message that could save anyone-the gospel (Rom. 10:1-4). All men, from Adam to this writer, are saved, if they are saved, by the gospel of Christ (cf. Heb. 9:15; Rom. 3:21-3 1). No one was actually righteous under any other covenant because the "blood of bulls and goats" could never take away sin (Heb. 10:4).

The teaching of the new covenant or gospel caused the Jews to question God's selection process. (Whether unsaved Jews literally asked such or whether Paul assumed such a question would be asked is moot; Paul discussed the question in Romans 9). The question might have been something like: "Since God chose the Jews (Rom. 9:5) to bring the Christ, how can any of God's 'selected people' be lost?" in other words, "How can God choose anyone for some purpose without affecting that person's salvation? If God uses someone for God's purpose, how is it possible for that person to be lost?"

Romans, chapter 9, was written to answer such an inquiry. Presbyterianism misunderstands this "choosing" as did the Jews of Paul's day.

Paul assures the Jew, first of all, that he has no personal animosity toward them. He even wishes (the original language is idiomatic imperfect, or having tentative force; i.e., what Paul wished was impossible) he could be "accursed" if such would save all the Jews (Rom. 9:1-3). One must stand in awe of a Christian who would love his fellowman to such limits! Paul was in no sense personally opposed to the salvation of the Jews.

Paul is careful to explain that the "brethren" (Rom. 9:3) for whom be could wish himself accursed were indeed chosen by God (Rom. 9:4-5). They had been "adopted" as national sons of God (cf. Dent. 14: 1); they were cognizant of the "covenants" (with Abraham, Gen. 12; Israel, Ex. 20; and David, 2 Sam. 7); they were familiar with the "service of God" (the priesthood, Heb. 9:1,6); and they knew the Messianic promises and the fact that Christ came as a Jew (Rom. 9:4b, 5). Certainly the Jews had been especially chosen by God.

"Not as though the word of God bath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6) Whiteside noted concerning God's process of choosing that "the selection.. .is regarded as having reference not to the final salvation of persons but to the execution of the purpose of God."13 God did choose Israel in order to execute God's purpose, but that selection did not "automatically" insure the final salvation of every Jew. In fact, argues Paul, not even those who lived during the time of national Israel were "of Israel" (Rom. 9:6b). Why? Because as concerning salvation, the purpose of God has always been to include only those persons who are "of faith" (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:16,17; Heb. 11). Spiritual Israel today includes only those persons who have faith "in" Christ. In order to have faith "in" Christ, one must be baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27). The national Jews often argued with Christ that "they had Abraham to their father" as if mere birth in Israel insured salvation (e.g. John 8:33). Jesus' answer to the Jews on that occasion was that since they operated by such thinking they were actually children of the devil, and not children of Abraham (John 8:44)! God, who is sovereign, can choose anyone for whatever purpose God has in mind but that choice does not insure salvation to such an individual nor does that choice interfere with a person's free moral ability to choose to obey or disobey God.

God made choice of Isaac over lshmael (Rom. 9:7). Why? To save Isaac and to send lshmael to hell? No! God chose Isaac to perpetuate the seed of Messiah. Someone might say, "Well, I can understand that choice, for after all, Isaac was the legitimate son." So, Paul brings up Esau and Jacob (Rom. 9:8-13). Fleshly descent does not insure salvation (Rom. 9:8b, 9). Yet, before Esau and Jacob were born (Rom. 9:10-11), God chose Esau to "serve" Jacob (Rom. 9:12). In the personal lives of Jacob and Esau, Esau did not "serve" me nations that proceeded from Esau later served Jacob or Israel (Mal. 1:1-4). If God's choice of Jacob over Esau had been for personal salvation, such a choice would have condemned every descendant of Esau to hell. But, God is no respecter of persons as concerning salvation (Rom. 2:11). As individuals, Jacob gave gifts to Esau (Gen. 33) but as nations "Esau" (Edom) served "Jacob" (Israel-1 Chron. 18:12-13).

The president of the United States will often choose someone to be on the president's team. Such a choice does not alter the character of the one chosen, nor does such a choice insure that the selected one will still be on the team as long as the president is in office. God made many choices in the completion of God's plan to bring the Messiah through Israel and for the world. Not one of those choices affected directly the personal character of the one chosen nor did that choice insure the salvation of the person.

God is not "unrighteous" in any choice that God makes in order to achieve His purposes (Rom 9:14). God's "choices" do not interfere with human "choices" and in fact the bringing of the Messiah enhanced all peoples "chances" at salvation! "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation bath appeared to all men" (Titus 2:14). Even though Israel had been the instrument through which God had brought Messiah, Israel no more deserved individual salvation for every citizen of that ancient nation than did or does any other nation or individual (Rom. 9:16).

