It's true that God wants us to obey his commands as he intends them, but the fact is that we disagree over what he means. Even the Jews disputed over the meaning of many commands in the Torah. It's the nature of writings from different languages, cultures, and times.

If I say you are only saved if you understand all the commands as God intended, what I mean is: you are only saved if you understand all the commands as I understand them — because I think I understand them as God intends. And this leads to division.

Paul teaches in Rom 14 – 15 that for those with faith, God accepts obedience to a mistaken understanding if that obedience is "to the Lord." That is, if I'm truly trying to obey God's command but I misunderstand, if I'm in grace at all, grace covers the mistake.

The important thing for his, and his son Alexander, was that Christians unite on the basis of those (few) things that all Christians held in common.
Peace,
Randall

I stand corrected. He was indeed a Universalist — which makes the same point. To me, it's even more remarkable that the Campbells considered Universalism an "opinion" not a matter of faith.

The key was that Raines held his views as "opinion," not meaning that he thought his view was unsupported by scripture, but that he didn't see it as a fellowship/salvation issue.

By the way, I love this quote from Garrett's The Stone-Campbell Movement, p. 205 —

"[Thomas] Campbell went on, according to Rogers' account, to draw a distinction between matters of faith, which are enjoined upon all in order to the enjoyment of Christian fellowship, and matters of opinion, which may be held as private property. Rogers was impressed that Campbell went so far as to say that he had no hope of ever getting completely rid of his Calvinism, except it be by the slow process of perspiration, for if he attempted to vomit it all up at once it would choke him!"

Astonishing that Campbell would speak of his own views in such terms.

You have made this claim in the past and in response I have indicated I thought you were confused about Raines; and I have provided sources in support of the position I stated.

In Leroy Garrett's history titled The Stone-Campbell Movement (revised edition 1994) on page 205, Garrett indicates Raines was a Universalist and that Thomas Campbell defended Raines and acknowledged he (T. Campbell) was a Calvinist – which was not the norm in the S-C Movement . As you know, Universalists believe all men w/o exception will be saved and the "L" in TULIP refers to the atonement being limited to the elect – so the two ideas are mutually exclusive.

Additionally, in the Encyclopedia of the Stone Campbell Movement, on page 625, Aylettte Raines is identified as "well known" for his "universalist opinions." And again, Thomas Campbell in defending Raines' lack of orthodoxy is to have stated of himself that "he still held many facets of Calvinism" though he did not preach them. I believe he (T. Campbell) said he held his Calvinism as his "private property." — don't you wish I would do that?

If you are going to continue to identify Aylette Raines as a "TULIP Calvinist" rather than as a Universalist would you please provide a source to support your claim?

I am not saying there is no source. I am staying that I am not aware of one and I would appreciate it if you were to provide it.
Thanks for your efforts,
Randall

"Obedience was repeatedly emphasized — but “obedience” meant obedience to the commands as understood. Otherwise, “obedience” becomes a source of division, as we would tolerate disagreement over doctrine so long as everyone does it the way we insist."

If we accept this, are we not exchanging "what (we) understand " for what the writer intended us to understand?

I am certainly not pushing for a set of law-codes to be followed, but I am pushing for us to follow Jesus on His terms and not just on what we want to make of His terms. Pushing what we understand as the standard of behavior, it seems to me, is exactly what those desiring to establish law-codes are all about.

So how does 'what is understood' differ in any substantial way from 'what I want to say I understand'?

I hope this is clear enough.

Wondering,

Glenn

(Jude 3 ESV) Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

"Once for all delivered" means "the faith" has been fully revealed and is now entrusted (as in the NIV) to the church. But I see nothing that changes the meaning of "faith."

"Common salvation" surely refers to faith in Jesus.

(1 Pet 1:9) for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

(2 Tim 3:15) and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

(2 Th 2:13) But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

(Eph 1:13) And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

The scriptures routinely associate "salvation" (soteria) with faith in Jesus.

I like what you write about faith and what it isn't. But in some cases it IS "the faith once for all DELIVERED." That surely is not in reference to only faith in Jesus, but instead is in reference to the apostles' doctrine which at first was passed along verbally, but now is available in the writings judged to be canonical.

Since it's not spoken in one set of commandments and comments, it's not known equally by us all. But surely it was known or thought by Jude to be known by mature Christians when that phrase was written. Basic truths are revealed. Our stated goal was to speak authoritatively only where the Bible speaks. Some among us now speak most authoritatively only where the Bible is silent. You urge them to not do so. Good for you!

You are right and I rejoice that all our prayers and gentle persuasion have finally born fruit.

For the last few years from 1972 we have been fortunate to help built congregations like Bammal Road in Houston and Spring-Woodlands in the Woodlands Texas.

But the real turning point has been our realization of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, unfortunately that has occurred over the last 20 years. Terry Rush, to many of us, pioneered part of that awakening with his book on the holy Spirit. Then We read Dr. Charles Stanley's fine book and that really lit our fire.

I am not at all happy with most in the mainstream COC for holding us back for so many years. They had the degrees in Theology, we didn't,, but on our own, prompted by the Holy Spirit, we became aware.of his power and Fatherly guidance and LOVE(AGAPE)..

We did not recieve any guidance from the periodicals as they were too busy bashing everything that was silent in the scriptures.

Keep up the great work because in a few years some of us who pioneered the Holy Spirit will not be around..

We pass the baton on to you to finish the race.

Bob

I take great encouragement from the fact that legalism is clearly declining in the Churches and progressive views are on the rise. After all, 20 years ago, there were hardly any progressive churches, and now it's likely that half or more of our members are in progressive churches.

The number of progressive churches is far less than half, but they tend to be much larger than conservative congregations.

These aren't hard figures — just my impression.

God's Spirit in on the move and changing the Churches for the better. And so now is the time to redouble our efforts to make sure every member of every Church is at least exposed to the true gospel.

"Essentials" is an earlier version of the slogan going back to Rupertus Meldinius in 1627. http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/augustine/…. It, of course, begs the question of what is essential.

In 1809, the Campbells replaced "essentials" with "faith" — meaning "faith in Jesus" — and thus attempted a truly radical change in Christianity. http://www.dabar.org/SemReview/Volume06/issue1/V6…

The slogan made all but "faith" an opinion and made only faith in Jesus an essential. And that's what they meant. As a result, they refused to make Calvinism or Arminianism or even orthodox views on the Trinity or substitutionary atonement essential (Barton W. Stone was unorthodox on both doctrines; Aylette Raines was a TULIP Calvinist).

However, they considered as heretical teachings that wrongly divided the body, such as requiring Baptists to be re-baptized. After all, the rationale for re-baptism was the belief that Baptists are damned until re-immersed, and the Campbells utterly rejected such a view.

And, it should be emphasized, they considered "faith" to include submission to the Lordship of Jesus. Obedience was repeatedly emphasized — but "obedience" meant obedience to the commands as understood. Otherwise, "obedience" becomes a source of division, as we would tolerate disagreement over doctrine so long as everyone does it the way we insist.