Alexander Campbell wrote an article in his periodical, The Millennial Harbinger, approving cooperation with Christians outside the Restoration Movement. In that article, he said: “For we find in all Protestant parties Christians as exemplary as ourselves according to their and our relative knowledge and opportunities.”
This led to a letter from a woman in Lunenburg, Virginia, quoted below. She asked, “Does the name of Christ or Christian belong to any but those who believe the gospel, repent, and are buried by baptism into the death of Christ?” It’s recently been theorized that she may have written this letter to embarrass Campbell, but as you can see, he’d already declared his view that many outside the Restoration Movement are saved.
Campbell replied with an extensive discussion of his views on the effect of a flawed baptism. Campbell’s defense of his views requires no commentary from me.
The readers might note that my views are very similar to Campbell’s, which does not make me right, but perhaps his defense of his views will help explain my own.
The remaining text of this post is quoted from those sources. I’ve added boldface here and there.
From “Letters to England-No. 1,” The Millennial Harbinger (June 1837)
We would, indeed, have no objections to co-operate in these matters with all Christians, and raise contributions for all such purposes as, in our judgment, are promotive of the Divine glory or of human happiness, whether or not they belong to our churches: for we find in all Protestant parties Christians as exemplary as ourselves according to their and our relative knowledge and opportunities; but we cannot form a confederacy with the troops of Satan, or tax his subjects to sustain the Christian cause; and, therefore, so long as all these associations openly and avowedly form a community on any one of these bonds of union, irrespective of citizenship in the kingdom of heaven; I say, so long as they hold communion with profane and ungodly persons, or with Gentiles of no creed and every creed, because of a single point of coincidence, whatever that point may be, we cannot unite with them, or sail under such a flag. Besides, if such schemes are really necessary, then has the church failed–then the Divine institution must yield the palm to institutions merely human.
(pp. 271-273; emphasis added)
ANY CHRISTIANS AMONG PROTESTANT PARTIES
Lunenburg, July 8th, 1837.
“Dear brother Campbell– I WAS much surprised to-day, while reading the Harbinger, to see that you recognize the Protestant parties as Christian. You say, you ‘find in all Protestant parties Christians.’
“Dear brother, my surprize and ardent desire to do what is right, prompt me to write to you at this time. I feel well assured, from the estimate you place on the female character, that you will attend to my feeble questions in search of knowledge.
“Will you be so good as to let me know how any one becomes a Christian? What act of yours gave you the name of Christian? At what time had Paul the name of Christ called on him? At what time did Cornelius have Christ named on him? Is it not through this name we obtain eternal life? Does the name of Christ or Christian belong to any but those who believe the gospel, repent, and are buried by baptism into the death of Christ?”
CAMPBELL’S REPLY
In reply to this conscientious sister, I observe, that if there be no Christians in the Protestant sects, there are certainly none among the Romanists, none among the Jews, Turks, Pagans; and therefore no Christians in the world except ourselves, or such of us as keep, or strive to keep, all the commandments of Jesus. Therefore, for many centuries there has been no church of Christ, no Christians in the world; and the promises concerning the everlasting kingdom of Messiah have failed, and the gates of hell have prevailed against his church! This cannot be; and therefore there are Christians among the sects.
But who is a Christian? I answer, Every one that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will. A perfect man in Christ, or a perfect Christian, is one thing; and “a babe in Christ,” a stripling in the faith, or an imperfect Christian, is another. The New Testament recognizes both the perfect man and the imperfect man in Christ. The former, indeed, implies the latter. Paul commands the imperfect Christians to “be perfect,” (2 Cor. iii. 11.) and says he wishes the perfection of Christians. “And this also we wish” for you saints in Corinth, “even your perfection:” and again he says, “We speak wisdom among the perfect,” (1 Cor. ii. 6.) and he commands them to be “perfect in understanding,” (1 Cor. xiv. 20.) and in many other places implies or speaks the same things. Now there is perfection of will, of temper, and of behaviors. There is a perfect state and a perfect character. And hence it is possible for Christians to be imperfect in some respects without an absolute forfeiture of the Christian state and character. Paul speaks of “carnal” Christians, of “weak” and “strong” Christians; and the Lord Jesus admits that some of the good and honest-hearted bring forth only thirty fold, while others bring forth sixty, and some a hundred fold increase of the fruits of righteousness.
But every one is wont to condemn others in that in which he is more intelligent than they; while, on the other hand, he is condemned for his Pharisaism or his immodesty and rash judgment of others, by those that excel in the things in which he is deficient. I cannot, therefore, make any one duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion into the name of the father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in my heart regard all that have been sprinkled in infancy without their own knowledge and consent, as aliens from Christ and the well-grounded hope of heaven. “Salvation was of the Jews,” acknowledged the Messiah; and yet he said of a foreigner, an alien from the commonwealth of Israel, a Syro-Phenician, “I have not found so great faith—no, not in Israel.”
Should I find a Pedobaptist more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually-minded and more devoted to the Lord than a Baptist, or one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith, I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians. Still I will be asked, How do I know that any one loves my Master but by his obedience to his commandments? I answer, In no other way. But mark, I do not substitute obedience to one commandment, for universal or even for general obedience. And should I see a sectarian Baptist or a Pedobaptist more spiritually-minded, more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah, than one who precisely acquiesces with me in the theory or practice of immersion as I teach, doubtless the former rather than the latter, would have my cordial approbation and love as a Christian. So I judge, and so I feel. It is the image of Christ the Christian looks for and loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known.
With me mistakes of the understanding and errors of the affections are not to be confounded. They are as distant as the poles. An angel may mistake the meaning of a commandment, but he will obey it in the sense in which he understands it. John Bunyan and John Newton were very different persons, and had very different views of baptism, and of some other things; yet they were both disposed to obey, and to the extent of their knowledge did obey the Lord in every thing.
There are mistakes with, and without depravity. There are wilful errors which all the world must condemn, and unavoidable mistakes which every one will pity. The Apostles mistook the Saviour when he said concerning John, “What if I will that John tarry till I come;” but the Jews perverted his words when they alleged that Abraham had died, in proof that he spake falsely when he said, “If a man keep my word he shall never see death.”
Many a good man has been mistaken. Mistakes are to be regarded as culpable and as declarative of a corrupt heart only when they proceed from a wilful neglect of the means of knowing what is commanded. Ignorance is always a crime when it is voluntary; and innocent when it is involuntary. Now, unless I could prove that all who neglect the positive institutions of Christ and have substituted for them something else of human authority, do it knowingly, or, if not knowingly, are voluntarily ignorant of what is written, I could not, I dare not say that their mistakes are such as unchristianize all their professions.
True, indeed, that it is always a misfortune to be ignorant of any thing in the Bible, and very generally it is criminal. But how many are there who cannot read; and of those who can read, how many are so deficient in education; and of those educated, how many are ruled by the authority of those whom they regard as superiors in knowledge and piety, that they never can escape out of the dust and smoke of their own chimney, where they happened to be born and educated! These all suffer many privations and many perplexities, from which the more intelligent are exempt.
The preachers of “essentials,” as well as the preachers of “nonessentials,” frequently err. The Essentialist may disparage the heart, while the Non-essentialist despises the institution. The latter makes void the institutions of Heaven, while the former appreciates not the mental bias on which God looketh most. My correspondent may belong to a class who think that we detract from the authority and value of an institution the moment we admit the bare possibility of any one being saved without it. But we choose rather to associate with those who think that they do not undervalue either seeing or hearing, by affirming that neither of them, nor both of them together, are essential to life. I would not sell one of my eyes for all the gold on earth; yet I could live without it.
There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of faith, absolutely essential to a Christian—though it may be greatly essential to his sanctification and comfort. My right hand and my right eye are greatly essential to my usefulness and happiness, but not to my life; and as I could not be a perfect man without them, so I cannot be a perfect Christian without a right understanding and a cordial reception of immersion in its true and scriptural meaning and design. But he that thence infers that none are Christians but the immersed, as greatly errs as he who affirms that none are alive but those of clear and full vision.
I do not formally answer all the queries proposed knowing the one point to which they all aim. To that point only I direct these remarks. And while I would unhesitatingly say that I think that every man who despises any ordinance of Christ or who is willingly ignorant of it, cannot be a Christian; still I should sin against my own convictions, should I teach any one to think that if he mistook the meaning of any institution while in his soul he desired to know the whole will of God he must perish forever. But to conclude for the present–he that claims for himself a license to neglect the least of all the commandments of Jesus because it is possible for some to be saved who through insuperable ignorance or involuntary mistake, do neglect or transgress it; or he that wilfully neglects to ascertain the will of the Lord to the whole extent of his means and opportunities because some who are defective in that knowledge may be Christians, is not possessed of the spirit of Christ and cannot be registered among the Lord’s people. So I reason; and I think in so reasoning I am sustained by all the Prophets and Apostles of both Testaments.
A.C.
Conservatives insist that a man today who shares Campbell’s view is a “modernist” (and don’t know what a theological modernist is..), or a liberal, or even worse…
Those who are the quickest to condemn anyone who is not exactly like them are more often than not adopted a very narrow view of obedience to Christ. Campbell’s words are telling.
“Still I will be asked, How do I know that any one loves my Master but by his obedience to his commandments? I answer, In no other way. But mark, I do not substitute obedience TO ONE COMMANDMENT, for universal or even for general obedience.”
Many of us who are labeled ‘progressive” (or worse) are in reality not. It is the legalists who have left the old paths. A Christian is marked out by how he loves, not by how many ways he can damn others.
So true post Royce,
The Lord may judge us by the wear on our knees rather than the wear on our pointing finger.
Royce said, “Those who are the quickest to condemn anyone who is not exactly like them are more often than not adopted a very narrow view of obedience to Christ.”
I just can’t imagine where anyone could get that “narrow view”. do you Royce?
Mat 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
I guess this was also said by one of those “narrow minded” people. Just ignorant of what he was saying. Although I do believe it is said he will be the judge. Not Royce, not Jay, not even Alexander Campbell.
Alexander Campbell
“The preachers of “essentials,” as well as the preachers of “non-essentials,” frequently err. The Essentialist may disparage the heart, while the Non-essentialist despises the institution. The latter makes void the institutions of Heaven,”
I believe he is speaking of this definition of institution, (any established law, custom, etc.)
and then he goes on to say “There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of faith, absolutely essential to a Christian”
In other words he confesses to be a Non-essentialist who despises the institutions of heaven. or the church/kingdom of heaven.
And yes there is a difference in people like myself who believes that baptism is essential for salvation and those of you who despise the institution of the church.
This is interesting for the way we often communicate!
Campbell said:
The surprized reply:
You know, Jay, this is precisely our dilemma! While I don’t have any trouble to recognize individuals as Christian in every sect and denomination, I would never see these sects and parties as Christian congregations.
The writer of the letter also did not grasp this vital distinction in Campbell’s lines. He wrote: There are Christians in the Prostestant parties – She understood: The protestant parties are Christian!
But Campbell is quite clear on this distinction. My impression is that you and Leroy call us to embrace Methodists and Presbyterians per se – as denominations – which is ecumenism rather than spiritual unity. Simply based on the fact that there are some Christians among them.
Campbell is very sharp on this:
I can follow and agree with Campbell’s reasoning concerning Christians in these sects largely, but with hesitation, because the judgment is the Lord’s. When we are not allowed to judge, we also have to be slow to call one justified when certain requirements are not met.
In other writings Campbell was much stricter on the importance of baptism, and I think we can quote him like we can quote Martin Luther. Both wrote a lot, and we can pull out quotes from both that make them side with our convictions. Against their consent.
And while you are very quick to dismiss the ECF as irrelevant for doctrine because they are not inspired, you quote AC as an authority we should listen to. That’s quite a double standard you apply, Jay. I chose to listen to both and to weigh and compare their insights with the scriptures.
But anyway.
The point is: Yes, there are Christians in all sects and denominations, maybe even accepted by God without baptism – and even putting us to shame in their sincerity.
But NO, this does not allow us to unite with churches that are a systematic mixture of believers and unbelievers due to infant baptism.
And another No: This does not mean that we should not serve these brothers and sisters with a better explanation of the Gospel as in Acts 18.
In the end this does not help Leroy’s position. I really had to swallow at Campbell’s clear words: but we cannot form a confederacy with the troops of Satan,
Think about it, Jay. This makes us call those Christians out of the ranks of Satan, doesn’t it (“sheep steeling, how very ugly!”)? Rather than having fellowship with and mutual respect for the denominations. To be clear, I would not choose such wording, but in essence I think he is correct.
Alexander
Laymond,
That narrow way is Jesus himself, not religion and rules.
Royce, the sermon on the Mount closes as follows:
And the Sermon on the mount has close to the beginning the following words:
I don’t think your equation “Jesus = the narrow way” really fits these descriptions of the narrow way.
It is also not about “religion” and “rules” – but about doing what Christ has commanded. This may rightfully be called “Law”, because the opposite of obedience Christ calls “lawlessness” in Mat 7:23.
A Law is not an “advice” one follows voluntarily and at his own will and pleasure, but a command spoken with authority by Him whom is given ALL authority in Heaven and on earth. He is the one, who will also judge the nations, you and me … according to our works; i.e. whether we heard and did what he said.
I do agree with Alexander Campbell that we cannot make Baptism alone the one decisive mark whether one is on the way of salvation or not. But we certainly cannot make it a non-essential for the sake of “fellowship”. WE must consider and keep in mind that salvation is not a one-time-event (be it the sinner’s prayer or baptism) but a path we walk until we get to the end of it. It is not enough therefore to BE on the path unless we also WALK it. And – to add a little spice to it – no one should boast of his or her salvation as if he had already reached the gates of heaven and passed Christ’s judgment until he has really finished the pilgrimage.
So we should be slow, very slow to judge ourselves as being saved – and much more judging others as being saved. That’s God’s judgment, not ours. All we can judge are words and conduct = confession, works, fruit. Among these baptism is just one element, but one on which a number of promises co-depend.
Alexander
Royce, I do believe that narrow way, is obedaince to God through Jesus Christ.
Royce,
Does that obedience need to be perfect obedience?
Doug
Doug, You have me and Laymond mixed up..
I believe Jesus himself is the way. Laymond believes good works plus Jesus is the way. Thats a big difference.
I agree with Alexander (abasnar)…we have no right to divide up the gospel into parts and then teach one part as being more important than another. We are all called by the complete gospel of Christ and we all must obey that calling in a complete fashion.
As for the “narrow gate” and straight path that Jesus spoke of in the sermon on the mount, I do not really think He was meaning that only a few people would behave well enough to meet the rigid requirements of following that path. If we look to Matthew 11:28-30 it is clear that Jesus is the means by which we all can be made righteous. How else can Jesus say that His “yoke is easy” and “(His) burden is light” if it
Sorry for putting this here twice….my laptop does weird things and it caused me to submit only a portion of my post.
So, here it is again…hopefully this time it won’t mess up.
I agree with Alexander (abasnar)…we have no right to divide up the gospel into parts and then teach one part as being more important than another. We are all called by the complete gospel of Christ and we all must obey that calling in a complete fashion.
As for the “narrow gate” and straight path that Jesus spoke of in the sermon on the mount, I do not really think He was meaning that only a few people would behave well enough to meet the rigid requirements of following that path. If we look to Matthew 11:28-30 it is clear that Jesus is the means by which we all can be made righteous. How else can Jesus say that His “yoke is easy” and “(His) burden is light” if it means that we are burdened with a rigid path that no one can follow? In Titus 2:11 it says that God’s grace that brings salvation has appeared unto all people….that doesn’t sound like Jesus only intended a “few” to make it to Heaven. This burden that we are not able to fulfill through the Law is made into a yoke that’s “easy” because it is God’s righteousness that saves and not any of our own.
I agree with the comments above…it is not a Jesus plus my righteousness equals salvation….it is ALL JESUS!! Only through His atoning sacrifice are we saved. ALL the glory is His alone.
Royce,
Sorry for the mixup. I meant that question for Laymond. I’ll remember in the future that you are the smiling one…perhaps because you believe that Jesus is the way?
Doug
Below, we can see the reason why Campbell was willing to “connect” with the Baptists. According to his own words, it was to teach them what he believed and TO CENSURE (to disapprove, harshly criticize, and rebuke) “what is amiss in their views and practices”. Hear him:
“I and the church with which I am connected are in ‘full communion’ with the Mahoning Baptist Association of Ohio; and through them with the whole Baptist society in the United States; and I do intend to continue in connection with this people so long as they will permit me to say what I believe, to teach what I am assured of, and to censure what is amiss in their views and practices.”
Such is A FAR CRY from swapping pulpits and being careful to avoid “scruples”.
No doubt, he considered the Baptists and Pedobaptists to be sects and he wanted them to give up being Baptists and Pedobaptists. Hear him some more:
“I have no idea of adding to the catalogue of new sects. This game has been played too long. I labor to see sectarianism abolished, and all Christians of every name united upon the one foundation upon which the apostolic church was founded. To bring Baptists and Pedobaptists to this is my supreme aim. But to connect myself with any people who would require me to sacrifice one item of revealed truth, to subscribe any creed of human device, or restrain me from publishing my sentiments as discretion and conscience direct, is now, and I hope ever shall be, the farthest from my desires, the most incompatible with my views.”
We all know which views and practices of the Baptists and Pedobaptists that Campbell considered to be amiss, and that he sought to “censure.”
But, all of this making it sound like Campbell was cool with the Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc., and that he felt no need to censure them, is just not true.
Lets be honest here…
In my view, the real test of good theology, is not how many books you’ve sold, or how many people line up to defend your position, but rather are lives being transformed?
There are many things I love about the churches of Christ but I love everything about the Christ of the Church. I am not a little disappointed that many of our preachers and teachers major on minors at the expense of the story of Jesus and His work.
Preaching Christ and His cross is what is most needed. I am thankful that drunks and dope heads are now sober, that marriages are being healed, that unhealthy habits no longer have their hold, and sinners are being set free by the simple gospel of Jesus. In every place where preaching Christ is tried it works.
No sinners are redeemed because of your or my view on singing, or how communion should be served, and dozens of other things that pale in comparison to the good news that Jesus came to love the unlovely and to reconcile wicked sinners to God.
We need gospel preaching and gospel living and gospel thinking. When we focus on anything else, no matter how good, we are less than we ought to be. I think people who are in love with Jesus will talk about him more than about religious acts and what someone else is wrong about.
Often we are more like 6th grade girls than men who belong to the Christ.
Don Wade asked,
How else can Jesus say that His “yoke is easy” and “(His) burden is light” if it means that we are burdened with a rigid path that no one can follow?
You are right Don Jesus actually commands us to do two things, “love God” and your neighbor as yourself then the rest becomes easy. But they with a lot of work attached. but they should be easy if you truly love as you should.
Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.
If you love God you will work to please him.
And if you love your fellow man as you love your self, the work is not that hard, sometimes it is called the “golden rule” the yoke is easy.