Sometimes, God's ancient leaders would become very discouraged about Israel. Moses, especially, was concerned about the rebellion of his people and God's attitude after the people sinned concerning the golden calf. But God assured Moses that the Divine purposes would be accomplished for God is "gracious" and "merciful" to whom He will (Ex. 33:19 and Rom. 9:15). Presbyterianism has tried to make the statement in Romans 9:15 to mean that God chooses some to salvation but not others. 14 The context, however, has to do with God's purposes in the future of Israel and the coming Messiah for all mankind. Individuals wanting God's mercy or forgiveness of their personal sins should heed the following: "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper, but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy" (Prov. 23:13. See also, Isa. 55:7; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:22, which was said to one already a Christian).

God will always bring His plans to conclusion (Rom. 9:16). The ancient promise to the faithful Abraham had been of a promised seed (Gen. 12:1-3) which promise was fulfilled in the Jewish nation, but the Jews wanted to "will" otherwise and find their own righteousness (Rom 10:1-3). But God is the one who is in charge and God shows that His mercy is never a product of man's will nor man's striving, but man must accept the mercy found in Christ whether he is Jew, Gentile, or anyone else (Rom 3:21-27). God did choose the Jewish nation to bring Messiah, but God will show His mercy only to those who meet the conditions for faith in Messiah (Heb. 11:6: John 8:24). Even today many would rather just be "good" and "earn" their way (they think) to heaven!

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" (Rom. 9:17). Pharaoh openly defied God, therefore God's will hardened Pharaoh (Ex. 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 plan and so was said to be hardened by God and at the same time to harden Pharaoh's own heart (Ex. 9:7,12.34). Truly the Word of God is a "two-edged sword" (Heb. 4:12). God chose Pharaoh in order to exalt God's purpose and power, but Pharaoh condemned himself by refusing to be a part of God's plans. And the sincere Bible student will recognize that even Moses was in the same position before God when Moses was called to lead Israel (Ex. 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 a 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 did not obey 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 nor rebellion (cf. Rom. 6:16-18).

"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he Will he hardeneth" (Rom. 9:18). When one is involved in God's "purposing," and in a sense all men are, God's message either hardens or softens depending on how one reacts to it. It is, therefore, incumbent upon all to realize that to hear the plan of God for salvation and not to respond is to place one at risk to have one's heart hardened. This is the reason that Pharaoh is said to harden his own heart as well as God's hardening that same heart. God's Word "cuts" two ways-it will either cut the heart or prick the heart (cf. Acts 7:54 and Acts 2:37). "Cutting" the heart produces spiritual "scars" that harden, but "pricking" is said of the soft heart that responds.

God has the power to use individuals and nations as he chooses: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour" (Rom. 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 (honour) and some to be lost (dishonour), but does teach that in working out God's purposes certain individuals were used.

Paul's clear claim is that God has the right to use men already sinners for God's purposes (Rom. 9:22). This principle Paul applied to the Jews who were used by God to bring the blessed Messiah to the world, but which Messiah the Jews, for the most part, rejected (Rom. 9:7). God used wicked nations against his people on many occasions trying to get rebellious Israel to repent of her idolatry, and such activity on the part of Deity was questioned (Hab. 1:13). God's answer to Habakkuk was the wicked would not go unpunished either (Hab. 2:4-19) and that all men should be made to understand that God rules in this world (Hab. 2:20- "But the Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him,"). Sinners and saints, especially saints who worship a loving God, often find it very hard to understand how God can use both groups for his purposes. Saints have learned to trust the righteous government of God, but sinners continue to question such control.

The Jewish nation, before the time of Christ, had long been "fitted" (katerismena, a state of readiness) for destruction (Rom. 9:22). The Jewish nation, through her leaders, had also executed the Son of God (Acts 2:3 6). But God "endured" (Rom. 9:22b). 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" (Rom. 9:23-24). The Jewish prophet, Hosea, had foretold of God's purposes in these matters of salvation (Rom. 9:25) and Paul uses that Old Testament passage (Hos. 2:23) as his proof- text for arguing that the intentions of God always supersede the character of the human vessels involved. God intended that 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 automatic salvation is due the one so used. Everyone must obey from his own heart in order to be saved (2 Pet. 3:9; Hos. 1:10; Rom. 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. 15 Any person trying to come to Christ simply by obeying 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 a Presbyterian preacher! The Bible records Christ as saying "Come unto me" (Matt. 11 :28a)!

There are any number of 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!