Campbellism

Planned Debates

2010-01-26T14:34:00.001-08:00

November 8, 9, 11, 12, 2010

at Crossroads Baptist Church in Monroe, N.C.

"The scriptures teach that God chose, before the world began, a definite number of people to be saved, without respect to any act on their part as a condition."

Affirm: Stephen Garrett
Deny: Bruce Reeves

"The Scriptures teach that God's election to salvation is of a class of persons and not specific individuals."

Affirm: Bruce Reeves
Deny: Stephen Garrett

August, 2011 (exact dates to be announced) at the "Church of Christ" in Conway, Arkansas. See this link:

http://www.hwy65churchofchrist.org/

"The scriptures teach that it is impossible for the child of God, one born again, to sin so as to be eternally lost."

Affirm: Stephen Garrett
Deny: Bruce Reeves

"The scriptures teach that it is possible for the child of God, one born again, to sin so as to be eternally lost."

Affirm: Bruce Reeves
Deny: Stephen Garrett

I am also working on another debate for the Knoxville, Tennessee area. Details to be announced in the near future.

Campbellite Doctrine

2009-11-16T05:03:00.001-08:00

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!

Audio of Debate Online

2009-10-17T04:23:00.000-07:00

John Gentry has informed me that the audio of our recent debate on the purpose of water baptism is available online.

See here

Debate Announcement

2009-10-17T04:14:00.001-07:00

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

Eternal Security Debate

2009-09-22T04:14:00.001-07:00

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.

Gentry-Garrett Debate on Baptism

2009-08-24T16:26:00.000-07:00

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 Questions

2009-08-24T16:20:00.000-07:00

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

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

2009-08-24T16:15:00.000-07:00

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."

Errors of Campbellism

2009-08-12T07:32:00.001-07:00

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."

Father of Campbellism Lost?

2009-07-09T08:00:00.001-07:00

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!

The Baptist Alexander Campbell

2009-02-26T16:33:00.001-08:00

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."

Graves vs. Campbell?

2009-02-05T05:29:00.000-08:00

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 Essays on HS

2008-11-04T07:59:00.001-08:00

Alexander Campbell wrote the following in his battles against Hardshellism and Hyper Calvinism.

"That faith is necessary to salvation, is a proposition the truth of which we need not now attempt to prove, as all professors of christianity admit it; and that testimony is necessary to faith, is a proposition equally true, evident, and universally admitted. He that believes, believes something, and that which he believes is testified to him by others." (Essays on the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of men.--No. I)

"Correct views of the office of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men, are essential to our knowledge of the Christian religion, as also to our enjoyment of it. On mistaken views of it are engrafted most of the extravagant systems of our times.

Some describe faith to be an inward principle of grace, implanted in the heart by the operation of the Spirit, separate from, and previous to the knowledge of the word of God. (Hardellism or Hyper Calvinism - SG) But it is impossible to conceive what is meant by such a principle of grace as this. It cannot be any sentiment respecting Christ or his salvation, since it is supposed to be previous to the knowledge of the word of God, wherein alone he is revealed. Nor can it be any disposition or affection of mind towards Christ; for the mind cannot he affected with any object of which it has no knowledge; and our confession of faith makes the principal acts of saving faith to have immediate relation to Christ, trusting on him alone for justification, &c. But the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of truth, and operates upon the mind not abstracted from the word, which is truth, or without it, but by means of it, enlightening the understanding in its doctrines, and influencing the will by its motives: so that the word itself, is the very principle established in the heart by the Spirit. Men are born of the spirit; but it is by the incorruptible seed of the word, 1 Pet. i.23. It is of his own will that God begets men to the faith; but it is with the word of truth, James i. 18, for faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, Rom. x. 17. To suppose, therefore, that the Spirit implants faith, as a principle of grace in the heart, without the word, or previous to any knowledge of it, is unintelligible, and unscriptural, and contrary to the word of God, and the confession of Faith:--it makes the word of God of little consequence--supercedes the necessity of preaching it to sinners, or of its being read by them in order to faith; and the Spirit does not glorify the Lord Jesus Christ in his operations, as he was promised to do, in imparting it. It opens a flood-gate of wild enthusiasm, and sets aside the scripture rule for distinguishing the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error. Isai. viii. 20. 1 John v. 1-6.

When men conceive faith to be a principle wrought in the heart by the Spirit, abstract from the word, it will lead them to look within themselves, for the operation of some spirit, very different from the spirit of truth, who speaks in the scriptures, whose work is to guide into all truth, to testify of Christ, and take of his, and show it to us. John xvi. 13, 14. It will make them seek after this inward principle, in the first instance, as the main hinge of their hope, and prevent them taking any comfort from the word till they find, or rather they fancy they find, this mysterious principle wrought in them: which, after all, seems to be only a principle of blind enthusiasm or self-conceit.

Saving faith is distinguished from every other, by its object and effects. Faith cannot so much as exist without an object; for, when nothing is believed, there can be no belief. It saves in no other way than that it has a saving object; and all its influence upon the heart and life, is, properly speaking, the influence of truth believed.

Though there can be no true faith without knowledge, yet there may be a kind of speculative knowledge without true faith. There is a wide difference between understanding the terms of a proposition, and believing the truth of it.

Whatever men may think of their knowledge and belief of the gospel, yet if they do not in some measure perceive its excellence, suitableness, and importance to their lost condition as sinners, they do not in reality know, and believe it--it is the operation of God's Spirit that produces this.

Christ told his disciples that the Spirit of truth, the Holy Ghost, when he came, would not speak of himself--but would glorify him. Accordingly, his operations, during the age of miracles, were all performed in glorifying Jesus Christ, and in his name. The gospel of Christ, since the days of the apostles, has been the theme he has blessed, in convincing the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, and through which he has imparted saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It was in the name of Jesus, all the miracles were wrought; and by the preaching of Christ, and him crucified, as he is exhibited in the record God has given of his Son, the same Spirit has exerted his power, through this preaching, its regenerating the hearts of men. Hence, it is by preaching Christ to sinners, and not the Spirit, that the Spirit operates in glorifying Jesus in their conversion. If I preach to sinners less about the Spirit, it is that they may experience the operations of the Spirit more, by preaching Christ and him crucified, which is the sum and substance of the gospel. On believers I urge the necessity of praying the Father, through the Son, for the Spirit, that he may enlighten and sanctify them, &c." [107]

(NOVEMBER 1, 1824 "Essays on the work of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men"--No. IV)

Campbell on "The Law"

2008-11-02T12:31:00.001-08:00

Although Alexander Campbell went off into some grave errors in doctrine, nevertheless he was correct in his views on "the law" as he preached it first before the Redstone Baptist Association.

Here are some good comments analyzing that sermon. (emphasis mine)

"Content Of The Sermon"

"What is meant by “the law”? Campbell argued that it signifies the whole Mosaic dispensation. He rejected the generally accepted distinctions between the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the judicial law."

Note: I recently saw where Turretinfan, a blogger of repute, takes the view that the law is to be divided so. My dad also does.

I left a comment (for the 1st time) on Turretinfan's blog on this issue, seeing he was promoting the three kinds of "law" view. I have often challenged my dad on this issue, asking him to give biblical authority for such a division and distinction.

Also, I agree with Campbell that such things as tithing and sabbath keeping are NOT laws for New Covenant Christians. But, more on this in future posts.

The analysis continues:

"To refer to the Decalogue as the “moral law,” he argued first of all, is contradictory, seeing that only six of them are moral--that is, relating to our conduct toward men.

Second, Campbell argued against calling the ten commandments the “moral law” on the ground that all morality is clearly not contained in them.

Campbell’s third objection to this division in the law is based on the words of Paul, who denominated the ten commandments the “ministration of condemnation and of death” (2 Cor. 3:7), and further taught that they were to be done away. It is inconsistent, reasoned Campbell, to refer to the “moral law” in such terms. The epistles to the Romans, Galatians and Hebrews become perplexing to the person who continues to maintain the moral/ceremonial/judicial distinction.

Campbell concludes this section of his sermon by observing that there were certain universal and immutable principles such as, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, soul, mind, and strength; and thy neighbor as thyself,” which did not originate with the law of Moses. Rather, these principles are timeless principles, written in the hearts of all men, which formed the basis of the law.

The second major section in the sermon was to point out those things which the law could not accomplish. Here Campbell cites three fundamental failings.

First, it could not give righteousness and life. In Galatians 3:21 Paul wrote,”for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” “...for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal. 2:21). In Romans 7:10, Paul said, “And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.” This was what the apostle once mistakenly thought of the law. The law was merely “added to the promise of life, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal. 3:19). “Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound” (Rom. 5:20). “For through the Law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20).

Second, the law could not exhibit the malignity or demerit of sin. It taught that certain actions were sinful, gave names to those actions, and showed that they were offensive to God, hurtful to men, and deserving of death. But to show the extent of their malignity the law could not do.

Third, the law could not be a suitable rule of life to mankind in this imperfect state. The law was given to the Jewish nation only. It was designed for them only. But it was inadequate for universal application. To attempt to apply it beyond what it was intended would be as unjust and improper, Campbell explained, as trying to convey the contents of a letter to a person to whom it was not directed, or to enjoin a proclamation made by the President of the United States on the subjects of France. And even to the Jews it was not the most suitable rule of life, in that what it lacked most was an example of living perfection.

Campbell then moves on to his third major objective — to demonstrate the reason why the law could not accomplish these objects.

Paul taught that the law failed to accomplish these thing due to human weakness — “in that it was weak through the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Though some part of the law was holy, just and good, even that failed in that it was “too high, sublime, and spiritual, to regulate so weak a mortal as fallen man.”

On the other hand, the oblations and sacrifices were in themselves too weak and carnal in nature to effect anything so vast and sublime. “So that as the Apostle saith, the law made nothing perfect, it merely introduced a better hope” (cf. Heb. 7:19). The law was not faultless, otherwise there would be no place found for the gospel (Heb. 8:7).

Campbell summed up the deficiencies in the words of Ezekiel 20:25 — “Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.”

In the fourth head of his discourse, Campbell set out to illustrate the means by which God has remedied the relative defects of the law. All those defects of the law God remedied by sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemning sin in the flesh. “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4).

The first deficiency of the law was that it could not give righteousness and life. Now Christ brings righteousness through His obedience unto death, through the work the Father gave Him to do. All believers – the seed of Abraham – thus find righteousness and life in Christ, not by works of law but by grace.

The law could not give a full exhibition of the demerit of sin. But Christ shows the fullness of the nature and demerits of sin. God condemned sin in Him. He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up (Rom. 8:32). At length Campbell explains how we have the greatest demonstration and most enduring monument of the demerit of sin in the suffering and death of the Savior on the cross.