Royce, et.al.:
Let me offer something for consideration. Before we “throw out” the “disagreeing with others” part of Christian faith and love (cf. Paul who wrote some letters of rebuke…), perhaps part of the challenge is in how we tackle such. Leroy Garrett’s Sunday approach is NOT what the Reformers were about, for example.
And Catholic leaders’ refusal to sit and chat in the years leading up to the Reformation is well known. Conciliation was essentially halted with Pius II’s 1460 message entitled Execrabilis. To give this some “flesh and blood,” not long ago I attempted to have a chat with a Catholic priest. His response was clear: “I will be glad to tell you what we believe, but I will not discuss theology with you.” (almost an exact quote).
It has been my experience that we often fail to get together at a dining room table and pray together and read the Word together. Then listen closely to one another. I continue to find that when we do such, good things happens.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce, You make some valid points. However, I just wonder…how many people will populate heaven who are there because a coc preacher won a debate about instrumental music?
Let’s fact some glaring facts. We have done great harm to the kingdom of God by fighting each other over personal preferences. No honest, rational person can deny that.
Jesus will be the center of attention in heaven and He should be here too, among believers that is.
“However, I just wonder…how many people will populate heaven who are there because a coc preacher won a debate about instrumental music?”
I don’t know. Probably not nearly as many as the number of people who will populate heaven because a coc preacher won a debate about “faith alone” (saying the sinner’s prayer instead of being immersed)
“Let’s fact some glaring facts. We have done great harm to the kingdom of God by fighting each other over personal preferences. No honest, rational person can deny that.”
Maybe, but many of the things considered “personal preferences” and “scruples” here are in actuality, commandments of God.
Laymond,
It’s simply not true that Campbell despised baptism. Indeed, it is his teaching that brought believer baptism by immersion for the remission of sins into the Restoration Movement. You seriously misjudge the man.
I am always amazed at how quickly traditionalists and legalists dismiss AC and Barton W Stone and other early restorationist. They say we don’t need to listen to what these men say, “We are just the New Testament church in our time”. All of the early dudes up to David Lipscomb, TB Larimore and even Harding would be publicly castigated just like the rest of us so called liberals and progressives. It shows how far the main stream traditional churches of Christ have moved from the founding principles and spirit of unity.
Hank,
You write “many of the things considered “personal preferences” and “scruples” here are in actuality, commandments of God.”
By definition, that statement is only your opinion. and it is not something scripture allows you to impose on anyone.
David,
Do you think teaching penitent sinners to be baptized for the forgivness of sins is a “personal preference” or a command of God? Because that is the main thing I have been talking about here. And even Jay is on record as saying that the issue of the “Sinner’s prayer” v. immersion in water is one of “our scruples”.
And Joe,
Concerning Campbell, did you catch what he had to say about why he wanted to stay connected to the Baptists and Pedobabtists? If not, he said he sought to keep his connection with them so that he could:
“…say what I believe, to teach what I am assured of, and to censure what is amiss in their views and practices.”
See that? He sought to “censure what was amiss in their views and practices.”
He wanted the Baptists and Presbyterians to give up everything they believed and practiced that made them what they were.
Are you willing to do the same? Or, will you dismiss what he was all about.
Jay, no where can you point to where I said anyone hated baptism, A. Campbell pointed the finger back at himself on despising institutional churches, churches with rules and regulations, such as demanding one be baptized. I did not accuse I only repeated what he said. I didn’t even say you or Royce “hated baptism” but I do think it is negligence to say it is not needed.
Hank,
Your post, which I quoted, made no specific references. Yet when you responded to me you changed the subject from a broad general statement to an issue of specifics.
Please be consistent in your posts
Don Wade said “I agree with the comments above…it is not a Jesus plus my righteousness equals salvation….it is ALL JESUS!! Only through His atoning sacrifice are we saved. ALL the glory is His alone.”
Don, there sure was a lot of wasted time, and paper in producing a bible, when all that was necessary was a small note “eat, drink, and be merry, Jesus did it all”. ( although Jesus said he didn’t do it all, he said the apostles would do more than he) Don, why are we supposed to read all those stories in the bible, if we don’t have them as a guide.
Actually all glory belongs to God, and is given by God. If you are right, then I have no idea why we should share in Jesus inheritance, what in this world would cause us to be in God’s favor/grace?
Royce:
Certainly, some discussion within the Restoration Movement (and among Evangelicals, et.al.) has missed part of Paul’s message regarding the importance of congregations singing Scripture together. I am finding that when we put Ephesians 5:18-21 in context, people hear the message — and its focus on Christ. But will stop there as we are digressing away from the baptism focus of the webchain.
In short, I am not convinced of the “either-or” I hear in your post.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
I’ve heard many preachers say that if a man was on a deserted island and had a Bible wash up he could read it and would do all that was necessary to be obedient and be saved as it is that plain.
Do we believe that ourselves?
We, all of the COC and denominations have made the Bible a book of deep mystery and unbelievable difficulty to understand. So much so, that it is impossible to agree.
WE have done that! God didn’t !
Thinking about it, we could do the same with any book, even “Where the red fern grows”. Use CENI on that book or “Tom Sawyer” and see what commands and actions become required or LAW!
God is not a game player. Our egos are causing this confusion. How much goofier can we get?
Lets try to read, simply read, like the man on the island would and see if we will come to the same conclusions.
The following quote is something I would have to disagree with:
“There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of faith, absolutely essential to a Christian—though it may be greatly essential to his sanctification and comfort”
How can this be? Just using the words of Jesus in the Great Commission should be enough evidence that there is such an occassion. Listening to Peter follow the Great Commission in Acts 2 and the response as stated in Scripture 2:41 “So those who recieved his word were baptized….”
While we can discuss about points where one might be a Christian without submitting to baptism because someone didn’t teach him about baptism but, that is a far cry from saying there is “no ocassion” for making it essential.
I would go futher and note his unwillingness to join forces with Satan’s. It is one thing to say that a person who has not been properly taught (unwillingly ignorant) but has great faith (God knows) is saved and it is quite another to say that those who fail to teach a person needs to be baptized are doing the Lord’s work.
One might disagree with the purpose of it but how can one “recieve the word” if baptism is not mentioned? Even the Eunuch had to hear of it when Philip “preached Jesus”, his response says so.
So it falls to the teacher of the word to proclaim it and also then to the hearer to study the Scriptures and bring their life into alignment. Acts 18 has some bearing on this but still shows a need for disciples to be properly baptized.
