Here’s one for our Restoration history buffs.
I am preparing a “Religious Cultism” class for Jamaica Christian College. During my preparation, I came across a book: “Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions” by John Ankerberg and John Weldon (Harvest house Publishers, 1999, isbn 1-7369-0074-8)
While reading up on the Christadelphains, I came across the following, and I quote:
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY — The founder of the Christadelphians … was John Thomas … His first experience with “Christianity” was with the often unbiblical Campbellite movement (today known as the “Church of Christ,” “Christian Church” or the “Disciples of Christ”).
At that point we are directed by asterisk to a footnote, which I quote:
In his [book] Campbellism: It’s History and Heresies, Bob L Ross cites a number of unbiblical teachings [about “Campbellism”] … A few examples include: (1) an exclusivistic attitude resulting in the condemnation of all other denominations. Campbell (called “Master Spirit”) allegedly believed he was infallible in understanding the Scriptures, automatically making everyone who disagreed with him wrong; (2) restorationism: the true gospel was lost in the dark ages and not restored to its original state until 1827 by Campbell; (3) regeneration. Baptism in water provides forgiveness of sins and is equivalent to regeneration or being “born again”; (4) the natural man does not require the assistance of the Holy Spirit to believe; (5) the Holy Spirit is not sovereign; (6) God is not omniscient.
I know nothing of this writer by the name of Bob Ross … what his personal theology and beliefs are. It appears to me that he is Calvinist, based on #4 above. But I have some questions that maybe or Restoration history buffs out there can answer.
With regards to #1 — I don’t recall from my studies that Campbell had an exclusivistic attitude. Just the opposite, trying to restore NT Christianity through the denoms of his time. “Not the only Christians, but Christians only.” Does anyone know where the “Master Spirit” thing comes from?
With regards to #3 — Of course, this is an old argument. Baptismal regeneration in the sense the author means is not what Campbell taught.
With regards to #5 and #6, can anyone think of where the author might have gotten his material to make those statements?
Just curious … I really don’t want to purchase the above named book, just wandering if anyone had heard these claims made against “Campbellism” before.
BTW — the “Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions” is a good reference text for any number of cults, religions, masonry, etc. even with it’s occasional Calvinistic bias.
-- Anonymous, November 27, 2001
Darrell,
Better late than never I suppose. It seems that each time I try to
start an honest discussion about something, “Maha-Barry” shows up and
disrupts the string with incoherent diatribe. Anyway, I do possess a
copy of “Campbellism: Its History and Heresies”, 1981 edition by
Pilgrim Publications, Pasadena, TX. It was given to me by an
acquaintance of mine who had graduated from Pacific Christian College
and was the associate preacher at one of the local churches in L.A.
Somehow, he got mixed up with some rabid Calvinists (I believe it was
do to his wife’s background) and became an adamant convert to
Calvinism himself. He sent me the book by mail as his way of
defending his newfound faith (?) I tried to keep contact with him but
he just would not enter an honest exchange of ideas – brainwashed I
suppose.
The book is only 174 pages (in small pocketbook size) and it makes
you sick to your stomach with all its character assassination and ad
homonym argumentation. It is a rather pitiful waste of good paper in
my view. That a reputable reference book on cults would even cite
such poor journalism as an authority on Campbellism, is a sad
commentary on the authors’ themselves. In any case, feel free to
request specific info from this booklet if you must.
In terms of Calvinists themselves, I am not sure what can be done
about that. No matter how hard I attempt to state my case on baptism
with them they can’t seem to see further than their biased noses. One
such individual is Rick Miesel of Biblical Discernment Ministries,
who is rather typical of most faith-only and Calvinistic leaders I
have dealt with. Read and weep.
“Dearly beloved,
I have had one of the most unusual debates of my life. I am still
bleeding from this one. I need your help and encouragement if
possible. Most of all, please pray for me!
The debate is with Rick Miesel of Biblical Discernment Ministries
(http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/) If you wish to contact Rick
and tell him what you think, his email is on his web page.
"Dear Rick,
I want to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to you for
sticking up for truth an untruthful age. We need more men like
yourself who are willing to sacrifice all for the cause of Christ and
His Church.
Needless to say, I find many things that I fully agree with among
your writings on the BDM web site. You are a great supplement to
other worthy ministries such as Deception in the Church and Cross &
Word. Your willingness to apply the medicine to open sores even if it
hurts is quite commendable.
I also admire your willingness to name names, associating the act
with the perpetrator and thus calling the church to repentance.
Therefore, I was sincerely disappointed and dismayed to find that you
do not have any critiques of John Calvin among your exposes. Why this
is so becomes quite obvious in view of your statement of faith. It is
evident that you equate your strict Calvinistic views with the true
Gospel of Jesus Christ, in spite of the fact that Calvinism is
nothing more than revived Augustinianism at best, as has been
carefully document by such notable writers as Dr. Vance "The Other
Side of Calvinism".