And where the law failed in not providing a suitable rule of life, Christ remedied by giving a perfect example. “He spake as never man spake.” He was the greater Prophet, the perfect teacher. Of Him the voice from the cloud declared, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him.” Concluding his remarks on this point from the transfiguration of Christ, Campbell said, “The plain language of the whole occurrence was this – Moses and Elias were excellent men – they were now glorified in heaven – they had lived their day – the limited time they were to flourish as teachers of the will of Heaven was now come to an end. The morning star had arisen – nay, was almost set, and the Sun of Righteousness was arising with salutiferous rays. Let us, then, walk in the noon-day light – let us hearken to Jesus as the Prophet and Legislator, Priest and King. He shall reign over all the ransomed race. We find all things whatsoever the law could not do are accomplished in him, and by him – that in him all Christians might be perfect and complete – ‘for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.’”

Campbell, under the final heading of his sermon, comes to the conclusions to be deduced from the premises he has presented.

First, there is an essential difference between the law and the gospel – between the Old Testament and the New Testament. He cites 2 Corinthians 3 as clear demonstration of the essential difference. The law is called “the letter,” “the ministration of condemnation,” “the ministration of death,” “the old testament,” and “Moses.” The gospel is called “the Spirit,” “the ministration of the Spirit,” “the ministration of righteousness,” “the new testament,” “the law of liberty,” and “Christ.” As Hebrews 8 declares, the former is called “that which is done away,” whereas the latter is called, “that which remaineth”; the former was faulty, the latter faultless; the former waxed old and vanished away, the latter remains, lives and is everlasting.

There is “no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” We are not under law; we are freed from it (Rom. 6-7; 8:1). Campbell points out the confusion of modern teachers, who profess that we are not under the law as a covenant of works, but we are under the law as a rule of life. To those who would object that teaching that Christians are not under the law in any sense would lead to licentious living, Campbell responds with Paul’s answer in Romans 6:15: “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” If the apostle Paul ever would have wanted to say that we are still under the law in any sense, this would have been the time to do so. But instead, he says, “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:2). Antinomianism is no part of the New Testament, the gospel, Campbell says, but because of the true Christian’s relationship as a servant, and not because we are still under the law of Moses in some sense, including even the ten commandments or part of them. Furthermore, the Gentiles were never regarded as under the law of Moses, though the “wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Rom. 1:18).

There is no necessity for preaching the law in order to prepare men for receiving the gospel. Jesus said, “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel unto every creature” (Mark 16:15). “Teach the disciples to observe all things whatsoever I command you.” Thus, Campbell says, they were authorized to preach the gospel, not the law, to every creature. As such, they were constituted ministers of the New Testament, not of the Old.

All the preaching of the apostles in Acts consisted of proclaiming the gospel, but not the law. The very nature of the church as God’s kingdom and the means by which it is to be built up is based on the power of the Spirit in the gospel, not the law of Moses.

The gospel, not the law, is best suited to convincing men of sin so as to prepare them to receiving saving truth. It is only the discovery of Christ exalted, as in the case of Paul, that will convict man of sin, righteousness and judgment. Campbell acknowledges that the law was necessary to convince sinners of sin, but only before Christ came. From Romans 6-7, he shows that we, like Paul, are now delivered from the law. The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Campbell shows clearly that, contrary to countenancing law-preaching, this passage (Gal. 3:23) proves that whatever use the law served as schoolmaster previous to Christ, it no longer serves that use.

There is therefore no scriptural basis for using the Old Testament as authority for various common religious practices such as infant baptism, tithing, observance of holy days or religious feasts, Sabbath observance, entering national covenants, or the establishment of religion by civil law. All such “reasons and motives” are borrowed from Jewish law, but are not authorized by Jesus Christ.

Finally, it means that we should venerate the Lord Jesus Christ above all. He is the Great Prophet spoken of by Moses. We should receive Him as the Lord our righteousness and observe all His teachings. “Let us as his disciples believe all he teaches, and practice all he enjoins in religion and morality; let us walk in all his commandments and ordinances; and inquire individually, What lack I yet!” Campbell concludes the sermon with these words: “May he that hath the key of David, who openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and none can open, open your hearts to receive the truth in the love of it, and incline you to walk in the light of it, and then ye shall know that the ways thereof are pleasantness, and all the paths thereof are peace! AMEN.”

The same views were set forth in the Christian Baptist, the paper that Campbell edited from 1823 to 1829. In one issue, Campbell observes how some have charged him with heresy. “Because we have said, that we christians are not under Moses, but under Christ; not under the law as a rule of life, but under the gospel, we are said to have spoken ‘blasphemous words against Moses and the law’.” These critics were particularly accusing Campbell of denying “the moral law, the Christian Sabbath, and experimental religion.” Campbell responds to these charges by reviewing his “Sermon on the Law” delivered seven years previously (The Christian Baptist I:6 (1824): 115-119).

In the following issue we find Campbell writing on the Sabbath. He argues that Sabbath-keeping was part of the law of Moses and that since that law was set aside, then the Sabbath was also set aside (The Christian Baptist I:7 (1824): 127-133).

Campbell said in 1846 (30 years later) that if it were not for this sermon and the opposition it aroused, he might never have launched his reformation.

Certainly the sermon represented a fresh approach to interpreting and applying the Scriptures. The approach of recognizing that God deals with man in covenants and making a clear distinction between the old and the new was certainly Biblically sound and was a significant step in the efforts of Campbell and many others as they sought to find their way (and to help others find theirs) out of the maze of religious confusion and to work toward the goal of restoring New Testament Christianity."

http://www.lessonsonline.info/Campbells%20Sermon%20on%20the%20Law.a.htm

The Heretical Twins

2008-10-23T06:48:00.001-07:00

B. H. Caroll Jr., wrote a section of his book, on the "Anti-Mission Movement," titled "Rise of the Hardshells." In that chapter he showed that Alexander Campbell was the "father of twins," the "twins" being "Hardshellism" and "Campbellism."

Anyone familiar with the history of these two sects knows how true is this description. I will be writing upon this in future chapters of my book on the "Primitive Baptist Church."

Errors of Campbellism

2008-10-22T13:28:00.001-07:00

1. The view that one is not saved or forgiven of sin till he has been baptized (immersed) in water, or the view that baptism = born again.

2. The view that the word (gospel) alone is sufficient for the salvation of sinners and that no special operations of the Spirit are necessary.

3. Their advocating of a Semi-Pelagian or Arminian view of salvation.

4. Their "ruling elder" practice (Presbyterianism) in church government.

5. Their promotion of "Patternism."

Garrett's Debate History

2008-10-22T08:30:00.000-07:00

I am now working with two "Church of Christ" ministers on propositions for debates over the next year. I will let you know when the dates, propositions, and locations have all been finalized.

Some have asked of my past history in debates. Well, besides the ones I have moderated or attended or read, these are the ones in which I have actually been the debater.

Patrick T. Donahue & Thomas N. Thrasher in Monroe, N.C. on April 2-3, 1992. The topic was whether one is saved at the point of faith and on the purpose of water baptism.

Thomas N. Thrasher in Huntsville, AL in October, 1992 on Free Will and Predestination.

Patrick T. Donahue in Athens, AL on October 29-31, 1992 on the purpose of water baptism.

Thomas N. Thrasher in Atlanta, GA. in October of 1993 on Free Will and Predestination.

Thomas N. Thrasher & Patrick T. Donahue in Monroe, NC., August 5, 1995 on Original Sin.

John A. Welch in Indianapolis, IN., June 6-7, 9-10, 1994, on the question when a person is born again, at the point of faith or in water baptism.

Patrick Donahue in October, 2006 in Monroe, N.C. 1st topic was on "once saved always saved" and the 2nd on "unconditional election."

Alexander Campbell & Hyperists

2008-10-22T07:38:00.000-07:00

Did the Hyper Calvinism present in the Baptist denomination in the early 19th century help to create both the Hardshell and Campbellite sects? I think so. From the following words of Campbell, and comments made about him, it is obvious that Campbell fought hard against Hyperism and Hardshellism. Sadly, as we all know, Campbell went to an extreme himself in fighting an extreme. But, it is obvious from the following (and other writings also of him in the "Christian Baptist" and in the "Millenial Harbinger") that he was mostly correct in what he says here against the view that men are "regenerated before faith."

Mr. Campbell, at one time, believed that men were saved at the point of faith, as all good sound Baptists believed at the time, except for a few Hyper Calvinists.

Alexander Campbell writes:

"To proceed then: the outline of Mr. Bellamy's gospel which he opposes to Messrs. Hervey, Sandeman and Cudworth, is obviously such as the following, when reduced to its simplest parts:

"1. A man must be regenerated previous to the first act of faith. 2. He must, before he believes the gospel to be true, approve of the law as holy, just and good, and love it on this account. 3. Then through the law as a glass he must discover the glory of God, and love him on account of his own glorious excellences. 4. Afterward, he must discover the wisdom of God in the gospel way of salvation, and, with all these qualifications, he then believes the gospel to be true; all this previous to the first act of faith, which he says is a 'holy act,' for his faith implies holiness, repentance, conversion and reconciliation; and yet he maintains that repentance is before forgiveness. That you may read his sentiments with your own eyes, please consult pages 14, 16, 17, 19, 58, 79, 81-103: Essays, 122, 125, 147."

"Respecting his first prerequisite, Regeneration, page 17: 'Regeneration must be before faith,' John (i. 12, 13). I would inquire what is the meaning of regeneration? Is it not the communication of spiritual life to the soul, which principle of spiritual life is the beginning of eternal life? 'If any be in Christ, he is a new creature;' all 'old things are passed away.' 'All things are become new' when a man is [423] regenerated, he is then possessed of a new life, he is now alive and shall never die. I think this proposition would sound somewhat strange in the ears of a Christian, 'That a man may be possessed of eternal life and yet disbelieve the gospel.' Mr. Bellamy virtually maintains this; for if regeneration be the communication of spiritual and eternal life, and if this be previous to faith, then a man may live and die and enjoy eternal life without faith. But, according to Mr. Bellamy's idea, regeneration is one of the most unaccountable things in the world. It is an effect produced without any cause. But we are assured, from the New Testament, that the Word of God is the means of regeneration--not a means which man uses in order to salvation, but a means which God uses. 'Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.' James i. 18. 'Being born again not of corruptible seed,' but by 'incorruptible' seed, by 'the Word of God.' 1 Peter i. 23. 'Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him.' 1 John iii. 9. 2 John 2: 'For the truth's sake which abideth in us.' From these Scriptures we learn, in this figurative style, that God begets us of his own will--with incorruptible seed, the word of truth, and the effect is a new creature. One question determines this point. Is it the Word of God, believed or disbelieved, that regenerates us? If disbelieved, all unbelievers are regenerate; if believed, then Mr. Bellamy's scheme falls to the ground. Mr. Bellamy lays a great stress on John i. 12, 13: 'Them that believe on his name which were born,' etc. He supposes that John is describing religion as he does, in order, which is first, second and third; but I apprehend that this passage is descriptive of character--not of the order of salvation."

"There were, indeed, some difficult questions connected with the subjects of conversion and faith, which he does not, at this period, seem to have considered, except in a very general way. One of these was: Why, if faith comes by the word of God, is it not produced in all who hear that word? Why is it that, when the gospel is preached, a few particular individuals only believe and obey it? And again, Why is it that it is proper to pray for the conversion of individuals or of the world at large, unless it be agreed that some special influence or interposition is to be expected in answer to prayer?

No one admitted the propriety of such petitions or offered them more sincerely than Mr. Campbell, and to deny that there was an influence of any kind to be expected and exerted in any case in aid of the gospel, would have involved a practical inconsistency. He did not, therefore, deny the importance or existence of such aid, but its nature he appears to have left undetermined in his mind, preferring to leave all such matters with God. He did not conceive [427] it to be the duty of an evangelist to preach a theory of conversion, but to "preach the Word," and to leave the event entirely with God. Of this he remained absolutely certain, that it was right and safe always to adhere closely to the Scriptures, and to teach and observe such things only as matters of faith and duty for which there could be produced a Divine warrant. It was therefore perfectly in harmony with his principles that, at his baptism, he refused to sanction, by relating an experience, any of the popular theories of faith, and that he determined to adhere closely to Scripture precedent and the admitted practice of the primitive Church, by making only the simple, but all-comprehending confession of the Messiahship of Jesus." [428]

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/rrichardson/mac/MAC119.HTM

Campbell & Hyperism II

2008-10-22T07:37:00.001-07:00

In my first posting in this developing series, I showed from the early writings of Alexander Campbell how he did not oppose the idea of "spiritual influences," nor did he deny that it took something more than the naked word to produce a spiritual rebirth.

I also showed that Campbell felt a need to correct the Hyper Calvinism rampant in certain areas, the view that taught that regeneration was unconnected with faith, that is was by the "Spirit Alone" apart from the word, a view he recognized as a growing "extreme," and thus he thought he could better combat this error by emphasing the instrumentality of the word, to the neglect of those essential "spiritual influences." As I said, he went to an extreme himself in fighting an extreme. But, to Campbell's credit, he did not go as far in that extreme as his later followers.

From the citations to follow, one will see how three great Baptist leaders conversed with Campbell on this subject. All three of these Baptists rejected the "regeneration before faith" view, and so they were in agreement with Campbell in his efforts against the Hardshells. Andrew Broadus, R. B. Semple, and J. M. Peck were strong opposers of Hardshellism, and they became equally opposed to those in the "Restoration Movement," but in the beginning, none saw Campbell as that far off base, regarding regeneration and "spiritual influences."

I will stop at points in these citations to make some observations. I have included some citations just for their historical benefit to us as Baptists but do not necessarily directly address the issue in dispute between the Baptists, represented by the three men mentioned, and the new "Restorationist Baptists," over the issue of whether regeneration were by the "word alone" or by the "Spirit AND the Word." Both rejected the Hardshell view of "Spirit Alone," so the discussion was over just how far was Campbell going to go in his denial of "spiritual influences" as integral to the "word."

"I am not to be understood," said he, speaking of converting influences (C. B. for April, 1825), "as asserting that there is no divine influence exercised over the minds and bodies of men. This would be to assert in contradiction to a thousand facts and declarations in the volume of revelation; this would be to destroy the idea of any divine revelation; this would be to destroy the idea of any divine government exercised over the human race; this would be to make prayer a useless and irrational exercise; this would be to deprive Christians of all the consolations derived from a sense of the superintending care, guidance and protection of the Most High. But to resolve everything into a 'divine influence' is the other extreme. This divests man of every attribute that renders him accountable to his Maker, and assimilates all his actions to the bending of the trees or the tumults of the ocean occasioned by the tempest."

"There are many things which are evident, yet altogether inexplicable...Until we know more of God than can be revealed or known in this mortal state, we must be content to say of a thousand things, a thousand times, we cannot understand how, or why, or wherefore they are so. But he would be a foolish husbandman who, going forth with precious seed to cast upon his field, would cease to scatter it because a philosopher had asked him some questions about its germination and the influences requisite to its vegetation which he [124] could not explain. As foolish would a hungry man be who would refuse to eat bread because he could not explain the process of digestion, nor tell how it conduces to the preservation of life. And just as foolish he who refuses to meditate upon the revelation of God, and to practice its injunctions, because there are some whys or wherefores for which he cannot give a reason."

"He thus sought to confine the attention to that which was immediately necessary to faith, and to avoid unprofitable discussions respecting remote or accessory causes."

"In the summer, he made a short visit to Eastern Virginia, where he was kindly received, and where he formed an acquaintance with Robert B. Semple, Andrew Broaddus and other eminent Baptist ministers. The few [130] discourses he delivered during his visit made quite a strong impression. The leaders of the Baptists in Eastern Virginia, however, though struck with Mr. Campbell's great abilities, were by no means prepared to receive his reformatory views. They earnestly desired, on the other hand, to win him over to their own sentiments and usages, in order that his influence might enure to the benefit of the Baptist cause.

After his return home, he received a kind letter from Bishop Semple, objecting to the spirit in which the "Christian Baptist" seemed to be conducted, and to some of the sentiments attributed to Mr. Campbell, intimating that he seemed to be a Sandemanian or a Haldanean both in his views and spirit."

"Among the Haldaneans," said he "(judging from writings), a gentle spirit is rarely to be found. Harsh and bitter sarcasms are the weapons with which they fight their opponents. This, too, I am the more disposed to think applies to them as a sect, because I have known some of their party, who have appeared in private conversation to be mild and gentle indeed and every way pleasant, but when brought out in writing or public speaking, seemed to have another kind of temper. If you will bear with me, it seems to me that this is the case with the editor of the 'Christian Baptist.' As a man, in private circles, mild, pleasant and affectionate--as a writer, rigid and satirical beyond all the bounds of Scripture allowance."

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/rrichardson/mac/MAC204.HTM

"Among those Baptist ministers who approved the new version, and who especially commended the "Hints to Readers," was Andrew Broaddus, one of the most talented and eloquent preachers of Eastern Virginia. He was a man of highly-cultivated intellect and of liberal spirit, though of a somewhat fastidious and timid temperament. Some months after the appearance of the letter from Bishop Semple, who, notwithstanding the courtesy of Mr. Campbell's reply, seemed disposed to decline further correspondence, Mr. Broaddus had sent a communication for the "Christian Baptist," in which he expressed his approval of Mr. Campbell's views of the Christian religion as a dispensation, and his general agreement with the sentiments in the "Sermon on the Law" as to the Mosaic institution. In regard to the "Christian Baptist," he said:

"I find in it much to approve, something to doubt, and something, too, from which I must dissent. Possibly, however, my dissension may be owing (in part at least) to the want of a full and correct understanding of your sentiments. I said, much to approve; I might use a stronger term and say, [150] much to admire. With several of your essays I have been not only pleased but delighted. Many of your remarks, too, in opposition to the errors and follies too prevalent in the religious world, meet my own views and receive my warm and hearty commendation. In a word, I am greatly pleased with what appears to be your drift and aim--viz., to clear the religion of Jesus of all the adventitious lumber with which it has been encumbered, and bring back the Christian Church to its primitive simplicity and beauty."

"Concurring with Mr. Campbell as to Christianity considered as a dispensation, he goes on to say:

"I do hope that, upon a more explicit declaration of your sentiments, I may find no cause to disagree with you as to what more nearly concerns the nature of that religion--the agency, I will say, which produces it in us. I do not wish you to consider me, at this time, as really differing from you on this point: I only desire to be better satisfied. Let me explain myself.

"There are some among us possessed of strong apprehensions that you are disposed to deny the existence of the regenerating and sanctifying operations of the Holy Spirit on the spirit or the heart of man, and that you would ascribe all the religious effects produced in us solely to the influence of the written Word or the external revelation of God. And these apprehensions, permit me to add, are not, in all cases, the effect of any prejudice against you. For myself, I have said to others, as I now say to you, that I cannot think this of you. I have seen, indeed, many things in your writings which appear inconsistent with such a sentiment--a sentiment which obviously goes to the annihilation of all hope for gracious aid in the Christian warfare, and, of course, to the annihilation of prayer for any such aid. A sentiment which would thus cut off communion with God, and let out, as I may say, the very life's blood of religion, I cannot think you would maintain. Still, however, I would rather see you more explicit upon this point: it appears to be due to [151] yourself as well as to others: and to a compliance with this wish I should suppose you can have no objection."

"That the word of God is the instrument of our regeneration and sanctification, I have no doubt; nor would I think of saying it is his usual method (whatever he may in some cases choose to do) to operate on the soul independent of the Word. But that there is a living, divine agent, giving life and energy to the Word, and actually operating on the soul, is, in my view, a truth which forms one of the glorious peculiarities of the religion of Jesus: and thus I would say, in the language of the apostle, we are 'born again not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.'"

"This communication, elegantly written and marked by the utmost Christian courtesy and candor, was received by Mr. Campbell with great pleasure, and he remarked that there had not appeared in the "Christian Baptist" a letter from any correspondent "more evangelical in its scope; more clear and luminous in its object; more unexceptionable in its style; more perfect in its soul, body and spirit."

"I am not conscious," said he, in reply, "that there is one point of controversy between us in all the items of practical truth embraced in your letter. Whatever diversity of opinion might possibly exist between us in carrying out some principles to their legitimate issue, I am conscious of none in the premises." . . . Speaking of the "agency" which produces the Christian religion in men, he remarks: "Were it not for the pernicious influence of the theories afloat on this subject, I would assert my concurrence in opinion with you. This may appear a strange saying, but it is in accordance with the spirit of this work. I have taken a stand which I am determined, by the grace of God, not to abandon. I will lay down no new theories in religion, contend for no old theories, nor aid any theory now in existence. For why? Because no theory is the gospel of Jesus the Messias. Nor can the [152] preaching or teaching of any theory be the preaching or teaching of the gospel. And--please mark it well--NO MAN CAN BE SAVED BY THE BELIEF OF ANY THEORY, TRUE OR FALSE: NO MAN WILL BE DAMNED FOR THE DISBELIEF OF ANY THEORY. This position I hold worthy to be printed in majestic capitals...Whatever the Scriptures say, I say. The only question with me is to understand each sentence in the light of its own context...To make new theories is the way to make new divisions. To contend for the old is to keep up the old divisions, either of which would be in direct opposition to all my efforts, and, what is still worse, in direct opposition to the decisions of the Holy Spirit."

This is clear testimony that basically has Campbell willing to admit that the new birth was accomplished by the Spirit and the Word, but that he preferred to keep silent about the "Spirit" part and solely emphasize the "Word" part, believing that Hardshellism was a greater evil and could only be succesfully rebutted by an emphasis upon the "Word alone."

"We have here a clear statement of the principle which governed Mr. Campbell throughout his entire life as to his utterances on the subject of spiritual influence. Knowing how the minds of the people were engrossed with theories of regeneration to the neglect of Scripture teaching, and how much such speculations contributed to maintain religious dissensions, he had resolved to discountenance every thing of this nature, and to confine attention to the plain declarations of the word of God. He could not be induced, therefore, to go beyond its simple statements into any inquiries respecting the unrevealed links in the chain of causation. By no means denying that influences were exerted in answer to prayer in regard to the conversion and sanctification of men, he presumed not to define their nature, and would neither propose a new theory on the subject, nor give his assent to any of those already in vogue. Mr. Broaddus had made a very near approach to Mr. Campbell's position when he said, as above quoted, "that the word of God is the instrument of our regeneration and sanctification," and that he would not say it was God's "usual method to operate on the soul independent [153] of the Word." But when he added, "there is a living divine agent giving life and energy to the Word, and actually operating on the soul," he passed quite out of Mr. Campbell's field of view, the Bible alone, and entered the domain of theological speculation."

This is not a fair commentary by Dr. Richardson on Campbell, I don't think. From previous citations (above) Campbell admitted that the scriptures had a thousand instances to prove such a spiritual influence apart from the word of God. I think Campbell had moved more towards Broadus, not vice versa, as Richardson intimates.

"Mr. Campbell could see no practical utility in this theory, as the reception of it did not in any wise tend to induce the supposed agency, and therefore availed nothing. On the other hand, its adoption at once changed the relations of those who embraced it to the word of God. Men could no longer esteem this "worthy of all acceptation," "greater" than the "testimony of men," "able to make 'them' wise unto salvation," or "quick and powerful;" for the theory declared it to be deficient in energy and to be actually "dead," requiring some undefined agency to give it "life." This Mr. Campbell could never for a moment admit, and it was in opposition to this very theological dogma that, adopting the language of the proto-martyr, and in harmony with the saying of Christ, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life," he entitled his later editions of the New Testament, "THE LIVING ORACLES." His love for that sacred volume rendered him jealous of every philosophy which would in the slightest degree derogate from its power and its sufficiency when brought into contact with the human mind. Such were his conceptions of the "glorious gospel of the blessed God," that he regarded it as embodying in itself "the power of God for salvation to every one who believed it," and as presenting, in the demonstrations of the Spirit and of power which attended its introduction, all the evidences necessary to the production of faith. He by no means doubted or denied the impartation and aids of the Holy Spirit, but as the promise of the Spirit was to believers [154] only, he could not admit that it was given to unbelievers in order to produce faith, as the theory in question required. He, therefore, thus expressed himself in his reply to Mr. Broaddus:

"If any man accustomed to speculate on religion as a mere science should infer from anything I have said on these theories that I contend for a religion in which the Holy Spirit has nothing to do; in which there is no need of prayer for the Holy Spirit; in which there is no communion of the Holy Spirit; in which there is no peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,--he does me the greatest injustice...All whom I baptize, I baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I pray for the love of the Father, the grace of the Son and the communion of the Holy Spirit to remain with all the saints. A religion of which the Holy Spirit is not the author, the subject-matter and the perfecter is sheer Deism. To a man who teaches otherwise I would say: 'Art thou a teacher in Israel, and knowest not these things?' ...The uncontrovertible fact is, men must he born from above, and for this purpose the glad tidings are announced. Let us simply promulgate them in all their simplicity and force, unmixed with theory, uncorrupted with philosophy, uncomplicated with speculation and unfettered by system, and mark the issue."

"However clear the view Mr. Campbell thus gave of his position, and however proper, and, in a practical point of view, sufficient the course he so earnestly advocated in the interests of Christian peace and union, it must be confessed that the point of real difficulty remained still untouched, and that, for want of a full explanation of this, his views continued to be misapprehended and misrepresented. For it was undeniable that "influences" independent of the gospel were exerted in regard to unbelievers in order to the production of faith. Admitting that the "power" was in the gospel [155] or word of God, the question which demanded elucidation still recurred--Why do not all who hear the gospel believe and obey it? Why, out of a large audience who hear the gospel announced, will perhaps only one or two individuals receive it and act upon their convictions? Where all have alike the opportunity of hearing, why is the gospel brought into contact with the heart and mind of some and not of others or of all? Most assuredly there is a special influence here to be accounted for--an influence admitted by Mr. Campbell himself equally with his opponents, since with them he felt it his duty to offer up prayers for the conversion of sinners, which necessarily supposed a special divine intervention in their behalf, It was the conviction that such aid was to be expected, coupled with the natural and just longing of the human heart for some tangible, personal and sensible evidence of acceptance with God, that first gave rise to the mystical theory of regeneration, which, engrafted by Jacob Bœhler upon the more simple faith of Wesley, had at length pervaded almost the entire religious community. As this difficulty, therefore, still remained to be elucidated in the further progress of the Reformation, Mr. Campbell's reply at this period failed to prove entirely satisfactory to Mr. Broaddus.

Hence, in his next letter, he said:

"While many things in your answer, and many incidental remarks in reference to this very point, met my admiring approbation, I felt some degree of disappointment at the manner in which you considered it proper to shape your reply in this particular case. Your reasons are no doubt satisfactory to yourself; perhaps they ought to be so to me and to all. I have heard much said about your answer to Paulinus, for it has excited among us a high degree of attention. Some of [156] your readers are satisfied; some are not. And though, upon a candid, careful reperusal of your letter, I think it justly due to you to say that you are an avowed friend to the Spirit's operations in the production of genuine religion, I must own that I could still wish you had found in your heart to dispense with what I consider an over-degree of scrupulosity, and to answer in a more direct manner...I must think you carry your scruples on the subject of theories and systems to some excess."

"After expressing his own disapprobation of mere theorizing, he adds the following just remarks:

"It is to be lamented, indeed, that systems seem to please some professors of religion more than the good news of salvation by Christ, and that they manifest more solicitude for the preservation of their beloved plans than for the maintenance of vital and practical godliness. Touch every chord in the lyre of salvation, they still remain listless, unmoved, till the darling notes be sounded to which their spirits are in unison. Oh for the time when divine truth--the whole of divine truth--shall be relished as coming from God!--when the souls of professed Christians, tuned by grace, shall respond to every declaration of the will of God; now with holy fear, now with lively hope, now with 'joy unspeakable and full of glory,' and always with obedient 'faith that works by love.' This will not be till the Bible is taken in good earnest as the standard of faith and practice. Oh, sir, may God speed your efforts to call the people to this only standard! May he assist us to plant this standard, this milk-white banner, on the heights of Zion, no more to he insulted by the parti-colored flags of creeds and confessions of faith waving over it!"

"While Mr. Broaddus was quite agreed with Mr. Campbell in his opposition to creeds as standards of faith, and in regard to the need of reformation among the Baptists, and, in some measure, even to the restoration of the "ancient order of things," he still clung tenaciously to his theory of spiritual operations in conversion, to which he seemed earnestly desirous of [157] winning over his highly-esteemed friend, the editor of the "Christian Baptist." In reference to the wish he had expressed that Mr. Campbell had given a more direct reply to his assertion that there was a spiritual agency, "giving life and energy to the Word and actually operating on the soul," the latter replied:

"There may be questions proposed on subjects of which the Bible speaks which the Bible will not answer. For example, How does the Spirit influence the minds of men? is a question I cannot answer from the Bible. But if I be asked, Does the Spirit regenerate the human heart? Does it influence the minds of men? I answer, the Bible teaches it does. But I have a great scrupulosity of mind in going beyond what is written on this subject in particular. The reason is, some speculative theory of spiritual operation is the very essence, the very soul, of every system of religion in Christendom...If any man ask me how the influence and aid of the Spirit is obtained, I answer, By prayer and the word of God. Thus I will give direct answers so far as I think the Oracles authorize."

"But I am governed more in speaking upon this subject by the following than by all other considerations: THE APOSTLES PREACHED CHRIST, AND NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT; or, rather, they preached the Holy Spirit when they preached Christ. So the Saviour instructed and commanded them. They preach the Spirit with most success who say nothing about his work in conversion. So did the apostles. In all the sermons pronounced by the apostles to unregenerated persons, of which we have so many samples in the Acts of the Apostles, they never once spoke of the work of the Spirit in conversion. Not one example in all the volume--not one model of the discourses we every day hear about the work of the Spirit. The apostles remembered that the Spirit was not to speak of himself, his own office and work, but of Christ. Their good news, therefore, was about Christ crucified." [158]

"His earnest pleading, however, for the simple teachings of the word of God availed but little with the leading Baptist preachers in Virginia, so long as he refused to commit himself to their favorite theory of spiritual operations. Some speculative view of this subject had indeed become, as Mr. Campbell well remarked, "the very essence, the very soul," of modem systems of religion; and because he would not go beyond the actual statements of the Bible in reference to the work of human salvation, it was natural that those opposed to him should avail themselves of the popularity of the theory of "spiritual operations" in order to create prejudice against him, and that even good and pious men, accustomed to rely on what they called their "Christian experience," should stand in doubt of his religious position. As he continued, in perfect consistency with the principles with which he set out, to maintain the ground he had taken, this subject became a very prominent theme of discussion throughout his entire ministry, recurring again and again in various forms. In order to avoid a too frequent reference to it, it may be here stated that in the following year (1827) Bishop Semple wrote a letter to Silas M. Noel, D. D., of Kentucky, which was published in the "Baptist Recorder," in which he remarked in relation to the letters of Mr. Broaddus, above quoted: "He [Paulinus] wrote something last year in which he certainly went too far. He is now convinced (I am persuaded), and is guarded against our friend Campbell's chimeras."

This is interesting. Broadus was criticized for trying to, perhaps, meet Campbell "half way," and so he was pressured to back step a little in his attempts to find "common ground" with Campbell. But, as we will see, the great Baptist leader, and Hardshell slayer, J. M. Peck, would later take the lead in discussions with Campbell on behalf of the Baptists.

"A writer, signing himself "Querens," in the "Christian Baptist," then publicly called upon Bishop Semple to point out the "chimeras" which he attributed to Mr. Campbell. This Bishop Semple declined, saying that Sandeman, Glas and the Haldanes had been master [159] spirits upon the same system many years ago, and had been effectually answered by Fuller and others. He added:

"If I am called upon, then, to establish my assertions as to Mr. Campbell's views, I refer 'Querens' and all such to Fuller's work against Sandeman," etc. He says he is indisposed to controversy, but adds: "If, however, I should be disposed to become a controversialist, I believe I should as soon enter the lists with my friend Campbell as any other, for three reasons. One is, on the points on which we differ I am persuaded he is palpably on the wrong side, and it would not be a hard task to make it manifest. A second is, he is so much of a champion that to be beaten by him would not be so discreditable as it might be with some other antagonists. A third is, I think him a generous combatant with one who wishes nothing but fair play."

"To this letter, which Mr. Campbell transferred from the "Recorder" to the "Christian Baptist," he made a very kind and respectful reply, showing that the bishop's plan of disposing of the matter was wholly unsatisfactory to the public.