Gospel preachers (who ever they may be) must preach the Gospel which includes the need for the repentent believer to be baptized. If you have not preached that….you have not preached the Gospel. Or am I wrong?
Laymond,
(Php 3:8) Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ
(Php 3:9) and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith–
Paul didn’t think it was wasteful to place the focus of his faith in the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ. Nor did he claim any righteousness of his own…he acknowledged Jesus. Everything else he considered to be rubbish. And that is how I feel as well.
Even if I were to obey the word completely it still would not merit me salvation. The price that was paid by God’s Holy Son is too high, and I cannot repay Him. I can, however, by faith trust entirely in Him for my salvation. And I do…
Bruce Morton,
You are correct, I don’t find Paul making any statement that would lead me to believe anyone “has missed part of Paul’s message regarding the importance of congregations singing Scripture together” Maybe I missed it but not in the passage Ephesians 5:18-21.
“speaking to yourselves” is not the same as speaking to each other is it? Why focus on singing and not on being filled with the Spirit? It appears to me that the result of “speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” is a direct result of being filled with the Spirit.
Can you hear a “melody in (my) heart”? If I sing to myself I’m not singing to you necessarily, am I?
The more I read the passage the more I think it is addressed to individual living rather than the gathered people.
Enterprise,
Yes, you are wrong. Baptism is one response to the gospel, it is not its self the gospel.
Phillip preached from Isaiah 53, you should read it sometime. If you can find baptism in it I’ll eat your hat. There was not likely very many who had not heard about the events surrounding Pentecost with thousands baptized. The official from Ethiopia had not doubt heard the news about Jesus, his death, and people saying he had risen from the dead.
There is no need to read into Scripture what is not there. As for the commission Jesus gave, it was addressed to those close associates who were there with him. THEY were charged with baptizing the disciples they made. And the did that exact thing.
The Bible has plenty to say. We should just let it say what is says and allow it alone to set the agenda for what we believe.
Maybe we would be far more benefit to the Kingdom if we would just preach Jesus and the good news about what he has done for sinners and stop trying to be the Holy Spirit too. In my view, unless a person is “cut to the heart”, convicted and convinced by God himself, what I persuade him to do is meaningless.
Many try to sell Jesus like a vacuum cleaner. They get a sinner in a corner and with a carefully crafted speech they leave him two options. Be immersed or go to hell.
For many years I did the same thing. And, many of my “converts” didn’t stay converted. I teach the truth about Jesus and his worth and work and when I’m done I don’t say anything. Unless God does his work first, mine is done. Almost every time I’ll get a question sort of like Peter did. It is then I insist that If they believe with all their heart upon Jesus Christ that they should be immersed at once, start to tell others, and get connected to a congregation of believers.
God draws sinners to himself, he convicts them of their sins, He grants repentance, and he convinces them about the facts of the gospel. My job is to faithfully tell and to baptize those who believe the message. And, according to a mountain of Scripture, those who repent and believe on Jesus are saved. To my knowledge I’ve never baptized a lost person.
Royce:
Thank you for being direct. :)!! Of course, I have to ask a question or two and maybe clarify a misunderstanding.
I agree that Baptism is one’s response (You did mean “one’s” as opposed to “one”, right?) to the Gospel and not the Gospel itself. I suppose that faith and repentence would be as well (so maybe you did mean “one”)
Perhaps my last paragraph gave you the idea that I think that baptism is the Gospel. Apologies for that. However, if you tell people about Jesus but do not tell them what an appropriate response is, how is that good news? Just to know that Jesus died for our sins and not know ‘what should we do?” doesn’t seem to be much help.
However, in regards to Isa 53, you don’t think I think that baptism is in there do you? I was referring to what the text says Phillip did and the Eunuch’s subsequent question. Phillip preached Jesus. Yes, he started at Isa 53 but it was just the beginning point. The ESV says “he told him the good news about Jesus.” It is the response of the Eunuch that leads me to my conclusion about baptism.
I am not sure about reading into the text. (open to that possibility but don’t know how I did it). To think the Eunuch had not heard about the happenings in Jerusalem would be a far stretch, I grant that. Plus, Enough time had passed and the persecution had started in Acts 8. He certainly would have heard about the new sect known as “the way”
But his response does not seem to be possible sans baptism being mentioned. Many people today have the good news about Jesus proclaimed and the question the Eunuch asked never comes up precisely because it is not mentioned until after the ‘sinner’s prayer’ and congratulations for their salvation is expressed. Sometimes it is not even mentioned then.
Judging by your capitalizing of “THEY” at the end, I draw the conclusion that you think the Great Commission was only given to the 11 apostles. I am not sure that you think that but if that is the case, how come it does not apply to us today? Since they were to “make….,baptize…., and teach all things I have commanded you”….why would that same commission not apply to Barnabus and Timothy and to those they taught…and so on and so on?
Royce:
I have mentioned this before (multiple times) — including in conversation with you — which leads me to wonder if you indeed want to hear it. But I will offer again.
A study entitled Associations, Synagogues and Congregations (Fortress Press, 2005) provides an excellent overview of Asian worship based on much inscriptional evidence. The Asians did not make the distinction you are trying to make. They worshipped publicly frequently. But by all means, since I said it and it is not what some folks in this weblog want to hear, then it cannot be accurate. Right?
I’m done.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Royce:
Your comment about being of more benefit to the Kingdom if we preached Jesus was very good. In fact, it brought to mind what Jesus said to the Pharisees about searcing the world for a convert only to make him double a child of hell.
I think that if our focus is on “baptizing” and not the good news then we have missed it.
Still, i would have to ask why are we only getting them into a corner with carefully crafted speech. Why not make it real clear to them by preaching the Gospel?
I mean, the “getting them in a corner’ kinda implies force. That doesn’t need to be the case. Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still and if I need to work that hard, I must be doing something wrong.
Still, I wonder if you would tell a person why they shold be baptized as Peter or Ananias did. or jsut tell them that they ‘should’ be? Is it a command like with Cornelius or a suggestion for when it is convenient?
I not trying to judge your position but understand it better. As well as the nuances of the scripture from your point of view? If the person you teach were not told about baptism but did believe and you just didn’t mention it, would they be saved?
Enterprise,
The command is to me by association. My job is preach the gospel, make disciples and baptize them. The burden is on me to see that this who believe the message are baptized. In the same way John’s baptism was not the cause of repentance, neither is believer’s baptism the cause of repentance and faith. John baptized those who had repented and we baptize those who have repented and put their trust in Jesus. In both cases the act of submitting to immersion in water is a like figure, or reenactment, of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and the one being baptized is identifying with Jesus and his people just Jesus was identifying with those who had repented.
