Visited
8 July 97
This leaflet contains the substance of a letter that
I wrote to Jayesh Kothari, then a leader in the London Church
of Christ dated 29/9/1993. I also asked him to pass it on to Fred
Scott. They may find this hard to believe but I was sincerely
looking for an answer, but not really expecting one. I never received
a reply.
Some names have been removed for obvious reasons.
The content of this letter is to the best of my knowledge
based on Holy Scripture and I pray that you may open-heartedly
accept what may be revealed to you.
I became a member of the LCC in September 1989. I
left about three years later because I felt that they weren't
following the Bible as closely as they proclaimed. The movement
was totally dependant upon man's energy as opposed to God's power.
The rest of this text is split into two sections, which I have entitled,
1) What the true church isn't.
2) What I have learned of the true gospel, and the true church.
If you really hate reading the truth of the errors
that are prevalent in the LCC skip straight to the second section,
which I hope gives nothing but glory to God and is not negative
in the slightest.
In 1991 I, and fifteen others, had a meeting with
Fred Scott and Douglas Arthur. We were concerned with the abuses
that occurred within the discipling system. Upon confrontation
with Holy Scripture, Doug readily admitted that discipling was
NOT BIBLICAL and Fred said NOTHING. This admission was to the
point of allowing one member (xxx xxxxxx) NOT to have a discipler.
This 'revelation' ,however , was not to leave the room lest 'young
Christians' be shaken. But I put it to you that if discipling
is not ordained in scripture then it must be a product of man's
mind and not God's. It has no place in the Gospel no matter how
beneficial it may seem outwardly. For then man is trying to attain
righteousness by bringing in his own systems to supplement what
God brought in. The pure gospel of God is no longer enough. Many
members feel it is impossible to live a Christian life without
a discipler thus the leaders have brought 'another gospel' into
the minds of the members , 'which is really no gospel at all'.
For Jesus said that he will send 'a Counsellor' not a discipler!
Yet WE were the ones called divisive for pointing out something
that was not in scripture, and still the leadership refuse to
repent. For if they did, they would not have the same numerical
success.
Another thing that scared me was the content of the
'sermons' preached by so-called 'evangelists' on Sunday mornings.
They would often preach messages and use phrases that were clean
contrary to scripture. I will cite a few examples :-
''This brother fell away and came back !" preached Chris McGrath . He was speaking about an ex-member called Lxxxx who came back to the church with his girlfriend. But scripture says
"It is IMPOSSIBLE ... if they fall away to renew
them again unto repentance". So Mr. McGrath's words were
not in the least bit inspired but he was preaching accord to ,
at best, his own mind or ,at worst, Satan's. You might say , "It's
not an issue , he slipped up" but it IS an issue. An evangelist
truly appointed by God and lead by the Spirit of God , would not
preach one word contrary to scripture to the true congregation
of Christ's body.
I remember when John Louis preached "Tiredness
is a state of mind." yet scripture states that Jesus fell
asleep in the boat because he was weary. To make matters worse
members continued to parrot the phrase for weeks afterwards whenever
someone was physically tired.
When Fred preached about 'Extra-ordinary Christianity'
he said "One sister was so righteous that she confessed non-payment
of poll-tax to the authorities" and went on to say "Are
you that righteous?". A prayerful study of the righteousness
that comes from God would show how absurd such a statement is.
For the bible teaches that works cannot make anybody righteous
in God's eyes. Indeed , man's righteousness is as 'filthy rags'.
Only God's righteousness being imputed or reckoned to the ungodly
will satisfy. To consider such a trivial act as righteousness
that comes from God is to show a lack of understanding of righteousness,
and hence salvation, which is accomplished through God's righteousness
which comes through faith.
Another thing I found puzzling was re-baptism. I always wondered why they were kept so quiet. I then realised re-baptism exposes grave doctrinal errors with regard to the work and person of the Holy Spirit.
If, for example, a member was re-baptised after two years in the LCC it meant that for two years , according the LCC doctrine, they were lost and without the Holy Spirit. They may often have been involved with discipling people and teaching them 'Christian ways'. All without the Holy Ghost , and nobody knew!!. On further analysis, for two years they thought they had the indwelling Holy Ghost but now realise that they do not.
After their second baptism they still wouldn't be able to tell whether the Sprit was given. So much for a 'deposit guaranteeing inheritance'
Some may argue that they never truly repented prior to the first immersion. So now you have subjective repentance. Perhaps a recurring sin nullified the first 'repentance'. But every member - without exception - has some kind of recurring sin. So now one must ascertain how grave the sin is and how long did it continue for before repentance is deemed false. Such a repentance is a repentance of works and puts one's salvation on very shaky , if not non-existent, ground. But the Bible declares 'God grants repentance' and 'God gives repentance' and 'God leadeth thee to repentance' and such a repentance is a 'repentance unto life'.
The secrecy of those who have been re-baptised speaks volumes. Instead of running around rejoicing, like a new-born Christian, who finally knows God, they will only volunteer their new found salvation when asked.
This shows, that they know nothing of the Holy Ghost and all of their Christianity is worked up in their flesh. They know not of 'His spirit ministering to my spirit'.
Also the LCC's position on baptism is not unique to the LCC, as I thought, but has re-occurred many times throughout history and is taught in many groups today. The 'Apostolic church' also teach that repentance and baptism bring salvation. When I spoke to Jayesh and Trevor Gordan on this matter they said two things.
1) If this is so , why haven't we heard of them ?
2) If this is so, why don't they join us ?
These two questions reveal the arrogance that abounds
within the LCC. They appear, some might say , to have a basis
in Scripture but they are based on pride. Firstly the fact that
one may not have heard of a particular group does not mean they
are lost. Many people today, still haven't heard of the LCC. Secondly,
why don't you join them! "We're bigger" they once said
to me . No the total members of the Apostolic church outstrip
that of the Churches of Christ and anyway, the argument is totally
WORLDLY.
"Repent and be baptised" preach the LCC in such a way as to make repentance and baptism stand side by side, the sum of which brings salvation. But the rest of scripture shows such an interpretation to be false. This is the reason why the handbook "Shining like Stars" encourages members to stick to certain scripture when studying baptism with non-members.
The work of God in bringing a man to salvation,
when taken as a whole, clearly shows this doctrine to be false.
By looking at God's word as a whole and in order I hope it reveal
to you what baptism is. After all you can't 'pick and choose'
can you. This I will discuss in the next section of this text
"What I have learned of the true church".
The LCC's refusal to accept other churches as saved
and yet worship God with songs taken from these lost churches
and traditional 'Christianity' exposes their own lack of spirituality.
For why would children of God, being led by the Spirit turn to
songs they believe to be worldly and spiritless, thus inspired
by the carnal mind, in order to worship Him in 'spirit and in
truth'. Would God think such worship pleasing. Why Fred , or Chris
, I can't remember which, even used the words from 'Power of Love,
Luther Vandross' as sermon material to inspire the 'saints'!.
I hated that cheap stuff.
LCC members were , rightly, taught to flee from sexual
immorality in films, on the one hand, whilst embracing violence
on the other. Fred would often preach about 'Rambo' or 'The Terminator'
, exciting the mind in a carnal way, inducing fleshly zeal. This
has NO place in the pulpit and a true God-appointed evangelist
would embrace no such thing.
Whilst many in the LCC maintain they are 'putting
the bible into practice' when it comes to the role of women in
the church they clearly ignore some very specific verses regarding
this subject. Whilst women are loved as much as men , by God we
are not created equal. This is the way God wants it. This is the
order of things in creation, Eve coming out of Adam, woman coming
out of man. And yet, man cannot become conceited for man comes
out of woman ( through birth). So man and woman have a succinct
interrelationship, wonderfully created by God. A relationship
that mirrors that of Christ and the church. But as Christ and
the Church are different so is man and woman. And God wishes this
difference to be reflected within the church. He accomplishes
this both through nature and also by specific ordinances given
in the word of God.
To paraphrase John Metcalf , "There are many
places in the bible where God speaks to both men and women together.
There are a few places in scripture where God addresses women
alone. If I were a woman I would pay special attention to those
places for God would be speaking to me personally." The reason
I mention this is that in many churches little or no attention
is paid to such scripture. Congregations adhere to some verses
and completely ignore others.
The bible clearly states that 'it is a shame for
women to speak in the church'. Not teach , but speak, for Paul
says 'if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands
at home'. This is a clear ordinance given by the apostle Paul.
Many dismiss it as being to deal with particular problems in a
particular congregation at a particular time. They dismiss it
because it doesn't sound reasonable. But this ordinance was given
to the whole church. The true church. And it is obeyed in the
true church out of reverence and a holy fear of God.