If in your mind you have decided to cast your lot with John Calvin,
that is fine with me; but please do not make the mistake of
disqualifying others on this basis. To do so is not only
intellectually dishonest but it only serves to cloud the issues and
sow unnecessary seeds of discord among true believers. Would you at
least tentatively and humbly accept the possibility that you may have
an erroneous TULIP interpretation of the Word?
As you know very well, Calvin was just as much a bigot and a monster
in his dealings with perceived and/or real heretics as were the
authors of the Inquisition, and that he needlessly caused more harm
to the cause of Christ than good. Why any true Bible-believing
Christian would want to be associated with anything even remotely
associated with Calvin is beyond me. Maybe you could explain.
In Christ,
Philip Watkinson
missionary-evangelist"
Maybe you could humbly explain why you associate me with Calvin and
TULIP. I merely follow the Bible and its teachings on the sovereignty
of God:
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Introduction/election.htm
As you know very well, Calvin was just as much a bigot and a monster
in his dealings with perceived and/or real heretics as were the
authors of the Inquisition, and that he needlessly caused more harm
to the cause of Christ than good.
If you say so. I haven't the slightest idea of what Calvin taught or
how he lived.
Why any true Bible-believing Christian would want to be associated
with anything even remotely associated with Calvin is beyond me.
Maybe you could explain.
Your reasoning is so wildly irrational it's impossible to respond.
In Christ,
Philip Watkinson
missionary-evangelist
Dear Rick,
I find it rather odd that you know what Luther taught and how he
lived, but that you don't have "the slightest idea of what Calvin
taught or how he lived." You claim to have a good handle on what the
Bible teaches about the "sovereignty of God", and yet you define
sovereignty in strictly Calvinistic terms. Than you say that you
don't have "the slightest idea of what Calvin taught or how he
lived."
You make the blanket statement "Your reasoning is so wildly
irrational it's impossible to respond". I do not treat you with
disrespect Rick, why do you treat me with disrespect? If accusations
were made, they were not against you but against Calvin and the whole
Calvinistic system. You were evidently offended by this and yet you
say that you do not have "the slightest idea of what Calvin taught
or how he lived."
You say, "Maybe you could humbly explain why you associate me with
Calvin and TULIP. I merely follow the Bible and its teachings on the
sovereignty of God." This is the typical calvinistic response when
questioned about his or her beliefs. It reveals the calvinist's
mindset: calvinism equals the Gospel. Calvinistic definitions of sin,
grace, salvation, sovereignty, preserverance of the saints, etc., are
accepted and promoted as the true Gospel without question. This
statement is more revealing than you know. If I were to define those
very same doctrines in arminian terms (and I am not an arminian), I
would be branded as a "heretic" by you and at least verbally "burned
at the stake" (as you have begun to do already) without a doubt. This
is exactly what Calvin would have done.
Rick, how can I know that I can take you seriously when you say that
you don't have "the slightest idea of what Calvin taught or how he
lived?" when, in fact, you speak and act like a true blue Calvinist?
Give me a break! You offend my God-given intellegance!
Sincerely
PW
At 09:38 AM 10/5/2001 -0700, you wrote:
Dear Rick,
I find it rather odd that you know what Luther taught and how he
lived, but that you don't have "the slightest idea of what Calvin
taught or how he lived."
What's so odd about that? I researched Luther because of the Lutheran
church and Luther's position as the leader of the Reformation. Calvin
had no church movement after him. There's only one of me and
thousands of teachers out there, dead and alive. I have to pick and
choose who I research.
You claim to have a good handle on what the Bible teaches about
the "sovereignty of God", and yet you define sovereignty in strictly
Calvinistic terms.
Or perhaps both Calvin and I describe it strictly as does the Bible.
Than you say that you don't have "the slightest idea of what Calvin
taught or how he lived."
Nope.
You make the blanket statement "Your reasoning is so wildly
irrational it's impossible to respond". I do not treat you with
disrespect Rick, why do you treat me with disrespect?
Give me a break. You were totally accusatory of me and my motives.
And your reasoning in identifying me with Calvin was totally
irrational.
If accusations were made, they were not against you but against
Calvin and the whole Calvinistic system. You were evidently offended
by this and yet you say that you do not have "the slightest idea of
what Calvin taught or how he lived."
I was offended by your associating me with the description of the
Calvin you provided. It was totally irrational.
You say, "Maybe you could humbly explain why you associate me with
Calvin and TULIP. I merely follow the Bible and its teachings on the
sovereignty of God." This is the typical calvinistic response when
questioned about his or her beliefs.
Sorry, pal. If you read carefully my SOF, you'd know I am not a TULIP-
er.
It reveals the calvinist's mindset: calvinism equals the Gospel.
Calvinistic definitions of sin, grace, salvation, sovereignty,
preserverance of the saints, etc., are accepted and promoted as the
true Gospel without question. This statement is more revealing than
you know. If I were to define those very same doctrines in arminian
terms (and I am not an arminian),
Yes you are.