Enterprise,
Let me state my position in a more concise way.
I don’t believe God needs anything more to justify an ungodly sinner than what Christ has already done. He declares wicked sinners righteous based wholly upon the worth and work of Jesus and not upon our goodness.
Every act of man is in response to God’s gracious acts of reconciling sinners to himself. He gives, we receive. In every place “obedience”, “obey”, etc. is mentioned in the New Testament it always refers to belief. And, to not obey is always unbelief. Just take the time with a concordance or go to http://biblegateway.com and check for yourself.
Enterprise,
I would be cautious in arguing that Peter “commanded” Cornelius to be baptized. The translators are less than certain the command was to Cornelius —
(Act 10:48 NET) So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days.
(Act 10:48 NIV) So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
The Greek is actually ambiguous as to whether he ordered that they be baptized or that they submit to baptism. Given that Peter brought with him a group of Jewish brothers, it’s entirely possible that Peter, following the example of Jesus (as Paul did as well), preferred not to baptize converts personally. Indeed, it’s more likely that he’d have to “command” the Jewish Christians with him to administer baptism than to command Cornelius, as the Jewish brothers were likely much more reluctant to administer baptism than Cornelius would have been to submit to baptism!
F. F. Bruce paraphrases in the New Int’l Commentary, “So he commanded that these new believers should be baptized …”
This verse has frequently cited for the proposition that baptism is “commanded” and thus a failure to be baptized is a sin. But the text is ambiguous, and the best scholars disagree on how the language should be translated.
Therefore, I would not build my theology on an uncertain translation. There are, of course, many other verses that deal with baptism.
The question isn’t whether the Bible teaches that converts are to be baptized (obviously, they are, and this passage is one of many so teaching). Rather, the question is how to reconcile the many, many verses that insist that all with a genuine faith in Jesus are saved with the baptism verses in a world where many are taught that “baptize” includes infant baptism, baptism by sprinkling, and baptism to obey shortly following salvation.
Don’t mistake what I’m saying for an argument that we shouldn’t baptize those we convert or that we shouldn’t teach baptism by immersion of believers for the remission of sins. I believe in those things. I just think the scriptures are clear that someone whose baptism is somehow flawed out of ignorance will nonetheless be saved. And that being the case, we have no choice but to treat “the denominations” as brothers in Christ or else be guilty of dividing the body.
Jay wrote:
“Don’t mistake what I’m saying for an argument that we shouldn’t baptize those we convert or that we shouldn’t teach baptism by immersion of believers for the remission of sins.”
Jay, what is it that you believe? Do you believe that penitent sinners are converted and THEN are baptized? Or, do you believe that they are converted WHEN they are baptized?
Your statement makes it seem as though you now believe that we Baptize sinners AFTER they are converted. Which, if true, you have changed your opinion?
Do you believe that penitent sinners are saved upon believing in Jesus AND THEN ARE BAPTIZED after being added to the church???
You seem to be changing your beliefs and I am just curious as to what you believe tonight.
If you now believe that sinners are “converted” and then are baptized…. when did you switch?
What do you believe the purpose of baptism to be?
Hank,
Readers keep trying to force me to adopt either Baptist or 20th Century Church of Christ orthodoxy when it comes to baptism, as though those are the only two possible positions. My view is that the traditional Church of Christ is correct EXCEPT that it fails to acknowledge that God will accept imperfect baptisms (except, of course, if the imperfection is the product of a rebellious or impenitent heart — a very rare thing).
God requires faith in Jesus — but not perfect faith.
God require penitence — but not perfect penitence.
God requires baptism — but not perfect baptism.
Morever, the scriptures are plain — indeed, they scream — that the baptism that truly matters is baptism of the Spirit. A theology that denies a personal indwelling cannot hope to understand baptism.
Baptism of the Spirit is an absolute necessity. It ordinarily occurs concurrently with water baptism, but Acts plainly and repeatedly teaches that God does not have to operate this way. And the entirety of the scriptures — from Genesis to Revelation — teach that righteousness is imputed to all those with faith in Jesus.
A person with faith will obey as well as he knows how to obey. The person converting someone to Jesus should teach the scriptural doctrine of baptism, but if he does not, the fault is his. The new convert will not be held to the standard that teachers are held to. They certainly won’t be required to know the Greek meaning of baptizo and eis.
The essence of Christianity is not baptism. It is faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The scriptures repeatedly promise that all with faith will be saved, and I believe it. But I do not therefore annul baptism. The baptism verses are there, too. And so I teach baptism. I just don’t teach a view of baptism that divides those with a penitent faith in Jesus from one another. The command to baptize is given to the evangelists and the church. And so we must do exactly that.
But those who are improperly baptized will be saved — by grace — because of their faith in Jesus. Baptism is not a work. It’s a gift from God, given through evangelists and the church. And if we give it wrongly, God’s displeasure will rest on us, not an infant in Christ.
If a midwife or doctor doesn’t handle a birth properly, the baby is nonetheless born.
I am wondering how many readers that were baptized more than 20 years ago believe their understanding of baptism is as mature then as it is today; or if perhaps they might have a different and possibly better understanding now than then.
As an aside, I believe Alexander Campbell frequently had members of other denominations fill the pulpit in his absence and also had them write for his periodicals – and not for the purpose of arguing with them.
Some of this CoC stuff has become downright sad. Don’t we realize that we are train wrecks saved by grace?
Hesed,
Randall
Jay is precisely correct.
Peter’s testimony was that he and the other disciples received the Spirit (Spirit baptism to which he referred) “when we believed” just like the house of Cornelius.
Water baptism is sort of like a wedding. A man and a women whose hearts are already joined in love and devotion to one another have a wedding ceremony to formally acknowledge the relationship they already have. Here in America we don’t consider someone married until there is a proper license and a ceremony. But, in many cultures it might only be a dance, a feast, and the groom takes the bride to his tent to consummate the marriage.
If I have a party for my wife’s birthday did the party cause the birthday? Or does it celebrate it? Did John’s baptism cause repentance? Or did it acknowledge it and make it public?
There is something called “the weight of Scripture” employed by Bible scholars. Jay made a powerful case with the weight of many, many verses of Scripture showing that salvation is by faith. Those verses, everyone, are true and can be trusted. Someone’s view of baptism does not make them null and void.
“The command to baptize is given to the evangelists and the church.” – Jay
Sure. However, the command “TO BE BAPTIZED” is given to lost sinners! (As if a lost sinner will be able to go to heaven by saying, “the evangelists and the church said I didn’t HAVE to be baptized”
“God requires baptism — but not perfect baptism.” – Jay
By “not perfect baptism”, do you mean – sprinkled, poured, and not baptized at all?? What exactly do you mean by “not perfect baptism”?
BTW, what do you have to say regarding the fact that Campbell remained “connected” to the baptists and Pedobaptists for the express purpose of “CENSURING” what was amiss in their belifs and practices?
I see you have chosen to ignore that….
@ Royce and Jay
Rather, the question is how to reconcile the many, many verses that insist that all with a genuine faith in Jesus are saved with the baptism verses
You are like Chemists trying to analyze (e.g.) the substance of water:
You, Royce, say (in I my substitute): Hydrogen is one element of water …
And you Jay ask: How can we reconcile the many texts that speak of oxygen with the others that have hydrogen?
In either case you seem to follow the theory that you can have water with only one of the two elements.
You just cannot take the verses where only faith is mentioned and use them as examples for salvation without baptism or other works of obedience. This simply does not work and fit the context ofthe immediate paragraphs you find them or the narrative in total.
Yes, we live in a strange world:
But isn’t that the result of separating hydrogen from oxygen?
Infant baptism separated faith from the act of baptism.
Baptism by sprinkling changed the outward mode and symbolic.
Baptism as a step of obedience after one was saved by faith also separates repentance/conversion from baptism.
These are all theologies that tear apart, that are misundetrstandings and distortions. Yes, it is a dilemma. But how shall we deal with it? Certainly not by painting them all white. While we have to distiguish between misled individuals and a misleading theology, we must be firm on both sides:
Misled individuals should be brought back on the right track.
Misleading theology should be done away with completely: We must oppose it and expose it as what it is.
And isn’t it that what we find in Campbell’s letter?
Alexander
Alexander,
If one follows believes your high view of baptism (as a sacrament, but only if fully immersed, and I guess saying the right words) then only the churches of Christ are saved plus very few others who hold the same view of baptism as the split second of salvation.
But wait. How did the church carry on for centuries until some Presbyterians/Baptists started the Restoration Movement and then others decided that church of Christ people were the only ones saved?
Oh, and which of us are saved? Every person I have ever read or heard who condemns other coc people for music he doesn’t approve, the way communion is done, or missing the Sunday night service, and dozens of other things, every one of them agree with your narrow view of the importance of baptism. Who then is saved?
Are you sure you want to claim that those brave souls who are dying by torture rather than deny Jesus are lost? Their only crime is that they follow Jesus, and love and serve others in His name. I could list dozens of great men and women of God who according to you and others who were only ungodly sinners even though they lived and worked for Jesus for many years.
The way the Bible says we can know someone is saved and your criteria are polar opposites. Read 1st John for example. In my humble view anyone who thinks God is waiting for one bit of obedience before he can be just in making them righteous is mistaken. The bottom line is you and those who share your sectarian view do not really believe the worth and work of Jesus was quite enough. What an insult to a gracious God who without my help or yours fully reconciled sinners to himself in the doing and dying of Jesus.
Royce proclaims:
“In my humble view anyone who thinks God is waiting for one bit of obedience before he can be just in making them righteous is mistaken.”
Which means, he believes that God saves people before and without requiring “one bit of obedience”. Which, if consistent, means he believes that every person in the world is saved.
Think about it. If the work of Christ was so powerful that it makes sinners righeous WITHOUT ONE BIT OF OBEDIENCE (which, of course, means not needing to obey one thing), then nobody could be lost.
Now, I don’t suspect that that is what you really believe Royce. But it is what you are saying….
“In my humble view anyone who thinks God is waiting for one bit of obedience before he can be just in making them righteous is mistaken. ”
Royce, I take it you think the following is just scare tactics, what else could it be if what you say is true.?
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Royce said
“The bottom line is you and those who share your sectarian view do not really believe the worth and work of Jesus was quite enough. What an insult to a gracious God who without my help or yours fully reconciled sinners to himself in the doing and dying of Jesus.”
Royce:
I agree with you on the Great Commission. It is by association. Although a more precise way to see it would be that since they were to teach their followers to observe whatever commands Jesus gave, it is also a command to me through the apostles perhaps indirect but it still stands.
I further agree that baptism is neither the cause of repentance nor faith. It has to be a submission and I agree that as Paul said in Romans 6, it is the reenactment of the DBR of Jesus. In being a reenactment though, does not mean that it is not needed?
However, let me ask please, How do you do it because, I just do not know how to separate our baptism into Jesus from our salvation?
As quoted above from your recent post, I likely have a sectarian view but for the moment, it is the only one I know. Now, these questions may seem argumentative but if I accept that the worth and work of Jesus was enough then what is it that I am accepting?
Enough to save me? Yes. Without a response on my part? Well, I suppose that is the question. Did the blood of our Savior and God’s son do everything that needed to be done to save me without any obedience on my part? without any work at all? Is there no demarcation point needed? If a demarcation point is needed, where is it. At faith? At repentance? At baptism?
I appreciated your trying to make things more concise for me in a previous post and the quote above is from one you gave to Alexander. However, it seems that if the above quote were so, then nothing is needed on our part, even belief. In such a case, those who do good (and I know a few who have no interest in Jesus) are saved? I am not trying to push you into that corner, just to understand.
I really do not have an interest in promoting sectarian theology and have wondered why it is that congregations split over carpet choice and still think that they are doing God’s will. As a minister of the Gospel, my whole hearted desire is to serve God and get others to do the same. One cannot accept willy nilly every so called truth nor can you reject everything simply because ‘we haven’t done it that way’. It must be done according to Acts 17:11 and I peter 4:11.
anyway, more questions, I am afraid….
Jay:
I had not heard about an alternate rendering to Acts 10 as Peter commands baptism. Perhaps you are correct, but I think as you mentioned, other passages speak well to the subject and indeed, even in this passage…there seems to be a need to have baptism done. Command to Cornelius or command to the Jews with him? Either way, I don’t think Cornelius could of refused.
But…I am interested in your thought on imperfect baptism. I have seen a couple posts mention it but if we have the corect/same definition of baptism as “immersion” then what is an imperfect one?