"The reflecting part of the community," he observed, "will say, Why not show that Campbell is wrong by the use of reason and Scripture, rather than by defaming him?" He concludes his answer thus: "As you have more than once commended many excellent things in the 'Christian Baptist,' and as you are now bought out or dragged out to oppose me, it behooves you to discriminate the things which you disapprove from those you approve in the 'Christian Baptist.' And now, Brother Semple, I call upon you as a man, as a scholar, as a Christian and as a Christian bishop, to come forward and make good your assertions against your 'friend Campbell.' My pages are open for you. You shall have line for line, period for period, page for page with me. I pledge myself to address you and treat you as a gentleman and a Christian ought to do. You will not find an [160] insinuation nor a personality in all I may say of you. I wish to give you a fair specimen of that sort of discussion which I approve, and to show what reason, demonstration and Scripture declaration can achieve with an able and an honorable opponent. There is no man in America I would rather have for an opponent, if I must have an opponent, than thee. Come forward then, Brother Semple--choose the topics, one at a time; numerically arrange your arguments and proofs; make everything plain and firm, and in good temper, spirit and affection show me where I have erred; and if I cannot present reason, Scripture and good sense to support me, I will yield to your superior discernment, age and experience, one by one, the points in which we differ. And as this work is generally bound in volumes, your essays, the antidote or the remedy, will descend with the poison to its future readers."

"As Bishop Semple paid no attention to this earnest appeal, Mr. Campbell, after waiting some months, thought it due to the cause he advocated to analyze the bishop's two letters to Dr. Noel, in which he had spoken disparagingly of his views, and advocated creeds, etc. This analysis, though kind in manner, was searching in its range, and the result of the whole affair was decidedly unfavorable to Bishop Semple's reputation for ability and wisdom, while his character as a pious and devoted Christian remained unquestioned. During this period Mr. Broaddus thought it due to himself to state that Bishop Semple was mistaken in supposing that he had at all changed his views in reference to the questions he had treated in his essays in the "Christian Baptist." He also took occasion to renew his effort in behalf of the theory of "spiritual operations," and forwarded for the "Christian Baptist" two very elegantly and carefully written articles on the work of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of men, in which he considered the reality of a divine influence, its principal effects [161] and its practical importance. He did not advocate "irresistible operations," or any of the particular systems of the day, nor did he contend for a divine influence of a mere physical nature detached from revealed truth, but admitted that there dwelt in the word of truth "a living principle which, when that word is received, has a never-failing tendency to bring forth the fruits of holiness in heart and life." The leading sentiment of the essays, however, was, in substance, "that we are dependent on the influence of the Holy Spirit to render the word of truth effectual to our conversion and final salvation."

This is what sound Baptists have always believed. The Spirit and the Word, as the confessions state, are the causes of the new birth, one the efficient cause, and the other the instrumental cause.

"Thus the matter ended as before. Both equally believed that salvation was due to the work of the Holy Spirit. Mr. Campbell thought that in conversion the power was in the word of God. Mr. Broaddus supposed that the direct aid of the Holy Spirit was necessary to render that Word effectual. Both equally admitted the presence and influence of the Holy Spirit in believers, and as Mr. Campbell thought it right to pray for the conversion of men, he necessarily admitted that some influence additional to that of the gospel was exerted also in the case of unbelievers. The only point, then, of real difference was simply the nature of this influence, Mr. Broaddus regarding it as a direct work of the Spirit upon the heart, and Mr. Campbell pleading the Scripture declarations that the Holy Spirit could be received only by believers. As to the nature of the influences or aids which the latter virtually admitted in conversion, he at this period offered no opinion, and Mr. Broaddus had brought no Scripture evidence to show that the Holy Spirit could be received by an unbeliever, or that any such theory of spiritual operations had ever been propounded in primitive times."

"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 [487] 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, and Mr. Campbell thus closed his last letter:

"With regard to the operation of the Spirit through the Word on sinners and on saints, while we strongly affirm the fact of his sanctifying, reviving, cheering and saving efficacy through the word of prophets and apostles, we ought to teach no new terms, phrases or dogmata--preach good news to sinners and teach holiness to the converted--teach the Christians to pray for the Spirit in all its holy influences, and to lift up their voices to the Lord for all his promised aids. Thus the love of God will be poured out into their souls by [488] his Holy Spirit that dwelleth in them, and they will learn to love his children and to rejoice in hope of the coming glory. To learn that such are your views, designs and practices will greatly add to the esteem I entertain for you, and will greatly encourage me in pleading for the sincere and perfect union of our Father's dear children in order to the conversion of the world."

"In regard to this vexed subject of "spiritual influence" there had really never been any just cause of controversy. The dogmatic popular affirmation that the Holy Spirit was "poured out" upon unbelievers to work in them regeneration and faith, which in Mr. Campbell's view rendered the word of God of no effect, had led him to assert the claims of the latter as God's power to salvation. He did not deny that "influences" of various kinds might accompany that word, but on these he declined to enlarge, and was careful to distinguish them from converting power, which he conceived to reside exclusively in the word or gospel itself, just as the vegetative power or life resides in the seed sown in the earth, and not in any of the circumstances, such as the sowing, the heat or the moisture, which attend its development. As the healing power of the physician is in his medicine, so Mr. Campbell regarded God's healing power as contained in the gospel, and forbore to confound with it those influences by which sinners are induced to receive it, just as he distinguished the healing power of the physician from any of the influences which might induce the patient to take the medicine he prescribed."

"It was shown by Dr. Richardson about this time, in a series of essays upon "Converting Influence," signed by some one of the letters of the word Luke, that while the agencies which induced men to receive the gospel added no power to it absolutely, they certainly did so in a relative point of view, so that practically the same effect was produced. He argued that there were many different obstacles which prevented the gospel from reaching the heart of the sinner, such as ignorance, love of the world, etc., and that the instrumentality in each case must be adapted to the nature of the obstacle to be removed...It was also evident that he acted wisely and in harmony with the reformatory principles in declining to discuss the nature of the influences which might accompany the word, as this evidently belonged to the class of untaught questions."

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/rrichardson/mac/MAC215.HTM

"But the misfortune is, that Mr. Fuller sometimes contradicts himself. After, in page 7, agreeing with Mr. Sandeman in those positions which I have quoted from him, in page 28, he contradicts himself--

"If," says he, "it be meant to deny that any deed or thought on the part of man is necessary in the established order of things, or that sinners are presented spotless before God without a deed or a thought on the subject, it is very false, and goes to deny the necessity of faith to salvation; for surely no man can be said to believe in Christ without thinking of him."

But to return to metaphysical regeneration. With Mr. Fuller there is a twofold regeneration--a "strict" and a "general". "Like every other term," says he, in the appendix, page 210, "it [482] (regeneration) is sometimes used in a more strict and sometimes in a more general sense." We have before shown the term is used but twice in all the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

In his Strictures on Sandemanianism, written some years afterwards, he says, page 135:--"Though in a general sense it be true that we are regenerated by believing the gospel, yet in a more particular sense it is equally true that we are regenerated in order to it." Mr. Fuller has a general regeneration to offer to his opponents when he is pressed by their arguments, and a particular regeneration for himself."

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tmh/MH0111.HTM#MH011101

This latter statement in regards to Fuller's views on the relationship of regeneration to faith is very important, especially in view of the fact that so many in the "Reformed" camp claim that the historic Baptist position is to say that "regeneration precedes faith." Did Fuller believe that regeneration preceded faith? No. But, like many theologians, he spoke in theological jargon, about regeneration in its "technical sense," but we can cite numerous writings of Fuller where he, like Boyce and others, did not believe that this theological or technical definition was in line with scripture.

But, more on this in the future.

Campbell & Hyperism III

2008-10-22T07:35:00.000-07:00

The following writing from the biography of Andrew Broaddus, written by Dr. Jeter, is very interesting. In my previous writings in this ongoing series, I have shown how Alexander Campbell, after a few years with the Baptists, began to despise certain elements in the Baptist denomination, one of which was "Hyper Calvinism" or "Hardshellism" with its view of "Spirit Alone Regeneration" and with its wild theories regarding spiritual influences or operations. Against these theories Campbell came out fighting. I am sure that men like Broaddus, Semple, and Peck, were happy to applaud him in these efforts. But, I have also shown, Campbell always had an eye on how he might "play chess" with the various factions (pieces) of the Baptist denomination.

In Campbell's attempt to "win over" the "Hardshells" and the "Hypers" he used tactics to win them over, apart from his attempts to convert them on the "means" question, and one of these ways to to incorporate many of their ideas regarding "missions" and "church work" into his own reformation. Alexander Campbell was one of the leading opponents of the mission movement and curried the favor of the Hypers in the process.

Another tactic came later when he modified a prevelant view on "regeneration" that existed among the Baptists and Presbyterians, that there were "three stages" to the "new birth." I have already alluded to this view in previous writings. Campbell modified this view by making baptism the birth, but still putting the "begetting" prior to the "birth," making it something distinct, the final step in the "regeneration process." This is evident from the following citations from Broaddus's biography.

"Dr. Jeter could not as a faithful biographer, fail to mention the part Elder Broaddus acted in reference to the Reformation advocated by the distinguished Alexander Campbell of Bethany, Va. We quote from the memoir:

"Mr. Broaddus was one of the last to relinquish the hope of reclaiming Mr. Campbell from what he deemed the path of error. Long did he continue to fraternize with him, and endeavor, by kid and faithful arguments, to convince him; but the appearance of the Millennial Harbinger Extra, in which his peculiar and objectionable views were more fully disclosed, put an end to all his hopes. He had been willing to tolerate many differences of opinion on minor points, and the utmost freedom of inquiry and discussion, and to bear with much in the spirit and manner of Mr. Campbell, which he disapproved; but when the gospel schemes of a sinner's justification was set aside, and the influence of the Holy Spirit before baptism was denied, or treated in an equivocal and unsatisfactory manner, he felt that the time of forbearance and fraternization had passed. He owed a duty to truth, to the Baptist denomination, to the christian world, and to himself, and he hesitated not to perform it." (p. 28)

We have ever regarded Elder Broaddus' Examination of Mr. Campell's Extra on Remission of Sins as one of the best specimens of sound argument and courteous discussion we have ever seen. Mr. C. contended for the real, actual remission of sins in baptism. Mr. B. proved conclusively that the real, actual remission of sins takes place when the sinner embraces Jesus Christ by faith, and that there is only a formal remission or washing away of sins in baptism. Mr. C. had said that a man might be "impregnated with the word" and "begotten of the Spirit" — (we suggest to Dr. Jeter that to this extent he admitted the influence of the Spirit before baptism —) but that he could not be "born of the Spirit till born of the water" or baptized. He said that if a person was "born of the water" without being previously "begotten of the Spirit," it was "a still birth!" Many of Mr. Campbell's admirers thought his explanation of the regenerating process superior to any thing that the world had seen or heard, and they began to philophize [sic] on spiritual 'impregnation,' 'begetting,' 'being born,' &c. Well, Elder Broaddus looked into the matter and saw the strange 'medley of figures.' In violation of an analogy established ever since Adam begat Cain, Mr. C. represented the person to be born — the spiritual fetus — as impregnated! And, he said that was a 'still birth' in baptism if there was not a previous 'begetting of the Spirit,' thus exciting the obstetrical wonder of the curious throughout Christendom how there could be any sort of 'birth' without 'begetting!' Mr. B. employed his delicate satire so effectually that Mr. C. in subsequent editions of his Extra, left out several things which are to be found in the first edition. We doubt not Mr. C. is much more Scriptural in his views now than he was then (1830). Indeed in his Lexington Debate we think him just as orthodox on the influence of the Holy Spirit, as Dr. Rice. Perhaps we cannot give impartial judgment; for we confess we are a little impatient in thinking how pertinacious Dr. R. was in his purpose to apply the terms 'conversion' and 'sanctification' to infants when there was no more reference to them in the proposition than to the man in the moon. But enough of this." ("The Life and Writings of Rev. Andrew Broaddus" - Christian Repository, 1852. By Rev. James M. Pendleton - Bowling Green, KY)

Not only are these citations important regarding how Campbell adopted the 3-Stage Model of the "new birth," but how he also, as I showed previously, did not want to disagree with Broaddus and Peck on the question of "spiritual influences" and how regeneration was accomplished, as the Confessions stated, by the "Spirit AND the word," and perhaps was led to "back-track" in his views due to their labors. Still, as I also said, it seems that the followers of Campbell were willing to go to the full extreme, while Campbell was unwilling to attempt to undo the damage he had done, or admit his mistake.

http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/broaddus.andrew.html

Campbellism & Hyperism IV

2008-10-22T07:34:00.001-07:00

In this writing I wish to cite again from Dr. Jeter, but not from the biography of Broaddus, as in the previous posting, but to cite from a writing that Jeter put forth against Campbell in 1855. One wonders why it took so long for men to come out boldly against Campbell, as did Jeter in 1855? Yes, there had been some small efforts to correct or to check the precocious Campbell, but they were insufficient.

I will pause at times in these citations to make observations as it respects the relationship of Campbell to the Hyper Calvinist view on regeneration.

Jeter Attacks Campbell on Behalf of the Baptists (1855)

"Mr. Campbell, in his great zeal to steer clear of all speculative theology, maintains that all theories of the Spirit’s influence in conversion are equally inefficacious and worthless. He thus writes—"But who can live on essential oils? Or will the art of speculating or inferring; or will the inferences when drawn—that the Spirit without the Word, or the Word without the Spirit, or the Spirit and Word in conjunction, regenerates the human soul; I ask, will the act of drawing these inferences, of these inferences when drawn, save the soul? If they will not, why make them essential to Christianity, beneficial to be taught?" [Chn. Bap., p.269]. I am no more an advocate of mere speculation and empty theory, than Mr. Campbell. The subject of the Spirit’s influence has been a fruitful source of profitless theorizing and vain jangling. I fully concur with him in the opinion that preaching the influence of the Spirit, is not preaching the Gospel; and that much mischief has arisen from insisting on this influence to the neglect of the duty of repentance and faith. But whether men are converted by the Spirit without the Word, or the Word without the Spirit, or the Word and Spirit in conjunction, are not questions of mere speculation, but grave, weighty, and practical. Whatsoever is legitimately inferred from the Scriptures is a part of Divine revelation, and profitable for instruction. The belief of it may not be essential to salvation; and yet it may contribute to the growth, happiness, and efficiency of the disciples of Christ. The influence of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of sinners is not a mere theory, but a revealed truth, the belief of which is intimately connected with the progress of the Redeemer’s kingdom."

I need to pause here and observe how Jeter mentions the three views that were then existent among the Baptists, that of the "Spirit Alone" view of the Hypers or Hardshells, and of the "Word Alone" view of the "Reformers," and the "Spirit AND the Word" view of historic Confessional Baptists. It also appears to me that Jeter basically admits, like Campbell, that there was prevalent in the Baptist denomination, and others too, mystical and strange views on what men called "regeneration" and the "new birth." Later, as we shall see from the citations to follow, Jeter seemed to contradict this admission. He here says that many false theories of "spiritual influences" in relation to the new birth were prevalent, but then will later say that only a very few "Hypers" advocated the error of "Spirit Alone," the view that Campbell seems chiefly to have had his eye on destroying.

Jeter says:

"First. —Are the statements of Mr. Campbell concerning the influence of the Holy Spirit contradictory? In my judgment they are. Whether his views on the subject were confused, or differed at different times, or were carelessly and vaguely expressed, I will not say; but they appear to me to be inconsistent. "The only power," says Mr. Campbell, "which one spirit can exert over another is in its arguments." If this is not the "word alone system," I would gladly be informed what that system is. I repeat, I must be permitted to doubt whether any man ever has taught, or ever can teach the system, if Mr. Campbell did not inculcate it in his Christianity Restored. And yet he affirms in his Debate with Rice, "There is the Word alone system, and there is the Spirit alone system. I believe in neither."

This is quite important historically! Campbell here is a sound Baptist on this point. He rejects Campbellism and Hardshellism in regard to the new birth, believing that it is by the Spirit and the Word.

Jeter continues:

"Secondly, Are the last recited extracts from the writings of Mr. Campbell to be interpreted in harmony with the theory of conversion by moral suasion? Are we to understand all that he has said of the cooperation of the Spirit and Word—of religion "begun, carried on, and completed by the personal agency of the Holy Spirit" —of his "actually and personally" working through the Word on "man’s moral nature" —as meaning nothing more than that the Spirit addresses arguments, through the written Word, to sinners, to persuade them to be converted; and that having done this his resources are exhausted, his power is spent? In other words, is the actual, personal agency of the Spirit, pleaded for by Mr. Campbell, to be resolved into mere moral suasion? If so, the system has been already examined, and the reader must decide whether it has been satisfactorily refuted. But if Mr. Campbell rejects the doctrine of conversion by moral suasion, or by the mere presentation of the arguments of the Holy Spirit to the mind, then I remark,

Thirdly, —That Mr. Campbell’s teaching is in substantial agreement with the popular evangelical doctrine of conversion through Divine influence. There is no middle ground between the "Word alone," or moral suasion system, and that which ascribes conversion to the personal agency of the Spirit through the Word. This latter system is the popular evangelical system—the system is the popular evangelical system—the system universally taught, when Mr. Campbell commenced his Reformation, except by a few ultra-Calvinists, and low Armenians and formalists—the system which permeated almost all our Biblical and theological literature; our commentaries, Bible dictionaries, bodies of divinity, and popular sermons—in fine, the system which maintained a quiet, undisputed, and controlling influence in all the orthodox churches of the land."

Notice how Jeter says that Hyper Calvinism, or Hardshellism, in regard to the new birth, was unimportant, seeing only a small minority held that view. While it is true that the majority of the Baptists, and a large group of "anti-mission" Baptists, believed in means in regeneration, yet there was still a large segment who adopted the "Spirit Alone" view of "regeneration" or who at least were decrying the "necessity" of the word or of faith in the new birth.

Then why was Campbell so fervent in his initial efforts to reform the Baptists who he thought were going further and further into the "Spirit Alone" view? Campbell was very familiar with the Baptists in the frontier states, in Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee in particular. He knew that the Hyperist "Spirit Alone" view was prevalent and growing.

Jeter continues:

"Mr. Campbell believes as the great body of evangelical ministers in all the Christian sects, believes, that sinners are converted by the personal agency of the Holy Spirit, through the Gospel. But, surely, since the world began, have there never been so many labored arguments, so much learned criticism, so much toil, debate and strife, such a waste of ink and paper, and such a multiplication of essays, pamphlets and books, to prove what scarcely any body doubted. The public mind was excited, the Christian world was agitated, the Baptist denomination, in several states, was thrown into confusion, many of the churches were rent asunder, a new sect was formed, and the aid of earth and heaven was invoked in the contest; and for what? Why, simply because Mr. Campbell taught, what was almost universally admitted that the Spirit in conversion operates through the Word. But what then becomes of the boasted Reformation, of which the peculiar teaching on the influence of the Spirit constituted so important and article? It turns out, if the supposition under discussion is true, that the Reformation, on this important point, is no Reformation at all. We cannot avoid being reminded of a well known fable. Surely, there were never in any previous case, such sore travail, such mighty heavings, such piteous moanings, and such swelling expectations, in a simple case of abortion."

Again, I think that Jeter underestimates the extent of the prevalence of Hardshellism among the Baptists. He may have done this because he did not want to admit that the Hardshells had any tradition or historicalness to their claim of being "Baptistic" or "Confessional." Yes, the Hardshell view has always been a minority opinion, but Jeter fails to note how that in the days when Campbell was a quiet Baptist, from 1812 till the early 1820's, that the Hyperist view was widespread. Campbell had to personally battle men like Daniel Parker.

Jeter continues:

"Before I conclude my remarks on this subject, I must venture on a conjecture, which will, I fear, not prove very acceptable to Mr. Campbell and his admirers. It is this—When he commenced his career as a Reformer, his religious views were undefined and crude. His first object was to bring into disrepute the "mystic theology" of the "populars," or "clergy."

Here Jeter verily admits what I have thus claimed about the initial reformatory aims of Campbell. Campbell's first efforts were to battle the Hardshells, and what is associated with Hardshellism's "Spirit Alone" view of "regeneration," the "mystical theology" of many in their explanations of things like "sub-conscious regeneration" or "regeneration before or without faith."

Another thing that Campbell fought was the "hermeneutics" of these Hyperists, how they could "spiritualize" literal passages of scripture, and use such allegorizing methods to uphold their "mystical" views on regeneration.

Jeter continues:

"He found it necessary, for the accomplishment of his purpose, to publish some theory at variance with the popular doctrine of the Spirit’s influence in conversion. This new theory began to be developed about the year 1826, and was consummated, and fully revealed, in the year 1831, when Austin taught the docile Timothy, that "every Spirit puts forth its moral power in words; that is, all the power it has over the views, habits, manners, or actions of men, is in the meaning and arrangement of its ideas expressed in words; or in significant signs addressed to the eye or ear." [Christianity Restored, p. 348]."

And, are these dates not important in the history of the Hardshells and the "anti-mission movement"? Why did Campbell come out so strongly for the word in regeneration at this time if it was not a reaction to the Hardshells and their promoting of the "Spirit Alone" view?

Jeter continues:

"But after the Reformation resulted in an organized party, Mr. Campbell, to avoid the odium of his peculiar notions of the Spirit’s influence, or because he found it easier to defend the popular doctrine, began gradually to modify his views, and to glide out of the theory of conversion by moral suasion, into the doctrine that conversion is by the actual, personal agency of the Holy Spirit. This modification of his views began to appear in a discussion of the subject with the Rev. J. M. Peck, and was still more apparent in his Debate with the Rev. N.L. Rice. But for Mr. Campbell to acknowledge that he had erred in the fundamental principle of his Reformation, and that after all his wanderings, and denunciations of the "popular clergy," he had been compelled to admit the truth of their teaching on this vital point, would have demanded a degree of humility and moral heroism, which the high-spirited Reformer did not possess.

I do not intend to impeach the motives of Mr. Campbell. With their moral qualities I have nothing to do. Men are influenced by considerations of which they have little knowledge. Mr. Campbell has quite a fair share of human nature in him. He does not rise above the laws which govern other frail mortals. I have simply, and, I trust, kindly sketched what appears to me to have been his course in regard to the agency of the Spirit in conversion, and the motives that probably shaped it; and the intelligent and candid reader must form his own judgment. ("Campbellism Examined" by Jeremiah B. Jeter)

http://pbministries.org/Theology/J.%20B.%20Jeter/campbellism/campbellism_examined.htm

Campbell's Hardshellism

2008-10-22T07:32:00.000-07:00

The following are areas where Alexander Campbell tried to win the favor of the Hardshells (Hyperists) on the one hand, and where he alienated them on the other.

Campbell's Hardshellism

1. His anti mission stance.

2. His views that the "Great Commission" had been fulfilled.

3. His belief that the miracles and gift of tongues was intimately connected with the life of the "Great Commission."

4. His belief that it was wrong for pastors to have salaries or to receive monetary support.

5. His belief that theological schools were unscriptural.

6. His belief that bible distribution was unscriptural.

7. His belief that passing out gospel tracts was unscriptural.

8. His belief that the Baptist Confessions should be not followed or endorsed (with some).

9. His belief that the Baptist denomination needed to be 'reformed.'

10. His belief that most Christians, even Baptists, were part of "Mystery Babylon" and "Anti-Christ."

11. Against musical instruments in worship.

Campbell's anti-Hardshellism

1. His belief that regeneration was only through the word and never by the Spirit alone.

2. His belief that regeneration followed, rather than preceded, faith.

3. His belief that no spiritual influences were at work upon the sinner prior to his regeneration.

4. His disbelief in a "call to the ministry."

5. His ridiculing the "experiences" of "regeneration" among the Hardshells.

6. His ridiculing Hardshell preachers for their "spiritualizing" of scriptures.

7. His ridiculing the "ignorance" of the Hardshell ministry.

8. His ridiculing the Old Baptist Confessions (with some).

Campbell & Pre-Faith Regeneration

2008-10-22T07:31:00.000-07:00

Alexander Campbell, as I have shown in previous entries, "came out swinging" against Hyper Calvinism, Hardshellism, or the "pre-faith" view of "regeneration," after having spent a decade or so with the Baptists. I have intimated so far, in my writings on Campbell and Hardshellism, that Hyper Calvinism and the "pre-faith" view of "regeneration" helped to create Alexander Campbell. I doubt that there would have been an Alexander Campbell, after the manner we now know him, had there been no Hyperism in his day.

Campbell, in his early writings against Hyperism, generally referred to three men whom he thought were guilty of Hyperism. He mentions specifically "Bellamy, Hopkins, and Fuller."

Though not addressed in this present writing, I do plan to look at the positions of these three men in upcoming writings with the purpose of discovering what these three men said and whether it agrees with what Campbell says about them. It may be strange for some to hear that Andrew Fuller could be classed in the "Hyper Calvinist" camp, but in upcoming writings it will be seen that Campbell was not "off base" in his charges here. Also, it is ironic that those truly Hyper Calvinists consider Andrew Fuller an "Arminian"!

The following citation from "The Christian Baptist" of 1824 gives us some insights into the state of things among the Baptists and Presbyterian Calvinists of the early 19th century.

Campbell wrote:

"The popular belief of a regeneration previous to faith, or a knowledge of the gospel, is replete with mischief. Similar to this is a notion that obtains among many of a "law work," or some terrible process of terror and despair through which a person must pass, as through the pious Bunyan's slough of Despond, before he can believe the gospel. It is all equivalent to this; that a man must become a desponding, trembling infidel, before he can become a believer. Now, the gospel makes no provision for despondency, inasmuch as it assures all who believe and obey it, upon the veracity of God, that they are forgiven and accepted in the Beloved.

A devout preacher told me, not long since, that he was regenerated about three years before he believed in Christ. He considered himself "as born again by a physical energy of the Holy Spirit, as a dead man would be raised to life by the mighty power of the Eternal Spirit." Upon his own hypothesis, (metaphysical, it is true,) he was three years a "godly unbeliever." He was pleasing and acceptable to God "without faith;" and if he had died during the three years, he would have been saved, though he believed not the gospel. Such is the effect of metaphysical theology." (MARCH 1, 1824 - "Address to the readers of the Christian Baptist")

I certainly am in agreement with Campbell here, as were many of our ablest Baptist leaders in Campbell's day. They too rejected the "pre-faith" view of "regeneration."

I also agree with Campbell that "conviction" is not a "law work," per se, and that the use of the law was not a necessary means or instrument in regeneration. Our ablest Baptist forefathers also believed with Campbell that men, with or without any convictions of the law, are nevertheless commanded to repent and believe and be saved. The gospel is able to bring about conviction of sin, as Campbell pointed out, and does not depend upon the preaching of the law as a necessary pre-regeneration work.

Yes, it is also ironic that Campbell would later himself come up with a strange creature, one as weird as the "regenerated unbeliever," whom we call a "unregenerated believer"!

Notice that Campbell speaks of the "pre-faith" view of "regeneration" as being "popular" at the time. How "popular" was it? That is the big question today for Baptist historians, hey?

This is contrary to what Dr. Jeter said (see in my previous entries in the series on Campbell and Hardshellism) who seemed to think that the Hyperism or Hardshellism, in Campbell's day, was only held by a very small group.

More to come.

Campbell debates Ford & Vaughan?

2008-10-22T07:30:00.001-07:00

It is a difficult, if not impossible task, to find any written records of debates that Alexander Campbell had with the Baptists. I have written before about some of the dialogue that occurred between Campbell and Elders Andrew Broaddus and Bishop Semple. I have also written about the famous Campbell-Peck debate which never occurred. J.M. Peck was working with Campbell on debating the topic of whether the word alone, or whether a power of the Spirit in addition to the word, was that which effected regeneration. While in this process, it was discovered by both that there was no substantial disagreement, and so there was no debate.

One can easily find Campbell's famous debates with McCalla, Purcell, Rice, Owen, etc. But, where are the debates with the Baptists? He apparently had them. But, they did not get published, it seems. I have run across information about a debate that Campbell had with two Baptists, with Samuel Ford and with William Vaughan.

Dr. Samuel Ford

"Dr. Ford has received the honorary degree of L.L.D. He preaches without manuscript, is earnest and eloquent, and many hundreds have been converted under his ministry. He is a firm Baptist, and he has had discussions with Alexander Campbell, Bishop Spaulding, of the Catholic church, and Dr. N. L. Rice. Dr. Ford is a Hebrew and Syriac scholar; he is well read in general literature, and is specially familiar with the Romish controversy. In his theology he is a Calvinist."

[From The Baptist Encyclopedia, William Cathcart, editor, 1881; rpt. 1988, pp. 404-405. jrd]

http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/ford.samuel.h.html

Does anyone have any information about this debate?

William Vaughan

"He was licensed to preach February, 1811, by Friendship Church, Ky. He made some dismal failures at the beginning, but he increased in power as he continued to try, and no other man in Kentucky ever became so great a preacher as he. Testimonies from various sources could be quoted, but suffice it to say that all accord to Wm. Vaughan the first place as a great preacher of all who lived during the first half of the nineteenth century. Others have risen up who have perhaps been as great, but none equaled him in his day.

He was at various times pastor of a number of country and village churches, and traveled extensively as missionary and evangelist, and thousands were converted and baptized under his ministry. He labored untiringly, and braved the cold and the heat, and went under all circumstances "everywhere preaching the word." The greatest work of his life, however, was his fight with Campbellism. He met the leaders of the Campbellite movement in debate and always administered a crushing defeat to his opponent. Besides this he confirmed the churches and the ministry. [p. 68] Had it not been for his powerful preaching whole churches and associations, that are now among the strongest in Kentucky, would have gone with Alexander Campbell. Such men as Wm. Warder and Jeremiah Vardeman, and several other lesser lights, were saved from the errors of Campbell by his influence."

http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/vaughan.william.by.bogard.html

"The Baptists will never know until eternity reveals the facts how much they owe to Wm. Vaughan. Among the mighty defenders of the faith stands as a pillar of strength this remarkable man. He gave a son to the ministry who made a strong, useful preacher. He gave solidity to Kentucky Baptists, and they have ever since been noted for their orthodoxy.

His greatest debate was with Alexander Campbell. In this debate "he dissected Mr. Campbell's system with a masterly hand, drew the line between it and the doctrine of the Baptists, and made open war on the new theory." (Spencer's History Ky. Baptists, page 226)

http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/vaughan.william.by.bogard.html

Vaughan also, like Campbell, debated the Presbyterian McCalla. There is also this reference to Vaughan and his debate with Campbell.

"In 1827 he removed to Ohio, where he remained one year, and returned to Kentucky. He was now brought into conflict with the disciples of Campbell, who were making many proselytes. Being the only minister in Kentucky at that time who was able to grapple successfully with the adherents of the new doctrine, he was encouraged by the churches to defend their principles against the assaults of Mr. Campbell, and devoted himself with great energy and extraordinary ability to this work." (The Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881)

http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/vaughan.william.bio.tbe.html

Again, anyone know of any information on these debates?

Campbell on Parker

2008-10-22T07:29:00.001-07:00

Wrote Alexander Campbell about Daniel Parker (one of the fathers of the anti-mission movement and of the "Primitive Baptist" (Hardshell) denomination):

"Particularism, under the auspices of my friend of Oakly and the new theological school, and the doctrine of the "Two Seeds," is rather looking up on the banks of the Licking. Elder Parker, of Illinois has been translated to Kentucky through the efficacy of his faith in the "two seeds."--He founds election on the natural birth, by a discovery which eluded the eagle eye of Calvin and Beza and all the Jansenists of Rome. He found that Cain was literally begotten by the Devil, and Seth by the Almighty, through the instrumentality of Adam. And so it has been ever since. The Devil is the literal father of all the non-elect, and the Almighty of the elect. Hence the sons of Seth were literally the sons of God, and the daughters of Cain were really the daughters of the Devil; and so each after death must necessarily return to their respective parents.

Friend Parker has reduced the "five points" to two. His first is, that "God never created a set of beings, neither directly nor indirectly, that he suffered to be taken from him and made the subjects of his eternal wrath and indignation." The wicked are therefore indirectly created by the Devil. Mr. Parker has literally taught this doctrine. This is the best argument against catechisms Illinois has yet produced. Mr. Parker cannot, dare not, ask any child, "Who made you?" for the good reason that neither he nor the child knows whether God or the Devil made it!!--Thus the friends of the creeds and catechisms are likely to help us much. His second point is, that "God, as God, in no case possesses more love and mercy than power and wisdom." This is sublimated fatalism. This new creed has great simplicity about it, though its inventor has made it so shameful in his different theories of generation and regeneration, that my nerves have never been strong enough to read it all through. There is a mystery in all cases of twins, which my friend Daniel Parker has not fully solved.--He admits, it is true, that the Devil begat Esau, and the Almighty begat Jacob, but fails very much in his exposition of the modus operandi. The struggling of the unborn infant comes in to his relief, but does not help him quite through. But his theory makes Jesus the Saviour no more the Son of God, than Jacob the brother of Esau.