Also scripture states that a woman's head should
be covered, and not just with long hair but with a covering. That
is why Paul says 'we have no other practice'. How can one practice
not covering one's head. Paul only mentions long hair when
illustrating an analogy in nature, and he compares that with covering
the head in the church. It is not a practice bounded by time or
culture for Paul says other churches of God also have the same
practice. When Paul asks 'Judge in yourselves: is it comely that
a woman pray unto God uncovered ?' it is entirely rhetorical as
are all of his questions in scripture. That is to say, the answer
is a foregone conclusion and has already been established. This
is why he follows the question with an analogy and then states
'If any man wishes to be contentious'.
When I left the LCC I felt that many there were saved,
but very few of the leadership, who fear men more than God . Upon
leaving many said "Where will you go?" assuming that
despite the obvious errors in the LCC that they came closest to
new-testament Christianity. Are we to endure evil because we cannot
find better. This is not scriptural, for God said to Abram
'Get thee out of thy country ,.. unto a land that
I will shew thee'
. Abram didn't know where to go, save follow the
Lord. God tolerates no evil. For in the light there is no darkness.
'Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers
of her sins'.
I did indeed wander around from church to church
as a 'spiritual nomad' but many 'churches' seemed in error in
various ways. But I know that God's true church would not be in
error , save the Lord rebuke them, and they respond with heartbroken
repentance not pride and arrogance.
Now you know some reasons why I left but I would
like to show you what I have found and what I have learned of
the true Gospel of God. I pray that you may see the cleanness
and the clarity of the scriptures I mention. Upon accepting them
for the obvious truth that they are , you must then reconcile
them with what you have been taught in the LCC. You CANNOT ignore
them and then delude yourself that you are preaching the Gospel.
Romans 1, 2 and 3 declare that man, en masse, has
turned from God and NO-ONE is righteous.
Ones own decision to 'choose God' has no bearing
on the matter for one can not elect ones-self. For scripture says
'No one can come to me, except the Father which
hath sent me, draw him' .
Paul writes
'who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ before the world began.'
and
'according as he hath chosen us in him before
the foundation of the world.'
In Romans 9, he writes
'For the children, being not yet born, neither
having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according
to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth'
, and later,
'So then it so not of him that willeth, nor of
him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy'.
That is to say you cannot make God save you.
It is entirely at his discretion, as to whom he will show mercy.
I do not wish to gloss over this point as it made
me realise my own helplessness before God. Again, in Romans 9,
Paul writes ,
'As it is written, Jacob I have loved, but Esau
I have hated.'
This was before they were born! Paul quickly counters
the next question that will rise up in the heart of the reader.
'What shall we say then, is there unrighteousness
with God ? God forbid. For he saith unto Moses 'I will have mercy
on whom I will have mercy' and later 'whom he will, he hardeneth'.
Jesus says
'But ye believe not, because ye are not of my
sheep'.
Note the order. Their fate had already been decided,
they were not sheep, that is why 'ye believe not' but his sheep
hear his voice. Paul says
'For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt
save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt
save thy wife. But as God has[past tense] distributed
to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk.'
Clearly God, in his wisdom, decides who will, and
who will not, be shown mercy. Not man.
This is the heart and purpose of the Gospel.
Paul says
'the Gospel of Christ is the power of God unto
salvation'.
Why, Paul ?
'For therein is the righteousness of
God revealed'.
The heart of the Gospel, is the revelation of God's righteousness. And in particular, Him revealing it to the elect, at such time as He sees fit. That is when repentance is granted, upon hearing the word.
Jesus' death was not a general redemption for all
of mankind, depending on man's acceptance. 'It
is not of him that willeth.' He died for
all of his sheep, the elect, otherwise pre-destination is made
void, God is no longer all powerful and his purpose may, or may
not, be accomplished depending upon man's free will. This free
will can now bring to nought what was accomplished on the cross
thus corrupting the Gospel. Not so much 'It is finished' but 'Its
up to them now!'. But scripture says 'he
hath purchased with his blood'. If with
his blood, then on the cross. If on the cross, then in the past.
Jesus speaks of his sheep,
'And I give them eternal life, and they shall
never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me is greater than all and no man is
able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.'
Paul says
'If God be for us, who can be against us ... Who
shall separate us from the love of Christ'
and Paul lists seven enemies. And later
'For I am persuaded neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor
things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature
shall be able to separate us from the love of God.'
This happens to the sheep upon hearing the true
Gospel preached by a God sent preacher. (of which I am not).
'For whom he did foreknow, he did also predestinate,
to be conformed to the image of his Son. ... Moreover whom he
did predestinate, them he also called, and whom he called, them
he also justified, and whom he justified them he also glorified.'
