In an oral debate held in November, 1873, in Reynoldsburg, Ohio, between Hardshell Elder, J. A. Thompson, and Benjamin A. Franklin, of the "Church of Christ," a remarkable admission was made by the Campbellite. On page 215, Franklin said:
"To whom did Paul say, "Work out your own salvation?" Was it sinners? No. To whom did he say, "It is God who works in you?" To alien sinners? Not a bit of it. But to saints in Thessalonia and Ephesus, he said, "It is God that works in you." He was not working in them to make them Christians."
This is a grand admission by the Campbellite! If a man gets saved, he cannot affirm that it is due to God working in him to save him! Thus, the man cannot thank God, or credit God, for it! What blasphemy!
Monday, November 16, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Audio of Debate Online
John Gentry has informed me that the audio of our recent debate on the purpose of water baptism is available online.
See here
See here
Debate Announcement
Dates: Thursday and Friday, Nov. 5-6, 2009
Time: 7.00pm (EST)
Location: Alumni Memorial Chapel, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2825 Lexington Rd., Louisville, KY 40280
Propositions:
The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, can so sin as to be eternally lost in hell.
Affirm: John R. Gentry (church of Christ)
Deny: Stephen Garrett (Baptist)
The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, cannot so sin as to be eternally lost in hell.
Affirm: Stephen Garrett (Baptist)
Deny: John R. Gentry (church of Christ)
I hope all who are in the Louisville area and hear of the debate will be led to attend. Pray for good to come from open discussion.
Stephen
Time: 7.00pm (EST)
Location: Alumni Memorial Chapel, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2825 Lexington Rd., Louisville, KY 40280
Propositions:
The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, can so sin as to be eternally lost in hell.
Affirm: John R. Gentry (church of Christ)
Deny: Stephen Garrett (Baptist)
The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, cannot so sin as to be eternally lost in hell.
Affirm: Stephen Garrett (Baptist)
Deny: John R. Gentry (church of Christ)
I hope all who are in the Louisville area and hear of the debate will be led to attend. Pray for good to come from open discussion.
Stephen
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Eternal Security Debate
As previously announced, John Gentry of the Galena, Indiana "Church of Christ," and I will have our second debate on "eternal security," or "once saved always saved" (OSAS) on Thursday November 5th and Friday November 6th at 7 PM. It will be held on the campus of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. I will announce the specific place on campus in a few days when I receive official confirmation from SBTS.
The proposition for Thursday Night
The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, can so sin as to be eternally lost in hell.
Affirm: Gentry
Deny: Garrett
The proposition for Friday Night
The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, cannot so sin as to be eternally lost in hell.
Affirm: Garrett
Deny: Gentry
When John and I were discussing propositions through e-mail exchanges, I said "I have no problem with the propositions you offered on the eternal security topic, although I would have worded it differently. But, we won't squabble over semantics." It is not technically "apropos" to affirm a negatively worded proposition. But, I decided it was not worth the squabble and is the opposite of his proposition.
I am preparing the material for the debate and am looking forward to it. I pray God gives us a safe journey to the debate. Dr. Griffin is planning to go with me and be my moderator and some other brethren from the local area may be also going.
It is my hope to be able to spend some time in the SBTS library hunting for info for my historical studies on the Hardshell Baptists.
The proposition for Thursday Night
The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, can so sin as to be eternally lost in hell.
Affirm: Gentry
Deny: Garrett
The proposition for Friday Night
The Scriptures teach that a child of God, one saved by the blood of Christ, cannot so sin as to be eternally lost in hell.
Affirm: Garrett
Deny: Gentry
When John and I were discussing propositions through e-mail exchanges, I said "I have no problem with the propositions you offered on the eternal security topic, although I would have worded it differently. But, we won't squabble over semantics." It is not technically "apropos" to affirm a negatively worded proposition. But, I decided it was not worth the squabble and is the opposite of his proposition.
I am preparing the material for the debate and am looking forward to it. I pray God gives us a safe journey to the debate. Dr. Griffin is planning to go with me and be my moderator and some other brethren from the local area may be also going.
It is my hope to be able to spend some time in the SBTS library hunting for info for my historical studies on the Hardshell Baptists.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Gentry-Garrett Debate on Baptism
Debate with John R. Gentry of the "Church of Christ." John pastors a church in Galena, Indiana.
Debate in Monroe, N.C. at the location of Emmanuel Theological Seminary and Crossroads Baptist Church at 3300 N. Rocky River Road.
Thursday Night - August 13th, 2009
The Scriptures teach that water baptism is essential for the alien sinner to obtain the forgiveness of his past sins.
Affirm: Gentry
Deny: Garrett
Friday Night - August 14th, 2009
The Scriptures teach that the alien sinner is forgiven of his past sins by faith, before and without water baptism.
Affirm: Garrett
Deny: Gentry
The following posts contain materials used in this debate.
Debate in Monroe, N.C. at the location of Emmanuel Theological Seminary and Crossroads Baptist Church at 3300 N. Rocky River Road.
Thursday Night - August 13th, 2009
The Scriptures teach that water baptism is essential for the alien sinner to obtain the forgiveness of his past sins.
Affirm: Gentry
Deny: Garrett
Friday Night - August 14th, 2009
The Scriptures teach that the alien sinner is forgiven of his past sins by faith, before and without water baptism.
Affirm: Garrett
Deny: Gentry
The following posts contain materials used in this debate.
Debate Questions
Here are the questions I asked John on the first night of our discussion, when I was in the negative.
Question # 1
1. "What change of heart, soul, mind, or spirit, takes place in water baptism that has not already occurred at the point of penitent faith?"
I felt that this was the single most important question asked during the debate. It is the pivotal question to be asked in the discussion over what is the nature of the salvation or conversion experience. This question helped draw the line of distinction between what Baptists and what Campbellites or Restorationists believe about the nature, causes, and effects of the salvation experience.
In my second and third speeches on the second night, I summed up this difference by pointing out the condition of John (by his own admission) before he walked down into the waters of baptism. But, I will save narrating this summation in a separate posting.
Question # 2
2. Is water baptism essential for circumcision of heart and for entering the kingdom of God?
This too is an important question. It causes us to focus on what is denoted by "circumcision of heart." Those who are saved are the same as those who have experienced a "circumcision" in their inner beings, in heart, soul, spirit, or mind. This circumcision, I argued, is not primarily an external or legal action, non-experiential, but an internal or character transforming experience, describing the same phenomenon that is elsewhere described, in scripture, as being a rebirth, and resurrection, or new creation, and other such terms. I showed that these terms for conversion denote what occurs in coming to evangelical faith and repentance and, by their very nature, are experienced before water baptism. I argued that all believers, no matter when they lived, had experienced this inner circumcision. Abraham experienced circumcision of heart, but not because he had been baptized in water. The thief on the cross, who believed and turned to the Lord, and to whom Christ promised eternal rest in paradise, also experienced this inner circumcision, but not because he had been baptized in water. I gave other examples.
Question # 3
3. If being baptized is equated with being "begotten" of God, then how could Paul consistently say that he had "begotten" the Corinthians, while saying at the same time, that he had only baptized few of them? (I Cor. 1: 14-16; 4: 15)
I think this argument is irrefutable and speaks for itself. John's oral handling of this question was no better than his written answer which said - "He taught them they must be baptized. Such teaching is an essential part of the begetal process." I really need not say more.
Question # 4
4. If one loses salvation, does he become an "alien sinner" with need to have his "past sins" forgiven?
This question was a "hot potato" for John as it is for all his brethren. He at least must acknowledge that some "alien sinners" (those who lost their salvation) may be cleansed and forgiven apart from water baptism. I also argued that the baptism of the soul, mind, or spirit, into Christ and his blood preceded the baptism of the body, the latter being a symbol or outward expression of the former.
Question # 5
5. How were sinners saved under the Old Testament?
John's written answer - "By obedient faith" (Romans 4: 1-8)." l showed throughout the debate that obedient faith existed before water baptism and did not depend upon it for its creation, as John affirmed.
Question # 6
6. Was your faith living or dead before baptism?
John did not deny that his faith was "dead" before water baptism. This is the position of the "Churches of Christ" that John represents. Their faith, they say, was "dead" until they came forth from the waters of baptism. But, more on this point in other postings.
2nd Night's Questions for John Gentry
1. Why is Nicodemus being told that he must be "born of water" (which to John meant water baptism) when Christ's death was years away? Shouldn't he be telling him simply to believe and repent? Or, does it not prove that "born of water" cannot be the result of John's baptizing?
2. Is John the Baptist preaching baptism "for the remission" of sins, then, or not?
3. Then none of the spiritual and salvation blessings enjoyed by O.T. believers was because of the New Covenant?
Question # 2
2. When and how does one eat Christ to life and salvation?
His written answer was - "When you believe and obey - John 6: 63 & Mark 15: 15, 16 for those who live under the Great Commission."
Thus, according to John, one does not ingest Christ into himself when he unites his heart to him in faith and repentance, but when you are baptized in water. Baptism becomes the true Lord's
Supper! The point when one eats the bread of life!
Question # 3
3. When do the spiritually dead hear the voice of the Son of God and live?
John said when they obey the word (final step), which is the act of water baptism. I showed that such a position affirms that the sinner was not obeying when he believed, repented, confessed, or came to love and know the Lord. According to John, all this occurred in the act of water baptism. This is when and where they heard the voice of the Son of God and came to "life." I thought this was such an outstanding absurdity that needed but exposing.
Question # 4
4. Is obeying God in water baptism a good work or work of righteousness?
John wrote - "Neither, the Bible says it is the work of God. Col. 2: 12"
I later made an argument where I said "I think John agrees that it is a good work and work of righteousness," but John later accused me of saying that I "misrepresented him." He argued that baptism was a "work of God." In taking this position, John was put in the position of 1) affirming that baptism is not a "good work" nor a "righteous work," and 2) of affirming that baptism is what God does, and not what we do. Thus, it is not a "work of righteousness which WE HAVE DONE," but a "work of righteousness which GOD HAS DONE."
From Eph. 2: 8-10 I showed how "good works," like water baptism, follow faith and the new creation, and thus his proposition is false, if baptism is a "good work." From Titus 3: 5 I showed how water baptism could not be equated with the "bath of regeneration" because this would contradict the part of the verse that says "not by works righteousness which we have done."
Question # 5
5. Does the word "baptize" always denote immersion of the whole person in water?
John said "no." This was later quite important, because, sometimes "baptized into Christ" simply means "placed into Christ" and this, I showed, occurred at the point of faith. I later showed how there are more passages that speak of sinners "believing into (eis) Christ."
Question # 6
6. Is Christ's baptism part of the "one baptism" (Eph. 4:5)?
John said "no."
Question # 1
1. "What change of heart, soul, mind, or spirit, takes place in water baptism that has not already occurred at the point of penitent faith?"
I felt that this was the single most important question asked during the debate. It is the pivotal question to be asked in the discussion over what is the nature of the salvation or conversion experience. This question helped draw the line of distinction between what Baptists and what Campbellites or Restorationists believe about the nature, causes, and effects of the salvation experience.
In my second and third speeches on the second night, I summed up this difference by pointing out the condition of John (by his own admission) before he walked down into the waters of baptism. But, I will save narrating this summation in a separate posting.
Question # 2
2. Is water baptism essential for circumcision of heart and for entering the kingdom of God?
This too is an important question. It causes us to focus on what is denoted by "circumcision of heart." Those who are saved are the same as those who have experienced a "circumcision" in their inner beings, in heart, soul, spirit, or mind. This circumcision, I argued, is not primarily an external or legal action, non-experiential, but an internal or character transforming experience, describing the same phenomenon that is elsewhere described, in scripture, as being a rebirth, and resurrection, or new creation, and other such terms. I showed that these terms for conversion denote what occurs in coming to evangelical faith and repentance and, by their very nature, are experienced before water baptism. I argued that all believers, no matter when they lived, had experienced this inner circumcision. Abraham experienced circumcision of heart, but not because he had been baptized in water. The thief on the cross, who believed and turned to the Lord, and to whom Christ promised eternal rest in paradise, also experienced this inner circumcision, but not because he had been baptized in water. I gave other examples.
Question # 3
3. If being baptized is equated with being "begotten" of God, then how could Paul consistently say that he had "begotten" the Corinthians, while saying at the same time, that he had only baptized few of them? (I Cor. 1: 14-16; 4: 15)
I think this argument is irrefutable and speaks for itself. John's oral handling of this question was no better than his written answer which said - "He taught them they must be baptized. Such teaching is an essential part of the begetal process." I really need not say more.
Question # 4
4. If one loses salvation, does he become an "alien sinner" with need to have his "past sins" forgiven?
This question was a "hot potato" for John as it is for all his brethren. He at least must acknowledge that some "alien sinners" (those who lost their salvation) may be cleansed and forgiven apart from water baptism. I also argued that the baptism of the soul, mind, or spirit, into Christ and his blood preceded the baptism of the body, the latter being a symbol or outward expression of the former.
Question # 5
5. How were sinners saved under the Old Testament?
John's written answer - "By obedient faith" (Romans 4: 1-8)." l showed throughout the debate that obedient faith existed before water baptism and did not depend upon it for its creation, as John affirmed.
Question # 6
6. Was your faith living or dead before baptism?
John did not deny that his faith was "dead" before water baptism. This is the position of the "Churches of Christ" that John represents. Their faith, they say, was "dead" until they came forth from the waters of baptism. But, more on this point in other postings.
2nd Night's Questions for John Gentry
Question # 1
1. Did the thief on the cross contact the blood? If so, when and how?
He argued that the thief could "contact the blood" without water baptism because he was getting saved before the death of Christ, which is the precise point when water baptism would become a sine qua non of salvation. This would later become a problem for him for these reasons (expressed in rhetorical form):1. Why is Nicodemus being told that he must be "born of water" (which to John meant water baptism) when Christ's death was years away? Shouldn't he be telling him simply to believe and repent? Or, does it not prove that "born of water" cannot be the result of John's baptizing?
2. Is John the Baptist preaching baptism "for the remission" of sins, then, or not?
3. Then none of the spiritual and salvation blessings enjoyed by O.T. believers was because of the New Covenant?
Question # 2
2. When and how does one eat Christ to life and salvation?
His written answer was - "When you believe and obey - John 6: 63 & Mark 15: 15, 16 for those who live under the Great Commission."
Thus, according to John, one does not ingest Christ into himself when he unites his heart to him in faith and repentance, but when you are baptized in water. Baptism becomes the true Lord's
Supper! The point when one eats the bread of life!
Question # 3
3. When do the spiritually dead hear the voice of the Son of God and live?
John said when they obey the word (final step), which is the act of water baptism. I showed that such a position affirms that the sinner was not obeying when he believed, repented, confessed, or came to love and know the Lord. According to John, all this occurred in the act of water baptism. This is when and where they heard the voice of the Son of God and came to "life." I thought this was such an outstanding absurdity that needed but exposing.
Question # 4
4. Is obeying God in water baptism a good work or work of righteousness?
John wrote - "Neither, the Bible says it is the work of God. Col. 2: 12"
I later made an argument where I said "I think John agrees that it is a good work and work of righteousness," but John later accused me of saying that I "misrepresented him." He argued that baptism was a "work of God." In taking this position, John was put in the position of 1) affirming that baptism is not a "good work" nor a "righteous work," and 2) of affirming that baptism is what God does, and not what we do. Thus, it is not a "work of righteousness which WE HAVE DONE," but a "work of righteousness which GOD HAS DONE."
From Eph. 2: 8-10 I showed how "good works," like water baptism, follow faith and the new creation, and thus his proposition is false, if baptism is a "good work." From Titus 3: 5 I showed how water baptism could not be equated with the "bath of regeneration" because this would contradict the part of the verse that says "not by works righteousness which we have done."
Question # 5
5. Does the word "baptize" always denote immersion of the whole person in water?
John said "no." This was later quite important, because, sometimes "baptized into Christ" simply means "placed into Christ" and this, I showed, occurred at the point of faith. I later showed how there are more passages that speak of sinners "believing into (eis) Christ."
Question # 6
6. Is Christ's baptism part of the "one baptism" (Eph. 4:5)?
John said "no."
Garrett's First Rebuttal
The following is part of what I presented (or intended to) in my first negative rebuttal.
"There are only a little more than a half dozen verses in the New Testament that are used to prove the necessity of baptism for salvation. This limited number is an argument against the essentiality of baptism for salvation.
Were water baptism essential, a sine qua non of salvation, then we would expect it to be abundant in scriptural testimony, and certainly more clearly stated.
When the terms of salvation were given to sinners, in the scriptures, they never excluded penitent faith. Yet, with regard to water baptism, we find it excluded in nearly all instances where an evangelist is giving to sinners the terms of pardon. For instance:
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19 KJV)
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10: 43 KJV)
"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13: 39 KJV)
"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16: 30, 31 KJV)
Here are four passages in the Book of Acts that are central to this debate. In all four passages the terms of pardon and salvation are clearly given. In each of them the terms are the same. Whoever believes and repents, or whoever has penitent faith, is pardoned and saved. There is no mention of water baptism.
If baptism is essential, then faithful evangelists and soul winners would never omit announcing all the essential terms of pardon. To omit one of the essential terms would be a crime.
Suppose a doctor were to give you a prescription for healing. Suppose this prescription had three conditions to it. Now, further suppose, that in giving this life-saving prescription, the doctor omits one of the necessary conditions. Would that not be criminal? Would that not doom the patient?
Certainly if it were not criminal, it would at least be negligence of the worst sort.
In each of the four scriptures I have cited, from the Book of Acts, where the evangelists are giving sinners the terms of pardon, they leave out water baptism. I argue that this omission of water baptism, rather than demonstrating criminality or negligence on the part of the first apostolic evangelists, rather demonstrates that they did not believe that water baptism was one of the essential conditions for pardon and salvation.
I dare say that my opponent and his brethren, who believe in the essentiality of baptism for salvation, never omit water baptism, when giving to sinners the terms of pardon. Do they not show how unlike they are to the apostles? Does it not show how they have added conditions to the conditions given by God through the apostles? Do evangelists with the so called Church of Christ give invitations where faith alone is mentioned and baptism is omitted?
I believe we have hundreds of verses in the Bible that state that penitent faith is essential to pardon. But, my opponent can only find a half dozen or so verses that we might say come close to affirming his proposition. This I believe is a weighty evidence against the essentiality of baptism for salvation.
Further, in the scriptures, we have an observable rule concerning the essential elements of pardon. It is this. For every thing necessary for salvation, we have both the positive and the negative statement.
For instance, is faith necessary for salvation? Do we have any positive statements for affirming faith as necessary? Certainly we do, and not only a half dozen, but a hundred or more. But, do we also not have the negative? Yes, in many places. For instance, John 3: 36 - "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
What about repentance? Are there positive statements affirming its essentiality? Yes, many. But, are there not also negative statements? Yes, Jesus said - "if you do not repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13: 3)
Now, I challenge my opponent to point to one verse where it is said - "he who is not baptized will be damned," or some other similar negative.
I not only find that there is no negative statement regarding baptism, but I can't even find a clear positive statement. My opponent has brought forth those famous few verses that seem to teach baptism is required for pardon, but, as we shall show, do not teach it.
This issue concerning the purpose of baptism is important. The consequences are enormous, in either case, whether the proposition of my opponent is true or false. If my opponent is correct, then every unbaptized believer is doomed. That person who believed on Christ and yet, through no fault of his own, is suddenly killed before baptism, is doomed if my opponent's proposition is true. No hope for anyone dying like the thief on the cross! Besides, seeing that the only proper baptism in the New Testament is done by immersion to penitent believers, a proposition on which my opponent and I agree, then his proposition, if true, dooms every believer in Jesus who was only sprinkled.
On the other hand, if the Bible does teach the necessity of water baptism for salvation, we should not shun to declare it. Certainly, as I have said, we should never omit it from our witnessing to sinners about the way of pardon. To do so would be a case of criminal negligence.
Does God have different ways of salvation and rebirth for people under the Old and New Covenants? Does he create the new heart and spirit differently now than he did in the days of the patriarchs? How did Abraham experience circumcision of heart? Through water baptism? No! Ergo. Water baptism is not essential to the experience of circumcision. Did the thief on the cross experience inward circumcision of heart? Yes. But, he was never baptized in water. Yes, he was baptized in the blood, when he put his faith in the blood, but he was never ceremonially baptized.
In the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, wherein Christ spoke of salvation as being all the same as "entering" or "seeing" the eternal kingdom of God, Jesus said that being "born of water and spirit" was an absolute requirement. That is to say, all the privileged entrants into the "kingdom of God" have been "born again" of the Spirit. There are no exceptions. Now, if this is so, then we can say that every saved soul has been "born of water and spirit," no matter what dispensation of time he lived.
Is Abraham one who will "enter" the "kingdom of God"? Well, then he was "born of water and spirit." Is the thief on the cross one who will "enter" the "kingdom of God"? Well, then, he too was "born of water and spirit."
Now, it contradicts the teachings of our Lord to say that Abraham, or the thief on the cross, was "born of water and spirit" in a manner different from how people today are "born of water and spirit." Jesus said all are born again the same way. In verse 8 Jesus said - "SO is EVERYONE who is born of the spirit."
Water baptism is important. Simply because I reject the view of my opponent about it being a necessary condition of pardon does not mean I do not recognize its importance in the life of a believer in Jesus. I believe my opponent has greatly overemphasized baptism's importance. He has taken an ordinance of Christ, intended as it is for the edification of believers, and made it into an essential means of grace, and in so doing has given it a significance far beyond that which our Savior intended.
And now let me say a few things about Alexander Campbell, the man who supposedly "restored the lost gospel" by being the first to teach, in modern times, immersion in order to the remission of sins, and who is one of the founders of my opponent's denomination, or those today who call themselves "Church of Christ," or "Christian Church," or "Disciples of Christ."
Campbell was first taught wrong on the subject of baptism, being a son of a Presbyterian Pedo-Baptist, Thomas Campbell, and did not believe in immersion of believers only. When he "saw the light" on this topic, however, he became a Baptist and was baptized by Elder Luce. At this time he did not believe that baptism was essential for pardon of sin or eternal salvation; And, what he said at this time, is what Baptists believe. Yes, Campbell did later go into error on water baptism, after becoming Baptist, but it was away from the truth as he formerly expressed it.
Here is what Campbell said, in his debate with McCalla, about baptism's relation to "remission" or "washing away of sins," when he was "sound" on that point. Speaking of water baptism, he said:
"I did not exaggerate its import as Mr. McCalla would have it. Nor did I elevate it so as to displace hope and charity."
Campbell, at this time, did not exaggerate the importance of baptism, for he was a Baptist. He recognized, at that time, that the importance of water baptism may be "exaggerated" and so "elevated" as to "displace hope and charity."
Ironically, within a short time after his debate with McCalla, he came to believe that water baptism did not simply remove sin formally or symbolically, but really, thus contradicting what he said in his debate with McCalla. In teaching this view Campbell did the very thing he warned against! He "exaggerated" the importance of baptism and "elevated" it to a level where hope and charity were displaced! Sending many believers to Hell for not being properly baptized, consigning every person to torment who was not immersed, is the very displacing of hope and charity that Campbell warned against! Such a view of the place of water baptism takes hope away from millions of believers and is uncharitable to believers who have not been properly baptized!
One other thing I find ironic about Campbell is the fact that he never was baptized, after he came to believe in baptismal regeneration, for that reason. The only baptism he ever knew was the one he obtained from Elder Luce. He never was baptized "in order to the remission of sins"! And yet this is the man, who with Walter Scott and Barton Stone, supposedly "restored" the ancient gospel! Will my opponent's "exaggerated" and "elevated" view of baptism's importance displace hope and charity as regards the salvation of Campbell?
Campbell said further:
"The blood of Christ, then, really cleanses us who believe from all sin. Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token, of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly "for the remission of sins." The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes away our sins. Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquital, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washes them away in the water of baptism."
"The intelligent and well instructed Christian, however, is baptized to obtain the formal remission of his sins."
"He appointed baptism to be, to every one that believed the record he has given of his Son, a formal pledge on his part of that believer's personal acquittal or pardon..." (pg. 135-37)
See here
Baptism is by definition a ceremony. A ceremony involves what is formal. Baptism is a ritual, as the Lord's Supper is a ritual. It is part of a believer's protocol or convention. It is what he does once he becomes committed in heart to Christ, and is intended to formally or ceremoniously express the fact, or confess it.
Baptism is also a "sacrament," but not as it is understood by Catholics, but in its proper signification, that of it being a "badge."
Baptism is the way in which disciples make a formal "oath of allegiance" to Christ, where they solemnize the heart's commitment and dedication. What does sacrament mean? The English is simply a transliteration of the Latin word "sacramentum" which means an oath. That is the basic meaning of a sacrament. It means an oath, an obligation, a vow. In legal terminology it means a pledge. For example, it means money deposited by the parties before a legal suit. That is, you pledge by paying this money before a legal case.
It was used of a military oath of allegiance. A military oath of allegiance was called the sacramento, when the Roman armies made their oath of allegiance to their country and to their emperor. This they sometimes did by the raising of their hands as you see today when a president takes an oath, or when somebody takes an oath in a court of law, symbolizing that he or she is doing this in all honesty and truth, with a good conscience. "I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
Baptism is intended to "solemnize," as I said, the previous confession and heart commitment. To "solemnize" means "to celebrate or observe with dignity and gravity. To perform with formal ceremony. To make serious or grave."
It is also intended to memoralize the heart commitment of the newborn Christian soul. Baptism, as Campbell said, is a "token" of salvation. It is a token in much the same way as is a wedding ring of a marriage. It is a symbol of salvation, a token of union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. Mind you that a wedding ring is not essential to the validity of marriage or to the union of hearts.
It is in baptism, as the scriptures show, that the believer receives his "badge," so to speak. He receives his symbol of authority. It is not what actually saves a man, but what publicly declares him to be so; much like a policeman does not become a policeman by his putting on a badge. The badge is the formal declaration of his already having been made a policeman. The badge has a purpose, but it is not what makes a person a policeman. Jesus was not baptized to make him "Son of God," but to declare it, or manifest it. So too with the believer. His baptism does not constitute him a "son of God," but formally declares it.
According to Galatians 3: 27 baptism is compared to putting on garments, especially symbolic garments, like, for example, a judge who puts on judicial raiment. The judge's raiment becomes symbolic of his position and status. It is not what makes the judge a judge, but it does have its purpose and effect. So too do Christians "put on" Christ in baptism, but it is not what makes them saved people but what demonstrates them to be so.
Baptism is also a personal testimonial. Recall the healing of the leper.
"And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." (Mark 1: 44; See also Luke 5: 14)
Notice that this man was healed and cleansed of his leprosy before the Lord orders him to "go offer for your cleansing" the specified Mosaic sacrifice. The offering was because of actual cleansing, but in order to ceremonial cleansing, or to formal declarative cleansing. The ceremonial cleansing had nothing to do with the actual cleansing of leprosy. It was intended to be a way of saying "thanks" to God, of "testifying to" of "confessing" God's graciousness in salvation."
"There are only a little more than a half dozen verses in the New Testament that are used to prove the necessity of baptism for salvation. This limited number is an argument against the essentiality of baptism for salvation.
Were water baptism essential, a sine qua non of salvation, then we would expect it to be abundant in scriptural testimony, and certainly more clearly stated.
When the terms of salvation were given to sinners, in the scriptures, they never excluded penitent faith. Yet, with regard to water baptism, we find it excluded in nearly all instances where an evangelist is giving to sinners the terms of pardon. For instance:
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19 KJV)
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10: 43 KJV)
"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13: 39 KJV)
"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16: 30, 31 KJV)
Here are four passages in the Book of Acts that are central to this debate. In all four passages the terms of pardon and salvation are clearly given. In each of them the terms are the same. Whoever believes and repents, or whoever has penitent faith, is pardoned and saved. There is no mention of water baptism.
If baptism is essential, then faithful evangelists and soul winners would never omit announcing all the essential terms of pardon. To omit one of the essential terms would be a crime.
Suppose a doctor were to give you a prescription for healing. Suppose this prescription had three conditions to it. Now, further suppose, that in giving this life-saving prescription, the doctor omits one of the necessary conditions. Would that not be criminal? Would that not doom the patient?
Certainly if it were not criminal, it would at least be negligence of the worst sort.
In each of the four scriptures I have cited, from the Book of Acts, where the evangelists are giving sinners the terms of pardon, they leave out water baptism. I argue that this omission of water baptism, rather than demonstrating criminality or negligence on the part of the first apostolic evangelists, rather demonstrates that they did not believe that water baptism was one of the essential conditions for pardon and salvation.
I dare say that my opponent and his brethren, who believe in the essentiality of baptism for salvation, never omit water baptism, when giving to sinners the terms of pardon. Do they not show how unlike they are to the apostles? Does it not show how they have added conditions to the conditions given by God through the apostles? Do evangelists with the so called Church of Christ give invitations where faith alone is mentioned and baptism is omitted?
I believe we have hundreds of verses in the Bible that state that penitent faith is essential to pardon. But, my opponent can only find a half dozen or so verses that we might say come close to affirming his proposition. This I believe is a weighty evidence against the essentiality of baptism for salvation.
Further, in the scriptures, we have an observable rule concerning the essential elements of pardon. It is this. For every thing necessary for salvation, we have both the positive and the negative statement.
For instance, is faith necessary for salvation? Do we have any positive statements for affirming faith as necessary? Certainly we do, and not only a half dozen, but a hundred or more. But, do we also not have the negative? Yes, in many places. For instance, John 3: 36 - "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
What about repentance? Are there positive statements affirming its essentiality? Yes, many. But, are there not also negative statements? Yes, Jesus said - "if you do not repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13: 3)
Now, I challenge my opponent to point to one verse where it is said - "he who is not baptized will be damned," or some other similar negative.
I not only find that there is no negative statement regarding baptism, but I can't even find a clear positive statement. My opponent has brought forth those famous few verses that seem to teach baptism is required for pardon, but, as we shall show, do not teach it.
This issue concerning the purpose of baptism is important. The consequences are enormous, in either case, whether the proposition of my opponent is true or false. If my opponent is correct, then every unbaptized believer is doomed. That person who believed on Christ and yet, through no fault of his own, is suddenly killed before baptism, is doomed if my opponent's proposition is true. No hope for anyone dying like the thief on the cross! Besides, seeing that the only proper baptism in the New Testament is done by immersion to penitent believers, a proposition on which my opponent and I agree, then his proposition, if true, dooms every believer in Jesus who was only sprinkled.
On the other hand, if the Bible does teach the necessity of water baptism for salvation, we should not shun to declare it. Certainly, as I have said, we should never omit it from our witnessing to sinners about the way of pardon. To do so would be a case of criminal negligence.
Does God have different ways of salvation and rebirth for people under the Old and New Covenants? Does he create the new heart and spirit differently now than he did in the days of the patriarchs? How did Abraham experience circumcision of heart? Through water baptism? No! Ergo. Water baptism is not essential to the experience of circumcision. Did the thief on the cross experience inward circumcision of heart? Yes. But, he was never baptized in water. Yes, he was baptized in the blood, when he put his faith in the blood, but he was never ceremonially baptized.
In the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, wherein Christ spoke of salvation as being all the same as "entering" or "seeing" the eternal kingdom of God, Jesus said that being "born of water and spirit" was an absolute requirement. That is to say, all the privileged entrants into the "kingdom of God" have been "born again" of the Spirit. There are no exceptions. Now, if this is so, then we can say that every saved soul has been "born of water and spirit," no matter what dispensation of time he lived.
Is Abraham one who will "enter" the "kingdom of God"? Well, then he was "born of water and spirit." Is the thief on the cross one who will "enter" the "kingdom of God"? Well, then, he too was "born of water and spirit."
Now, it contradicts the teachings of our Lord to say that Abraham, or the thief on the cross, was "born of water and spirit" in a manner different from how people today are "born of water and spirit." Jesus said all are born again the same way. In verse 8 Jesus said - "SO is EVERYONE who is born of the spirit."
Water baptism is important. Simply because I reject the view of my opponent about it being a necessary condition of pardon does not mean I do not recognize its importance in the life of a believer in Jesus. I believe my opponent has greatly overemphasized baptism's importance. He has taken an ordinance of Christ, intended as it is for the edification of believers, and made it into an essential means of grace, and in so doing has given it a significance far beyond that which our Savior intended.
And now let me say a few things about Alexander Campbell, the man who supposedly "restored the lost gospel" by being the first to teach, in modern times, immersion in order to the remission of sins, and who is one of the founders of my opponent's denomination, or those today who call themselves "Church of Christ," or "Christian Church," or "Disciples of Christ."
Campbell was first taught wrong on the subject of baptism, being a son of a Presbyterian Pedo-Baptist, Thomas Campbell, and did not believe in immersion of believers only. When he "saw the light" on this topic, however, he became a Baptist and was baptized by Elder Luce. At this time he did not believe that baptism was essential for pardon of sin or eternal salvation; And, what he said at this time, is what Baptists believe. Yes, Campbell did later go into error on water baptism, after becoming Baptist, but it was away from the truth as he formerly expressed it.
Here is what Campbell said, in his debate with McCalla, about baptism's relation to "remission" or "washing away of sins," when he was "sound" on that point. Speaking of water baptism, he said:
"I did not exaggerate its import as Mr. McCalla would have it. Nor did I elevate it so as to displace hope and charity."
Campbell, at this time, did not exaggerate the importance of baptism, for he was a Baptist. He recognized, at that time, that the importance of water baptism may be "exaggerated" and so "elevated" as to "displace hope and charity."
Ironically, within a short time after his debate with McCalla, he came to believe that water baptism did not simply remove sin formally or symbolically, but really, thus contradicting what he said in his debate with McCalla. In teaching this view Campbell did the very thing he warned against! He "exaggerated" the importance of baptism and "elevated" it to a level where hope and charity were displaced! Sending many believers to Hell for not being properly baptized, consigning every person to torment who was not immersed, is the very displacing of hope and charity that Campbell warned against! Such a view of the place of water baptism takes hope away from millions of believers and is uncharitable to believers who have not been properly baptized!
One other thing I find ironic about Campbell is the fact that he never was baptized, after he came to believe in baptismal regeneration, for that reason. The only baptism he ever knew was the one he obtained from Elder Luce. He never was baptized "in order to the remission of sins"! And yet this is the man, who with Walter Scott and Barton Stone, supposedly "restored" the ancient gospel! Will my opponent's "exaggerated" and "elevated" view of baptism's importance displace hope and charity as regards the salvation of Campbell?
Campbell said further:
"The blood of Christ, then, really cleanses us who believe from all sin. Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token, of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly "for the remission of sins." The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes away our sins. Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquital, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washes them away in the water of baptism."
"The intelligent and well instructed Christian, however, is baptized to obtain the formal remission of his sins."
"He appointed baptism to be, to every one that believed the record he has given of his Son, a formal pledge on his part of that believer's personal acquittal or pardon..." (pg. 135-37)
See here
Baptism is by definition a ceremony. A ceremony involves what is formal. Baptism is a ritual, as the Lord's Supper is a ritual. It is part of a believer's protocol or convention. It is what he does once he becomes committed in heart to Christ, and is intended to formally or ceremoniously express the fact, or confess it.
Baptism is also a "sacrament," but not as it is understood by Catholics, but in its proper signification, that of it being a "badge."
Baptism is the way in which disciples make a formal "oath of allegiance" to Christ, where they solemnize the heart's commitment and dedication. What does sacrament mean? The English is simply a transliteration of the Latin word "sacramentum" which means an oath. That is the basic meaning of a sacrament. It means an oath, an obligation, a vow. In legal terminology it means a pledge. For example, it means money deposited by the parties before a legal suit. That is, you pledge by paying this money before a legal case.
It was used of a military oath of allegiance. A military oath of allegiance was called the sacramento, when the Roman armies made their oath of allegiance to their country and to their emperor. This they sometimes did by the raising of their hands as you see today when a president takes an oath, or when somebody takes an oath in a court of law, symbolizing that he or she is doing this in all honesty and truth, with a good conscience. "I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
Baptism is intended to "solemnize," as I said, the previous confession and heart commitment. To "solemnize" means "to celebrate or observe with dignity and gravity. To perform with formal ceremony. To make serious or grave."
It is also intended to memoralize the heart commitment of the newborn Christian soul. Baptism, as Campbell said, is a "token" of salvation. It is a token in much the same way as is a wedding ring of a marriage. It is a symbol of salvation, a token of union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. Mind you that a wedding ring is not essential to the validity of marriage or to the union of hearts.
It is in baptism, as the scriptures show, that the believer receives his "badge," so to speak. He receives his symbol of authority. It is not what actually saves a man, but what publicly declares him to be so; much like a policeman does not become a policeman by his putting on a badge. The badge is the formal declaration of his already having been made a policeman. The badge has a purpose, but it is not what makes a person a policeman. Jesus was not baptized to make him "Son of God," but to declare it, or manifest it. So too with the believer. His baptism does not constitute him a "son of God," but formally declares it.
According to Galatians 3: 27 baptism is compared to putting on garments, especially symbolic garments, like, for example, a judge who puts on judicial raiment. The judge's raiment becomes symbolic of his position and status. It is not what makes the judge a judge, but it does have its purpose and effect. So too do Christians "put on" Christ in baptism, but it is not what makes them saved people but what demonstrates them to be so.
Baptism is also a personal testimonial. Recall the healing of the leper.
"And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." (Mark 1: 44; See also Luke 5: 14)
Notice that this man was healed and cleansed of his leprosy before the Lord orders him to "go offer for your cleansing" the specified Mosaic sacrifice. The offering was because of actual cleansing, but in order to ceremonial cleansing, or to formal declarative cleansing. The ceremonial cleansing had nothing to do with the actual cleansing of leprosy. It was intended to be a way of saying "thanks" to God, of "testifying to" of "confessing" God's graciousness in salvation."
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Errors of Campbellism
What, in my view, are the errors of Campbellism?
1. Making water baptism a sine qua non of salvation.
2. Teaching that the new birth is accomplished by the "word alone" apart from the special working of the power of the Spirit.
3. Teaching that believers may lose faith and salvation.
4. Teaching pelagianism, to one degree or another.
5. Teaching that all are lost who are not members of Campbellite churches.
6. Teaching that justification before the law is by works.
7. Teaching "patternism."
1. Making water baptism a sine qua non of salvation.
2. Teaching that the new birth is accomplished by the "word alone" apart from the special working of the power of the Spirit.
3. Teaching that believers may lose faith and salvation.
4. Teaching pelagianism, to one degree or another.
5. Teaching that all are lost who are not members of Campbellite churches.
6. Teaching that justification before the law is by works.
7. Teaching "patternism."
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Father of Campbellism Lost?
Alexander Campbell is well known as being the "ringleader" of the sect known as "Campbellites," or "Restorationists," or "Disciples," and the denomination calling itself "Church of Christ," or "Christian Church." He is supposedly the one who, with others, "restored" the ancient "lost" gospel. He supposedly did this when he discovered that immersion in water was a requirement for new birth and eternal salvation. He came to believe that one was not "born again" until he was immersed in water "in order to the remission of sins."
What is ironic and interesting about Campbell, however, is the fact that he himself never was baptized according to this rediscovered "formula"! He never was baptized "in order to the remission of sins," never repudiating his former Baptist baptism.
Can you imagine it? Campbell, the head of the new denomination, was never baptized "in order to the remission of sins," and was, therefore, eternally lost!
What is ironic and interesting about Campbell, however, is the fact that he himself never was baptized according to this rediscovered "formula"! He never was baptized "in order to the remission of sins," never repudiating his former Baptist baptism.
Can you imagine it? Campbell, the head of the new denomination, was never baptized "in order to the remission of sins," and was, therefore, eternally lost!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Baptist Alexander Campbell
Early in Alexander Campbell's life, when he was both more Calvinistic and Baptistic, he held the correct view on water baptism.
He was first taught wrong on the subject, being a son of a Presbyterian Pedo-Baptist, and not believing in immersion of believers only. When he "saw the light" on this topic, he became a Baptist and was baptized by Elder Luce. At this time he did not believe that baptism was essential for pardon of sin or eternal salvation; And, what he said at this time, as demonstrated in his debate with McCalla, about that topic, is what Baptists believe, is what I believe. It is this position that I will uphold, the Lord willing, in my upcoming August debate on the place of baptism. It is my opponent, who will not agree with what Campbell stated in that debate. Yes, Campbell did go into error on water baptism, but it was away from the truth as he formerly expressed it in that debate.
Here is what Campbell said about baptism being "for remission of sins" when he was "sound" on that point.
"I did not exaggerate its (baptism) import (this he would do later! SG), as mr. M. would have it. Nor did I elevate it so as to displace hope and charity (as he did later, or as his followers do today? By their sending many believers to Hell from not being properly baptized - SG). These are graces, the fruits of true faith, and true baptism. I know it will be said that I have affirmed that baptism "saves us," that it "washes aivay sins." Well, Peter and Paul have said so before me. If it was not criminal in them to say so, it cannot be criminal in me. When Ananias said unto Paul, "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord," I suppose Paul believed him, and arose, was baptized, and washed away his sins. When he was baptized he must have believed that his sins were now washed away, in some sense, that they were not before. For if his sins had been already in every sense, washed away, Ananias' address would have led him into a mistaken, view of himself; both before, and after baptism. Now we confess that the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanses us from all sins. Even this, however, is a metaphorical expression. The efficacy of his blood springs from his own dignity, and from the appointment of his Father. The blood of Christ, then, really cleanses us who believe from all sin. Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token, of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly "for the remission of sins." The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes away our sins. Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquital, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washes them away in the water of baptism."
"To every believer therefore, baptism is a formal and personal remission, or purgation of sins. The believer never has his sins formally washed away or remitted until he is baptized. The water has no efficacy but whate God's appointment gives it, and he has made it sufficient' for this purpose. The value and importance of baptism appears from this view of it. It also accounts for baptism being called the Washing Of Regeneration. It shews us a good, and valid reason for the despatch with which this ordinance was administered in the primitive church.
I say, this view of baptism accounts for all these otherwise unaccountable circumstances. It was this view of baptism misapplied that originated infant baptism. The first errorists on this subject argued that if baptism was so necessary for the remission of sins, it should be administered to infants whom they represented as in great need of it on account of their "original sin." Affectionate parents, believing their children to be guilty of "original sin" were easily persuaded to have their infants baptized for the remission of "original sin," not for washing away sins actually committed; But of this again."
"Faith in Christ is necessary to forgiveness of sins, therefore baptism, without faith, is an unmeaning ceremony.
The intelligent and well instructed Christian, however, is baptized to obtain the formal remission of his sins."
"He appointed baptism to be, to every one that believed the record he has given of his Son, a formal pledge on his part of that believer's personal acquittal or pardon..." (pg. 135-37)
See here
Baptism is by definition a ceremony. A ceremony involves what is formal. Baptism is a ritual, as the Lord's Supper is a ritual. It is part of a believer's protocol or convention. It is what he does once he becomes committed in heart to Christ, and is intended to formally express the fact, or confess it.
Being a ceremony, we do not mean to imply that it is a mere "empty ceremony" without any deep signification or lasting impression. It is not mere "pomp and circumstance."
He was first taught wrong on the subject, being a son of a Presbyterian Pedo-Baptist, and not believing in immersion of believers only. When he "saw the light" on this topic, he became a Baptist and was baptized by Elder Luce. At this time he did not believe that baptism was essential for pardon of sin or eternal salvation; And, what he said at this time, as demonstrated in his debate with McCalla, about that topic, is what Baptists believe, is what I believe. It is this position that I will uphold, the Lord willing, in my upcoming August debate on the place of baptism. It is my opponent, who will not agree with what Campbell stated in that debate. Yes, Campbell did go into error on water baptism, but it was away from the truth as he formerly expressed it in that debate.
Here is what Campbell said about baptism being "for remission of sins" when he was "sound" on that point.
"I did not exaggerate its (baptism) import (this he would do later! SG), as mr. M. would have it. Nor did I elevate it so as to displace hope and charity (as he did later, or as his followers do today? By their sending many believers to Hell from not being properly baptized - SG). These are graces, the fruits of true faith, and true baptism. I know it will be said that I have affirmed that baptism "saves us," that it "washes aivay sins." Well, Peter and Paul have said so before me. If it was not criminal in them to say so, it cannot be criminal in me. When Ananias said unto Paul, "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord," I suppose Paul believed him, and arose, was baptized, and washed away his sins. When he was baptized he must have believed that his sins were now washed away, in some sense, that they were not before. For if his sins had been already in every sense, washed away, Ananias' address would have led him into a mistaken, view of himself; both before, and after baptism. Now we confess that the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanses us from all sins. Even this, however, is a metaphorical expression. The efficacy of his blood springs from his own dignity, and from the appointment of his Father. The blood of Christ, then, really cleanses us who believe from all sin. Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token, of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly "for the remission of sins." The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes away our sins. Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquital, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washes them away in the water of baptism."
"To every believer therefore, baptism is a formal and personal remission, or purgation of sins. The believer never has his sins formally washed away or remitted until he is baptized. The water has no efficacy but whate God's appointment gives it, and he has made it sufficient' for this purpose. The value and importance of baptism appears from this view of it. It also accounts for baptism being called the Washing Of Regeneration. It shews us a good, and valid reason for the despatch with which this ordinance was administered in the primitive church.
I say, this view of baptism accounts for all these otherwise unaccountable circumstances. It was this view of baptism misapplied that originated infant baptism. The first errorists on this subject argued that if baptism was so necessary for the remission of sins, it should be administered to infants whom they represented as in great need of it on account of their "original sin." Affectionate parents, believing their children to be guilty of "original sin" were easily persuaded to have their infants baptized for the remission of "original sin," not for washing away sins actually committed; But of this again."
"Faith in Christ is necessary to forgiveness of sins, therefore baptism, without faith, is an unmeaning ceremony.
The intelligent and well instructed Christian, however, is baptized to obtain the formal remission of his sins."
"He appointed baptism to be, to every one that believed the record he has given of his Son, a formal pledge on his part of that believer's personal acquittal or pardon..." (pg. 135-37)
See here
Baptism is by definition a ceremony. A ceremony involves what is formal. Baptism is a ritual, as the Lord's Supper is a ritual. It is part of a believer's protocol or convention. It is what he does once he becomes committed in heart to Christ, and is intended to formally express the fact, or confess it.
Being a ceremony, we do not mean to imply that it is a mere "empty ceremony" without any deep signification or lasting impression. It is not mere "pomp and circumstance."
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Graves vs. Campbell?
I believe that Alexander Campbell, for all his boasting and challenges to "debate," actually wanted no part of a debate with two leading Baptists of his day, with either Dr. J. M. Peck or Dr. J. R. Graves. Notice this historical information regarding debates that were never "finalized."
Campbell vs. Graves debate?
"To this sweeping and, we may say, criminating denial of Mr. Campbell's repeated assertions, and also to the challenge to give the names of "distinguished Baptists and Baptists ministers condemning the course of J. R. Graves," he made no reply. Those who knew Alexander Campbell, or were familiar with his writings and general course as an incessant controversialist, did not question the correctness of his statements. He was a man whose veracity was above suspicion, and at the time these statements appeared in the Harbinger it was pretty well known that there were influential men in the Baptist ranks who desired and planned a union of the Reformers and Baptist based upon or growing out of the co-operation and fraternity of the two peoples in the Bible Revision Movement. This fact gave boldness and credibility to Campbell's averments. But he prudently let Graves alone, and was silent in regard to the implied challenge to discuss the questions at issue with Graves either orally or through the respective periodicals. Graves pursued his fearless course of argument, and, at times, of denunciation of the dogmas of "baptismal remission;" insisting ever on the Scriptural truth of justification by faith only, and salvation independently of any ordinance, or church connection. This finally culminated in a challenge, through one Elder Hall, to hold public debate with Elder Fanning, a scholarly and able man of "the Reformation." It was accepted. P. S. Fall of Nashville, who had been pastor of the 1st Baptist Church there, and who led pretty much that whole Church in the ranks of the "Reformation" was selected by Fanning, S. H. Ford (the writer) by Graves, to arrange propositions and preliminaries. A voluminous correspondence ensued. The correspondents could not agree upon the wording of the propositions. On the part of Dr. Graves, Ford insisted on this proposition: —
The Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity by the application of the truth as it is in Jesus, convinces the sinner of his guilt and loss, quickens him into spiritual life, and leads him to trust in Christ.
The reason for stating the question at such length was to avoid all misunderstanding or evasion of the true issue — viz., does the Holy Spirit convert? — is the truth, the instrument, not the cause of that spiritual life?
Elder Fall on the part of Fanning, declined to discuss that proposition — indeed admitted the affirmative and accepted the doctrine of the direct operation of the Spirit through the truth. But it was,in fact, a repudiation of "original Campbellism." That system — with many of its most distinguished "proclaimers" had undergone or was undergoing a change in regard to the Spirit's work. It's early teaching was (and to some extent is still) that there is no personal work of the Holy Spirit until after the "consummating act" — immersion.
The next proposition objected to was this: "In the case of a penitent believer, the pardon of past sins is conditioned upon immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Fanning was asked to affirm that. He refused. He claimed that "baptism" and not "immersion" should be the term used. He was asked if there could be a baptism without immersion. But it seemed that he wished to have the indefinite word (in English) baptism, so as to include all who, though sprinkled or poured upon instead of being immersed, were really baptized.
Further, Mr. Fall objected to the words, "conditioned upon." It was too sweeping. It shut out all hope of pardon for those who did not comply with this invariable condition. An "assurance of remission," or something like that, was desired to be substituted for condition of pardon.
Graves became tired of this seemingly endless logomachy and insisted on the propositions as first stated, and there the whole affair ended. It seemed patent to the writer that Fall and Fanning and the others who were consulted did not desire a debate with Graves, though they threw the blame of its failure upon him.
"I want the discussion," said Graves, "to go down to the bedrock of the Gospel plan of salvation, or else I have no time to waste upon it. I want the issue of eternal importance to be clearly made — Is salvation 'by works of righteousness which we have done,' or is it by sovereign, unmerited grace? If it is by or through baptism; through or by the church or kingdom — by any act of the creature done by him or for him — then it is by works, and grace is no more grace. This is the damning heresy of Rome and to a great extent of Protestantism. Campbellism is this same heresy, which Paul denounced and Rome formulated, presented in a new and popular dress. I shall not give my time to the discussion of terms such as 'for' and 'unto,' but discuss, the vital essential principle. 'Is justification, through faith, or is it by works?' This decided, and the meaning of Peter's words at Pentecost and other expressions in the New Testament, are thoroughly in harmony with the great Gospel fact announced by our Lord Jesus: 'He that believeth in Him shall not come unto condemnation, but has passed out of death unto life.'" (J. R. Graves-Alexander Campbell Dispute By Samuel H. Ford, 1900)
See here
Campbell vs. Peck debate?
