Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Campbellism & Hyperism IV

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

No comments: