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."
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Graves vs. Campbell?
I believe that Alexander Campbell, for all his boasting and challenges to "debate," actually wanted no part of a debate with two leading Baptists of his day, with either Dr. J. M. Peck or Dr. J. R. Graves. Notice this historical information regarding debates that were never "finalized."
Campbell vs. Graves debate?
"To this sweeping and, we may say, criminating denial of Mr. Campbell's repeated assertions, and also to the challenge to give the names of "distinguished Baptists and Baptists ministers condemning the course of J. R. Graves," he made no reply. Those who knew Alexander Campbell, or were familiar with his writings and general course as an incessant controversialist, did not question the correctness of his statements. He was a man whose veracity was above suspicion, and at the time these statements appeared in the Harbinger it was pretty well known that there were influential men in the Baptist ranks who desired and planned a union of the Reformers and Baptist based upon or growing out of the co-operation and fraternity of the two peoples in the Bible Revision Movement. This fact gave boldness and credibility to Campbell's averments. But he prudently let Graves alone, and was silent in regard to the implied challenge to discuss the questions at issue with Graves either orally or through the respective periodicals. Graves pursued his fearless course of argument, and, at times, of denunciation of the dogmas of "baptismal remission;" insisting ever on the Scriptural truth of justification by faith only, and salvation independently of any ordinance, or church connection. This finally culminated in a challenge, through one Elder Hall, to hold public debate with Elder Fanning, a scholarly and able man of "the Reformation." It was accepted. P. S. Fall of Nashville, who had been pastor of the 1st Baptist Church there, and who led pretty much that whole Church in the ranks of the "Reformation" was selected by Fanning, S. H. Ford (the writer) by Graves, to arrange propositions and preliminaries. A voluminous correspondence ensued. The correspondents could not agree upon the wording of the propositions. On the part of Dr. Graves, Ford insisted on this proposition: —
The Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity by the application of the truth as it is in Jesus, convinces the sinner of his guilt and loss, quickens him into spiritual life, and leads him to trust in Christ.
The reason for stating the question at such length was to avoid all misunderstanding or evasion of the true issue — viz., does the Holy Spirit convert? — is the truth, the instrument, not the cause of that spiritual life?
Elder Fall on the part of Fanning, declined to discuss that proposition — indeed admitted the affirmative and accepted the doctrine of the direct operation of the Spirit through the truth. But it was,in fact, a repudiation of "original Campbellism." That system — with many of its most distinguished "proclaimers" had undergone or was undergoing a change in regard to the Spirit's work. It's early teaching was (and to some extent is still) that there is no personal work of the Holy Spirit until after the "consummating act" — immersion.
The next proposition objected to was this: "In the case of a penitent believer, the pardon of past sins is conditioned upon immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Fanning was asked to affirm that. He refused. He claimed that "baptism" and not "immersion" should be the term used. He was asked if there could be a baptism without immersion. But it seemed that he wished to have the indefinite word (in English) baptism, so as to include all who, though sprinkled or poured upon instead of being immersed, were really baptized.
Further, Mr. Fall objected to the words, "conditioned upon." It was too sweeping. It shut out all hope of pardon for those who did not comply with this invariable condition. An "assurance of remission," or something like that, was desired to be substituted for condition of pardon.
Graves became tired of this seemingly endless logomachy and insisted on the propositions as first stated, and there the whole affair ended. It seemed patent to the writer that Fall and Fanning and the others who were consulted did not desire a debate with Graves, though they threw the blame of its failure upon him.
"I want the discussion," said Graves, "to go down to the bedrock of the Gospel plan of salvation, or else I have no time to waste upon it. I want the issue of eternal importance to be clearly made — Is salvation 'by works of righteousness which we have done,' or is it by sovereign, unmerited grace? If it is by or through baptism; through or by the church or kingdom — by any act of the creature done by him or for him — then it is by works, and grace is no more grace. This is the damning heresy of Rome and to a great extent of Protestantism. Campbellism is this same heresy, which Paul denounced and Rome formulated, presented in a new and popular dress. I shall not give my time to the discussion of terms such as 'for' and 'unto,' but discuss, the vital essential principle. 'Is justification, through faith, or is it by works?' This decided, and the meaning of Peter's words at Pentecost and other expressions in the New Testament, are thoroughly in harmony with the great Gospel fact announced by our Lord Jesus: 'He that believeth in Him shall not come unto condemnation, but has passed out of death unto life.'" (J. R. Graves-Alexander Campbell Dispute By Samuel H. Ford, 1900)
See here
Campbell vs. Peck debate?
"About this time Mr. Campbell held a brief correspondence with Elder J. M. Peck on the subject of spiritual influence. At the close of the discussion of this subject with S. W. Lynd, he had expressed his willingness to discuss the question with any Baptist doctor, and publish the controversy in a volume of one hundred and fifty or two hundred pages for general circulation, as an end of the matter. This proposition was accepted by J. M. Peck of the "Baptist Banner," but after a few communications the disputants seemed to come unexpectedly to so close an agreement that the discussion was closed. Mr. Campbell had said:
"The truth is the instrument, the means, and the Spirit of God is the cause or agent of regeneration. Such are my views on this great subject. And, my dear sir, if you always make the word the instrument of regeneration, you may always expect me to concur with you in saying that it is but the instrument, and not the first cause of a great spiritual change."
"Mr. Peck expressed his high gratification with these distinct statements, regretting that Mr. Campbell had been so long misunderstood on this topic for want of such a declaration. Mr. Campbell then called his attention to the fact that the proposition which he had from the very beginning labored to sustain was precisely what he had now expressed--viz.: that "in conversion the Holy Spirit operated through the truth, and not without it," as the Baptists had taught. As Elder Peck declined to affirm this dogma of the Baptists, and endeavored to show that Mr. Campbell had misunderstood them on this subject, there appeared to be no longer any question in dispute..."
See here
I think Campbell did not want a debate with either Graves or Peck. It is ironic that this was the case seeing Campbell was known as the "great debater."
Campbell vs. Graves debate?
"To this sweeping and, we may say, criminating denial of Mr. Campbell's repeated assertions, and also to the challenge to give the names of "distinguished Baptists and Baptists ministers condemning the course of J. R. Graves," he made no reply. Those who knew Alexander Campbell, or were familiar with his writings and general course as an incessant controversialist, did not question the correctness of his statements. He was a man whose veracity was above suspicion, and at the time these statements appeared in the Harbinger it was pretty well known that there were influential men in the Baptist ranks who desired and planned a union of the Reformers and Baptist based upon or growing out of the co-operation and fraternity of the two peoples in the Bible Revision Movement. This fact gave boldness and credibility to Campbell's averments. But he prudently let Graves alone, and was silent in regard to the implied challenge to discuss the questions at issue with Graves either orally or through the respective periodicals. Graves pursued his fearless course of argument, and, at times, of denunciation of the dogmas of "baptismal remission;" insisting ever on the Scriptural truth of justification by faith only, and salvation independently of any ordinance, or church connection. This finally culminated in a challenge, through one Elder Hall, to hold public debate with Elder Fanning, a scholarly and able man of "the Reformation." It was accepted. P. S. Fall of Nashville, who had been pastor of the 1st Baptist Church there, and who led pretty much that whole Church in the ranks of the "Reformation" was selected by Fanning, S. H. Ford (the writer) by Graves, to arrange propositions and preliminaries. A voluminous correspondence ensued. The correspondents could not agree upon the wording of the propositions. On the part of Dr. Graves, Ford insisted on this proposition: —
The Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity by the application of the truth as it is in Jesus, convinces the sinner of his guilt and loss, quickens him into spiritual life, and leads him to trust in Christ.
The reason for stating the question at such length was to avoid all misunderstanding or evasion of the true issue — viz., does the Holy Spirit convert? — is the truth, the instrument, not the cause of that spiritual life?