I threw this pamphlet aside about a year ago, and never intended to open it again; but recent information that the Particulars in Kentucky were placing this modern Daniel along side of Silas and John, and about to have a theological school for teaching the marrow of modern divinity, in which one of the three was to act the Principal, I took it up to see if it had mellowed by time: but it smells as rancid as ever--and I cannot now read it all. JULY 6, 1829.

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tcb/TCB612.HTM#Essay7

The "Church Advocate," edited in Vincennes, by elder Daniel Parker, author of the two seeds, or modernized Manichean doctrine of two principles changed from the Persian to the American philosophy, is engaged in slandering me with his usual dexterity in the good work of defamation. He boasts of great intimacy with Dr. Noel, and says he found a cordial welcome into his pulpit in Frankfort. This pulpit, it is said, is consecrated after the manner of the sanctum sanctorum of the Jews.

Mr. Parker resolves every thing into his philosophic scheme of predestination, and he that denies his work of the Holy Spirit, or his call to the ministry, he represents in his last number as having committed the unpardonable sin. Reader, brace your nerves, and read what follows from his fourth number!

"If so be, that denying the office and work of the Spirit in experimental religion, and call to, and work of the ministry, should be that sin against the Holy Ghost, (which appears to me to be the fact,) then with awful sensation of feelings, we know the fate of those who are thus engaged. We need not pray for them; the Lord will not hear on their behalf; their doom is filled, and their conscience seared. You cannot bring conviction to their minds--and to say that we do not deny the office or work of the Spirit, and yet contend that the Spirit and Word are one, or that there is no spirit but what is in the Word, is making the matter worse. It is not only denying the work of God, as a Spirit, but also lying before God, for the purpose of covering a blasphemous sin."

Surely this is a wonderful age, an eventful time! We may expect to hear soon that the Earth is as flat as a trencher, and that the Sun is a ball of fire whirling round it; that language has any meaning, or that Revelation is any blessing to man, may soon be denied. Every one who opposes the dreams of Daniel Parker about his call to the ministry, is not to be prayed for!!! This is the fair meaning of the text and context. MARCH 1, 1830."

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tcb/TCB708.HTM#Essay6

Campbell on Dr. Noel & Elder Rule

2008-10-22T07:28:00.001-07:00

Wrote Alexander Campbell:

"He (Dr. Noel) maintained that the Baptist government was altogether too inefficient; that there ought to be ruling elders in the churches; and that Associations should have appellate jurisdiction over the churches, In short, sir, he came out a full-blooded PRESBYTERIAN.

Now the object I have in view, as already stated, is, to request of the Doctor information upon this matter. Is he really a Baptist, or a Presbyterian?

He may, for aught I know, have changed "his views of what the Scriptures teach" on this matter. Will he, therefore, distinctly say if Romans xii. 8. 1 Cor. xii. 28. 1 Tim. v. 17. now teach that there should be ruling elders in the churches, as he contended, they did then? These passages were as plain then as they are now. If they taught Presbyterianism then, as the Presbyterians believed Doctor Noel had proved, they teach it now. If Doctor Noel believed what he then said he did, he must have had good reasons for it; and if he does not now believe what he then did, he must have better reasons for the change--if, indeed, he be a reasonable man, which some doubt.

If, too, Doctor Noel is now really a Baptist, a "genuine Baptist" a "Baptist of the old stamp," and not a reformer, a "restorationer," a revolutionist--a Presbyterian and no Baptist, as was there said by those opposed to him; he can certainly give his reasons why he then wrote and acted as he did--or why he has changed in his "views of what the Scriptures teach," concerning the alleged inefficiency of the Baptist government.

Pardon me, sir, for this intrusion upon your time; (I trust the Doctor will pardon it;) but I thought it right that the Baptists should distinctly ascertain if Doctor Noel be a real Baptist, or a Presbyterian--if he has any creed at all, or ever had."

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tmh/MH0104.HTM

Campbell wrote elsewhere:

"Every person possessed in a good degree of the qualifications laid down by the apostle Paul as essential to the christian bishop, and who, after having been first well proved by a congregation of disciples, is ordained or appointed by the congregation to the overseer's office, in which he is to exercise the functions of a bishop, every such person, I say, is to be esteemed and valued as a bishop, and by no means to be ranked among the clergy. But some few Baptists, tickled by the love of novelty, and lured by the false majesty of Presbyterianism, exhibited in a classical priesthood, of ordinaries, co-ordinates, subordinates, priests and Levites; ruling elders, licentiates, reverends and doctors of divinity, have compromised the distinguishing features of their own grand peculiarities, and palmed upon themselves a species of demagogues, who, while they have all the airs, hauteur, and arrogance of some Paido-Baptist priests, have neither their erudition, nor their talents, nor their policy. They can neither wear the gown decently, nor conceal the cloven foot." (OCTOBER 4, 1824 - Address to the Public)

Thus, it seems that the Baptists of Kentucky were engaged in this debate in 1824. It also appears that the Baptists of Kentucky would not tolerate the views of Dr. Noel.

I will continue to search for more information about Dr. Noel and his attempts to turn Baptist churches into a Presbyterian style of government.

I also plan to write on what constitutes "ordination," and on what is the role of what is called the "presbytery" in such ordinations. Involved in this is the issue of whether an elder, being ordained by a church, is thus forever an ordained elder for the whole denomination. Certainly Dr. Gill did not believe the latter, believing that "ordination" was strictly for the local church, and not for multiple churches or for the whole denomination. In other words, if I am not presently pastoring a church, then I cannot presently claim to be an elder or bishop.

More to come, the Lord willing.

Campbell - Double Sense

2008-10-22T07:26:00.000-07:00

One of the series planned for upcoming chapters of my book, "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," will be titled "Hardshell Hermeneutics."

In this series I will show how the Hardshells are infamous for their giving strange interpretations to bible words and ideas, and of their giving to words a "double sense" (among other errors in interpretation). I have demonstrated this many times already in the previous 84 chapters already published.

I found this interesting citation from Alexander Campbell on this very issue. Surely he battled many in his day who, like the Hyperists, who are guilty of errors in what is called "equivocation." Do the Hardshells not say there are "two kinds" of

1. Faith
2. Repentance
3. Birth
4. Life
5. Etc.

Campbell, writing in an article titled - "THE DOUBLE SENSE OF SCRIPTURE," wrote:

"The darkness of mysticism is fast passing away. The double sense, or the triple and quadruple sense of Scripture, once so fashionable, so sacred, amongst the great mass of Protestant and Catholic commentators and sermonizers, is falling much into disrepute amongst the most learned and pious of this generation. The textuary mode of interpreting, which grew out of the equivocal sense of Scripture, will soon be confined to the more enthusiastic and weak minds of the sectaries. Enlightened men of all denominations are fast abandoning the double sense." [A. C.], 1830, page 38.

In 1831 Mr. Campbell wrote, "On the Laws of Interpretation."
A more essential service, in our judgment, no man can render the present generation, than to call the attention of the readers of the Sacred Scriptures to the standard rules of interpretation. We are daily more deeply convinced that the confusion, ignorance, enthusiasm and superstition of this generation are attributable more to false principles, or, perhaps, to the lack of all principles of interpretation, than to all other causes combined. It is the teachers that cause the people to err more in this respect than in any other. One says the Bible means what it says; another says it means not what it says. One denounces the literal, another the spiritual meaning of the book. One is all for the spirit, another all for the letter; and some are always in quest of the recondite and hidden meaning. Thus the people know not by what star to steer their course, and are in worse circumstances than if they acknowledged no other guide, over seer, or ruler, than plain, honest, common sense." [A. C.]

Sources:

1. Alexander Campbell. Extract from "The Double Sense of Scripture." The Millennial Harbinger 1
(January 1830): 38.
2. ----------. Extract from "On the Laws of Interpretation.--No. I." The Millennial Harbinger 2 (November
1831): 488.

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/blsmith/mha/MHA10404.HTM

Campbell on Christian Experience

2008-10-22T07:25:00.000-07:00

Alexander Campbell wrote much on the topic of Christian experience, and on the "spritual operations of the Spirit," for he lived in a time when many Baptists believed that assurance of salvation, or regeneration itself, came from certain emotional states or from some sensation. Though I think he went to an extreme himself, in fighting an extreme, nevertheless I cannot disagree with what he wrote in the following. Can you?

"CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE" -- No. IV.

"THE object of this essay is to account for a difference in degree between the comforts of forgiveness enjoyed by the first converts, contrasted with those now converted to the ancient gospel.

As a preliminary to this, it may be remarked that amongst the moderns, corrupted by human gospels, there is a prevailing idea that persons are pardoned by means of, or in consequence of, a thought or a feeling. Hence, we often hear persons, in relating their experience, date all their joys and their hopes of heaven from some idea which they formed, from some feeling of which they were conscious, or from some impression made upon their minds, at a certain time. Ask such what they know concerning the pardon of their sins and they generally refer to that idea, feeling, or impression, as proof that they were pardoned. From this, in retrospection, often spring all their confidence and their present joys. Their knowledge of remission is their recollection of such an idea, feeling, or impression. According to its vividness, or faintness are their present comforts and hopes. If, at any time, their recollections should fail, or the original idea or impression become less vivid, doubts and fears arise; clouds overspread their heaven, gloomy feelings, and religious chills and fevers, disturb their tranquility. But, if the impression, that at a certain time they were truly converted, increase by new experiences, called by them the witness of the Spirit, the first idea, feeling, or impression, augmented by more recent ideas, feelings, and impressions of a similar character, produces a glow intense and a joy unutterable. Still, however, the fons et principium, the fountain and origin of all their hopes and joys, is an impression that they were at a certain time pardoned; and, mark what follows, that they were at that time pardoned is an INFERENCE drawn from what passed in their minds. Their feelings were the premises, and their pardon is the conclusion.

That the fountain and origin of all true peace, hope, and joy is an assurance of the pardon of all sin, and an adoption into God's own family is cheerfully conceded: for this is that for which we contend. But whether this assurance is any inference drawn from such premises;--from the workings of a guilty conscience--terrors, [498] convictions, feelings, and a subsequent calm, or from the written and well attested testimony of God, received and obeyed, is the great question.

The foundation of this assurance with the ancient converts was the testimony of God; with the modern converts to humanized gospels, it appears to be an inference drawn from one's own feelings. On testimony true and faithful, the ancients built; on inference the moderns rely. When the controversy is pruned from all verbosity and intricacy, this seems to be the fair and simple state of the case."

"When we reflect that all mental comfort, all spiritual health, all peace of mind, hope, and joy, arise from a sense of the friendship and favor of God, or from the knowledge of the remission of our sins, it is most obvious that the clearer the evidence, or the greater the certainty of pardon, the greater the peace, hope, love, and joy of the convert."

Millenial Harbinger Nov. 1830

Dedication

2008-10-21T18:29:00.001-07:00

This blog is dedicated to fighting the errors of "Campbellism" and "Restorationism" and the errors of Alexander Campbell and his followers. In it I will post historic writings and my own writings on Campbellism's errors.