"About this time Mr. Campbell held a brief correspondence with Elder J. M. Peck on the subject of spiritual influence. At the close of the discussion of this subject with S. W. Lynd, he had expressed his willingness to discuss the question with any Baptist doctor, and publish the controversy in a volume of one hundred and fifty or two hundred pages for general circulation, as an end of the matter. This proposition was accepted by J. M. Peck of the "Baptist Banner," but after a few communications the disputants seemed to come unexpectedly to so close an agreement that the discussion was closed. Mr. Campbell had said:
"The truth is the instrument, the means, and the Spirit of God is the cause or agent of regeneration. Such are my views on this great subject. And, my dear sir, if you always make the word the instrument of regeneration, you may always expect me to concur with you in saying that it is but the instrument, and not the first cause of a great spiritual change."
"Mr. Peck expressed his high gratification with these distinct statements, regretting that Mr. Campbell had been so long misunderstood on this topic for want of such a declaration. Mr. Campbell then called his attention to the fact that the proposition which he had from the very beginning labored to sustain was precisely what he had now expressed--viz.: that "in conversion the Holy Spirit operated through the truth, and not without it," as the Baptists had taught. As Elder Peck declined to affirm this dogma of the Baptists, and endeavored to show that Mr. Campbell had misunderstood them on this subject, there appeared to be no longer any question in dispute..."
See here
I think Campbell did not want a debate with either Graves or Peck. It is ironic that this was the case seeing Campbell was known as the "great debater."
Campbell vs. Graves debate?
"To this sweeping and, we may say, criminating denial of Mr. Campbell's repeated assertions, and also to the challenge to give the names of "distinguished Baptists and Baptists ministers condemning the course of J. R. Graves," he made no reply. Those who knew Alexander Campbell, or were familiar with his writings and general course as an incessant controversialist, did not question the correctness of his statements. He was a man whose veracity was above suspicion, and at the time these statements appeared in the Harbinger it was pretty well known that there were influential men in the Baptist ranks who desired and planned a union of the Reformers and Baptist based upon or growing out of the co-operation and fraternity of the two peoples in the Bible Revision Movement. This fact gave boldness and credibility to Campbell's averments. But he prudently let Graves alone, and was silent in regard to the implied challenge to discuss the questions at issue with Graves either orally or through the respective periodicals. Graves pursued his fearless course of argument, and, at times, of denunciation of the dogmas of "baptismal remission;" insisting ever on the Scriptural truth of justification by faith only, and salvation independently of any ordinance, or church connection. This finally culminated in a challenge, through one Elder Hall, to hold public debate with Elder Fanning, a scholarly and able man of "the Reformation." It was accepted. P. S. Fall of Nashville, who had been pastor of the 1st Baptist Church there, and who led pretty much that whole Church in the ranks of the "Reformation" was selected by Fanning, S. H. Ford (the writer) by Graves, to arrange propositions and preliminaries. A voluminous correspondence ensued. The correspondents could not agree upon the wording of the propositions. On the part of Dr. Graves, Ford insisted on this proposition: —
The Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity by the application of the truth as it is in Jesus, convinces the sinner of his guilt and loss, quickens him into spiritual life, and leads him to trust in Christ.
The reason for stating the question at such length was to avoid all misunderstanding or evasion of the true issue — viz., does the Holy Spirit convert? — is the truth, the instrument, not the cause of that spiritual life?
Elder Fall on the part of Fanning, declined to discuss that proposition — indeed admitted the affirmative and accepted the doctrine of the direct operation of the Spirit through the truth. But it was,in fact, a repudiation of "original Campbellism." That system — with many of its most distinguished "proclaimers" had undergone or was undergoing a change in regard to the Spirit's work. It's early teaching was (and to some extent is still) that there is no personal work of the Holy Spirit until after the "consummating act" — immersion.
The next proposition objected to was this: "In the case of a penitent believer, the pardon of past sins is conditioned upon immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Fanning was asked to affirm that. He refused. He claimed that "baptism" and not "immersion" should be the term used. He was asked if there could be a baptism without immersion. But it seemed that he wished to have the indefinite word (in English) baptism, so as to include all who, though sprinkled or poured upon instead of being immersed, were really baptized.
Further, Mr. Fall objected to the words, "conditioned upon." It was too sweeping. It shut out all hope of pardon for those who did not comply with this invariable condition. An "assurance of remission," or something like that, was desired to be substituted for condition of pardon.
Graves became tired of this seemingly endless logomachy and insisted on the propositions as first stated, and there the whole affair ended. It seemed patent to the writer that Fall and Fanning and the others who were consulted did not desire a debate with Graves, though they threw the blame of its failure upon him.
"I want the discussion," said Graves, "to go down to the bedrock of the Gospel plan of salvation, or else I have no time to waste upon it. I want the issue of eternal importance to be clearly made — Is salvation 'by works of righteousness which we have done,' or is it by sovereign, unmerited grace? If it is by or through baptism; through or by the church or kingdom — by any act of the creature done by him or for him — then it is by works, and grace is no more grace. This is the damning heresy of Rome and to a great extent of Protestantism. Campbellism is this same heresy, which Paul denounced and Rome formulated, presented in a new and popular dress. I shall not give my time to the discussion of terms such as 'for' and 'unto,' but discuss, the vital essential principle. 'Is justification, through faith, or is it by works?' This decided, and the meaning of Peter's words at Pentecost and other expressions in the New Testament, are thoroughly in harmony with the great Gospel fact announced by our Lord Jesus: 'He that believeth in Him shall not come unto condemnation, but has passed out of death unto life.'" (J. R. Graves-Alexander Campbell Dispute By Samuel H. Ford, 1900)
See here
Campbell vs. Peck debate?
"About this time Mr. Campbell held a brief correspondence with Elder J. M. Peck on the subject of spiritual influence. At the close of the discussion of this subject with S. W. Lynd, he had expressed his willingness to discuss the question with any Baptist doctor, and publish the controversy in a volume of one hundred and fifty or two hundred pages for general circulation, as an end of the matter. This proposition was accepted by J. M. Peck of the "Baptist Banner," but after a few communications the disputants seemed to come unexpectedly to so close an agreement that the discussion was closed. Mr. Campbell had said:
"The truth is the instrument, the means, and the Spirit of God is the cause or agent of regeneration. Such are my views on this great subject. And, my dear sir, if you always make the word the instrument of regeneration, you may always expect me to concur with you in saying that it is but the instrument, and not the first cause of a great spiritual change."
"Mr. Peck expressed his high gratification with these distinct statements, regretting that Mr. Campbell had been so long misunderstood on this topic for want of such a declaration. Mr. Campbell then called his attention to the fact that the proposition which he had from the very beginning labored to sustain was precisely what he had now expressed--viz.: that "in conversion the Holy Spirit operated through the truth, and not without it," as the Baptists had taught. As Elder Peck declined to affirm this dogma of the Baptists, and endeavored to show that Mr. Campbell had misunderstood them on this subject, there appeared to be no longer any question in dispute..."
See here
I think Campbell did not want a debate with either Graves or Peck. It is ironic that this was the case seeing Campbell was known as the "great debater."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