Elder Fall on the part of Fanning, declined to discuss that proposition — indeed admitted the affirmative and accepted the doctrine of the direct operation of the Spirit through the truth. But it was,in fact, a repudiation of "original Campbellism." That system — with many of its most distinguished "proclaimers" had undergone or was undergoing a change in regard to the Spirit's work. It's early teaching was (and to some extent is still) that there is no personal work of the Holy Spirit until after the "consummating act" — immersion.
The next proposition objected to was this: "In the case of a penitent believer, the pardon of past sins is conditioned upon immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Fanning was asked to affirm that. He refused. He claimed that "baptism" and not "immersion" should be the term used. He was asked if there could be a baptism without immersion. But it seemed that he wished to have the indefinite word (in English) baptism, so as to include all who, though sprinkled or poured upon instead of being immersed, were really baptized.
Further, Mr. Fall objected to the words, "conditioned upon." It was too sweeping. It shut out all hope of pardon for those who did not comply with this invariable condition. An "assurance of remission," or something like that, was desired to be substituted for condition of pardon.
Graves became tired of this seemingly endless logomachy and insisted on the propositions as first stated, and there the whole affair ended. It seemed patent to the writer that Fall and Fanning and the others who were consulted did not desire a debate with Graves, though they threw the blame of its failure upon him.
"I want the discussion," said Graves, "to go down to the bedrock of the Gospel plan of salvation, or else I have no time to waste upon it. I want the issue of eternal importance to be clearly made — Is salvation 'by works of righteousness which we have done,' or is it by sovereign, unmerited grace? If it is by or through baptism; through or by the church or kingdom — by any act of the creature done by him or for him — then it is by works, and grace is no more grace. This is the damning heresy of Rome and to a great extent of Protestantism. Campbellism is this same heresy, which Paul denounced and Rome formulated, presented in a new and popular dress. I shall not give my time to the discussion of terms such as 'for' and 'unto,' but discuss, the vital essential principle. 'Is justification, through faith, or is it by works?' This decided, and the meaning of Peter's words at Pentecost and other expressions in the New Testament, are thoroughly in harmony with the great Gospel fact announced by our Lord Jesus: 'He that believeth in Him shall not come unto condemnation, but has passed out of death unto life.'" (J. R. Graves-Alexander Campbell Dispute By Samuel H. Ford, 1900)
See here
Campbell vs. Peck debate?
"About this time Mr. Campbell held a brief correspondence with Elder J. M. Peck on the subject of spiritual influence. At the close of the discussion of this subject with S. W. Lynd, he had expressed his willingness to discuss the question with any Baptist doctor, and publish the controversy in a volume of one hundred and fifty or two hundred pages for general circulation, as an end of the matter. This proposition was accepted by J. M. Peck of the "Baptist Banner," but after a few communications the disputants seemed to come unexpectedly to so close an agreement that the discussion was closed. Mr. Campbell had said:
"The truth is the instrument, the means, and the Spirit of God is the cause or agent of regeneration. Such are my views on this great subject. And, my dear sir, if you always make the word the instrument of regeneration, you may always expect me to concur with you in saying that it is but the instrument, and not the first cause of a great spiritual change."
"Mr. Peck expressed his high gratification with these distinct statements, regretting that Mr. Campbell had been so long misunderstood on this topic for want of such a declaration. Mr. Campbell then called his attention to the fact that the proposition which he had from the very beginning labored to sustain was precisely what he had now expressed--viz.: that "in conversion the Holy Spirit operated through the truth, and not without it," as the Baptists had taught. As Elder Peck declined to affirm this dogma of the Baptists, and endeavored to show that Mr. Campbell had misunderstood them on this subject, there appeared to be no longer any question in dispute..."
See here
I think Campbell did not want a debate with either Graves or Peck. It is ironic that this was the case seeing Campbell was known as the "great debater."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