No conditions, save being foreknown by God.
'For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and
that not of yourselves, it is the Gift of God.'
It is the faith that is 'not of yourselves' for
Paul has already explained grace comes through faith. Again Paul
says ,
'... but think soberly, according as God hath
dealt to every man the measure of faith'.
This faith is in the blood of Christ and is called 'The faith of God's elect'.
Upon hearing the Gospel, Acts 13:48 states
'and as many as were ordained to eternal life
believed'
They had already been appointed to eternal life from
before Adam. The belief came afterwards, upon hearing the Gospel.
Not a righteousness of mans' own working but a divine
righteousness.
'Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto
him for righteousness .. But to him that worketh not, but believeth
on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Such scriptures must be prayerfully reconciled with
what one has learned of scripture of the past. It is not enough
to blindly quote 'faith without works is dead' without fully understanding
the context of the statement, and the fact that the converse 'works
without faith is dead' is equally true. And true faith is apportioned
by God and must stand in the Gospel of God. Such a gospel must
reveal his righteousness otherwise it is no gospel at all. 'for
therein is the righteousness of God revealed'.
As such I struggled with the idea of 'falling away' as mentioned in Hebrews which, with a cursory glance, seems contradictory to God preserving the elect 'they shall never perish'. Surely one can be saved and then choose to leave God. The answer is emphatically NO! Such a one is a goat and was not foreknown by God. Many men will assume that they are saved but they are the stony ground upon which the seed falls. They must test themselves to see whether they are in the faith. That is why the warnings in Hebrews are irreversible. If a man hears the true gospel ,revealed by God, and he turns away or remains unchanged, then such a man is a goat, and was never destined to have faith apportioned to him. For Jesus says 'my sheep hear my voice' and 'ye believe not , because ye are not of my sheep'. That is why 'no sacrifice is left' and why it is 'impossible to be brought back to repentance' One cannot change from a goat to a sheep and believe the gospel the second time. For he knows his sheep by name, and his father gave them from the beginning of time. The sheep are gathered at once and for all, by the hearing of his voice. That word which is proclaiming the *true* Gospel. The word goes out and will accomplish that which pleases Him.
Scripture also brings to light the huge difference
between being a disciple and being a child of God. For no child
of God, who cries 'Abba Father'
will ever be lost. That is why the Sprit guarantees inheritance
and is called 'the spirit
of Sonship'. But a disciple is a follower,
and until he becomes a Son, he has no guarantee , hence , 'many
disciples' turned back from Jesus' ministry. Also , throughout
the book of Acts, many are called disciples who either fall away
, or have not yet been saved. Disciple may equal Christian. Both
are just collective names for followers of Christ. But 'son of
God' is a position and a state that cannot be undone.
From these scriptures it can be clearly seen that the LCC's doctrine on salvation is wholly wrong. They preach 'repent and be baptised' in such a way as to make salvation wholly dependant on the free will of man. But scripture says God exalted Jesus 'to give repentance to Israel' Acts 5:31, and in another place 'God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life, and yet another 'the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance'. The initiative is all of God and nothing of man. Also John preached a 'baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins' and 'I baptise you with water for repentance' Clearly baptism is representative of repentance that leads to the forgiveness of sins. That small word of implies a relationship that is not merely chronological. When used to relate a physical action with a spiritual one it implies representation. ergo. the handshake of friendship. The friendship is the weighty concept. The handshake is representative of it. Examining the Greek text, and any literal translation except the NIV (which is not all that literal!) Acts 2:38 states 'Repent, and be baptised..' Note the position of the comma. The emphasis is clearly on repentance with baptism as a response. That is why it is not always mentioned.
A clearer picture of baptism can be seen if we look at Jesus' baptism. He said to John, "baptise me 'to fulfil all righteousness'". But righteousness wasn't fulfilled until his death on the cross. This was when he brought in 'everlasting righteousness'.
2 Cor 5:21 shows that only through Jesus being 'made sin' can we be 'made righteous'. Jesus refers to his death as 'baptism'. So clearly when John baptised him with water 'to fulfil all righteousness' Jesus had in mind his death on the cross. Thus baptism is a figure of his death. A true Christian's baptism , is likewise, symbolic of his death to the law which occurred when Christ was on the cross. 'I have been crucified with Chris' Paul states.
All of the scriptures I have mentioned place God in his rightful position , and show that any system that embraces the free will of man , as an agent in salvation, is heretical , as it brings to nought what was accomplished on the cross and perverts the gospel.