I would be branded as a "heretic" by you and at least
verbally "burned at the stake" (as you have begun to do already)
without a doubt. This is exactly what Calvin would have done.
You are a moron.
Rick, how can I know that I can take you seriously when you say that
you don't have "the slightest idea of what Calvin taught or how he
lived?" when, in fact, you speak and act like a true blue Calvinist?
Give me a break! You offend my God-given intellegance!
You blaspheme God by saying He gave you the pitiful level
of "intelligence" you exhibit.
Now, go away. I have, henceforth, filtered you to the trash, where
all Arminians belong.
_______________________________
Rick Miesel
Biblical Discernment Ministries
P.O. Box 679
Bedford, IN 47421-0679
(Primary)
(Second)
(Thirdly)
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm
Dear Rick,
Aaahhhh! So you do know something about Calvin after all!:
(i.e. "Calvin had no church movement after him.")
I had suspected that you were pulling my leg when you said that you
didn't. Now I know! Well, no more hiding behind the "I-have-no-idea-
what-you-are-talking-about" mask.
I researched Luther because of the Lutheran church and Luther's
position as the leader of the Reformation. Calvin had no church
movement after him. It is true that Calvin had no church named after
him, but his influence is most definitely felt in the denominational
world (of which I am not a part, regardless of what you say).
Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Calvinistic Baptists, Neo-
Evangelicals, et al, trace their history back to Calvin,
his "Christian Institutes", and his Geneva reformation. Calvinists
themselves claim that America was founded on the underlining "truths"
of Calvinism, although even that is debatable.
"I researched Luther because of the Lutheran church and Luther's
position as the leader of the Reformation"... "There's only one of me
and thousands of teachers out there, dead and alive. I have to pick
and choose who I research." That's certainly fair. I do not dispute
your right to research whom you please. However, after our little
exchange I have reason to have reservations about your objectivity,
outside of the direct quotes that you cite of course. It seems that
you have a tendency to cast all those who disagree with you in the
same mold, namely that of "false teachers" or "false prophets". At
least you ought give some of these guys the benefit of the doubt.
Call them "brethren in error" (as if there was any other kind)
or "ignorant", but at least try to show a little Christian
Or perhaps both Calvin and I describe it strictly as does the Bible.
Hardly! But, in any case, that is an entirely separate issue. You
are a Calvinist in doctrine and theology, whether you know it or not -
or do not care to admit it. You claimed not to know anything about
Calvin and you obviously do. Should I be "politically correct" and
call that a mere inaccuracy? I would really like to say something
else but I wont.
Listen, you have the perfect right to be a Calvinist if you like -
that is fine with me. Really, I don't have a problem with that! The
problem I have is with Calvinists calling everyone "heretics" just
because they don't agree with their particular system of
interpretation. But do Calvinists have the imprimatur of God Almighty
to tell the rest of us what the true interpretation of the Scripture
ought to be? I DON'T THINK SO! If they do, than they are no different
that the Roman Catholic Church or the Mormons, for they speak with
their own authority and not with that of the Spirit of God.
I do not need the Roman, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, or any other
religious body and/ or institution to tell me what the Bible actually
does say or does mean. I can read it and discern its divine truths
myself under the guidance of the Spirit, thank you very much. As
believers, each one of us has the "mind of Christ" and ought to be a
Berean in practice, and not just in theory. Disagreements among
brethren are perfectly healthy and are proof positive that our finite
mind is incapable (in this life at least) of grasping the height,
depth, and length of God's eternal truth.
You were totally accusatory of me and my motives. And your reasoning
in identifying me with Calvin was totally irrational. Not in your
wildest dreams! If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and flies
like a duck, it's a duck! You are a Calvinist and your writings prove
it! If you are offended by that, than get off your big Calvinistic
high horse and reason with the rest of us for a change. You claim
that your hardened heart was changed by the Gospel after being an
evolutionist. Well, here is a perfect opportunity to prove it!
Sorry, pal. If you read carefully my SOF, you'd know I am not a TULIP-
er. Ok, so maybe you are not a strict 5-point Calvinist, but how
would you know? Your the one that claims to ignore Calvin's
teachings. Maybe what you ought to do is read a little on Calvin and
compare his writings with yours before making this disclaimer.
"and I am not an arminian),"
Yes you are. On what basis do you say that I am an arminian? I know
that you are a Calvinist by your own writings, but I don't see you
producing any proof. But that is very typical of Calvinists: they
label everyone else as "armininian" as if it was an "either/ or"
proposition.
You are a moron. OUCH! Would you get a load of this? How sad it is
indeed!!!!!! I have no words.
You blaspheme God by saying He gave you the pitiful level
of "intelligence" you exhibit.
Now, go away. I have, henceforth, filtered you to the trash, where
all Arminians belong.
Who is being irrational now?
Nevertheless, I do love you Rick and I pray that you will truly
repent of this rampage and all other unchristian behavior that you
have so diligently displayed. May God have mercy on us both!
Your brother in Christ,
Philip Watkinson.
-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001