Jay,
With all due respect, your views are nothing “very similar to Campbell’s…”
Progressives who seek to promote a wider view of Christian fellowship with those who not only are clearly in doctrinal error and practice, but also those who aren’t even New Testament Christians by faith,repentance and baptism often appeal to Alexander Campbell’s Lunenburg Letter.
I offer some articles as a counterpoint.
1. Alan Highers, wrote and spoke at The Freed-Hardeman University 2006 Lectures on Baptism and The Restoration and addressed the Lunenburg Letter.
http://www.therestorationmovement.com/highers01.htm
“Campbell’s reply sent shock waves among his readers and supporters. Many were disappointed in his answer and felt it was inconsistent with what he had taught in the Christian Baptist and elsewhere. Some have endeavored to capitalize on Campbell’s statement, however, and to minimize the importance of baptism. Even Campbell realized that he had gone too far in his answer and, in subsequent articles in the Millennial Harbinger, he endeavored to extricate himself from the dilemma. Most of those who quote the Lunenburg letter refer only to Campbell’s first article on the subject because it says what they want to hear. To be fair to Campbell, however, one must take note of what he said on the subject in two subsequent articles.”
In November 1837, Campbell’s second article appeared. By way of clarification, he stated:
“Can a person who simply, not perversely, mistakes the outward baptism, have the inward? We all agree that he who willfully or negligently perverts the outward, cannot have the inward. But can he who, through a simple mistake, involving no perversity of mind, has misapprehended the outward baptism, yet submitting to it according to his view of it, have the inward baptism which changes his state and has praise of God, though not of all men? is the precise question. To which I answer, that, in my opinion, it is possible. Farther than this, I do not affirm. (507)
Highers notes:
“There can be no doubt that Campbell was striving to limit the answer which he gave in the first article. First, he applies his reasoning only to those who mistakenly misapprehend the nature of scriptural baptism. He makes clear that he does not intend for his language to apply to those who “willfully or negligently” pervert Bible teaching on baptism. This clarification almost immediately rules out most denominational preachers and debaters (the very ones that modern users of the Lunenburg letter seem most anxious to include). Second, Campbell notes that his thesis is a mere possibility. More than this, he says he will not affirm. Far from affirming a universal principle or statement of broad application, Campbell carefully restricted the application of his earlier remarks so that they would be relevant in but few cases. Third, and perhaps most importantly, Campbell characterized his remarks as “my opinion.” He does not cite scripture or authority for his view, nor does he say it is taught in the Bible. No doubt he struggled, as all do, with anxiety over the fate of those who have not obeyed the gospel, and he ventured an “opinion” as to what might be “possible” with reference to the unimmersed.
Highers continues,
“Campbell set forth yet a third article in December 1837. It seems apparent that he had been subjected to an avalanche of criticism from brethren. In the December article he acknowledged that his article had “given some pain to our brethren, and some pleasure to our sectarian friends.” Therefore, he undertook even greater clarification of his initial article. He wrote:
“We shall now attempt to defend this opinion from the sectarian application of it . . . . It affords them too much joy for the consolation it brings, because it imparts no certainty of pardon or salvation to any particular unbaptized person whatsoever. . . . In no case, indeed, can there be the same certainty (all things else being equal) that he who was sprinkled, poured, or immersed on some other person’s faith, or that he who was sprinkled or poured on his own faith, shall be saved, as there is that he that first believes and is then, on his own confession, immersed, shall be saved. In the former case, at best, we have only the fallible inference or opinion of man; while in the latter we have the sure and unerring promise of our Saviour and Judge. . . . (“any” 563).
Campbell continues:
“Now, in our judgment, there is not on earth a person who can have as full an assurance of justification or of remission of sins, as the person who has believed, confessed his faith, and been intelligently buried and raised with the Lord. (564)
One wonders why the modern-day purveyors of the Lunenburg letter never get around to quoting this language? Some seem to forget that Alexander Campbell wrote three articles on the Lunenburg letter, and one has not been fair or honest with Campbell to quote from only one-third of what he said on the same subject.
By the time Campbell wrote his third article, he had made his position clear. He had explained his
meaning, and he had tempered the overbroad language utilized in his first article.
Higher’s continues further:
“Now, Campbell states,his article gave “no certainty of pardon or salvation to any particular unbaptized person whatsoever.” Unfortunately, some current users of the Lunenburg letter are employing it to convey the very idea Campbell said it did not convey. Shall we let Campbell speak for himself or not?
Campbell went to great lengths to explain that salvation for the unimmersed was only “the fallible inference and opinion of man,” whereas salvation for one who has repented and been intelligently baptized is grounded in the “sure and unerring promise” of the Lord. It must be emphasized that Alexander Campbell is not our authority, nor is any other fallible man. But he should not be misrepresented. If one is going to quote Campbell, he should quote him as fully and accurately as necessary to be fair and respectful of his views.” (http://www.therestorationmovement.com/highers01.htm)
2. Glenn Paden, wrote many years back in an article one time in Restoration Quarterly, entitled, The Lunenburg Letter – An Incident in the History of the Interpretation of Baptism as follows:
“It was the work of the reformer Alexander Campbell which gave widespread acceptance to the position that New Testament baptism is adult baptism of a penitent believer for the remission of sins. The Campbell’s at first did not envision a new religious fellowship as a result of their work. They were forced to become an independent group when their plea for a united church upon the pattern of New Testament teaching was rejected. In time they came to believe that the willful adherence to denominational organizations and human creeds in the face of a plea for a return to the simple New Testament church constituted grounds for regarding these denominations as sects and as being in rebellion against God’s way. They began with the idea of Christians in all churches but came to see that many rejected the plain teaching of the Bible as to what constituted a Christian. The discussion of “Christians in the sects” was an important discussion in the history of the Restoration movement. The Lunenburg Letter helps us to understand what the younger Campbell believed about this question.)” Restoration Quarterly Vol. 2 No. 1 (1958): 13-18
Paden continues: “One last quotation shows the real attitude that Campbell had”
“But the question is, are we authorized to make the sincerity and honesty of a person’s mind a rule of our conduct? ‘Tis God alone who is judge of this, and surely he would not require us to act by a rule which we can never apply to the case. Neither, perhaps, is it a fair position to assume that any man’s sincerity in opinion or belief will have any weight in the final judgment; but whether or not, it cannot be a rule of our proceeding in any case. We judge from actions—God judges the heart; and, therefore, we look for visible obedience; and when we are assured that the Lord has commanded every man to confess him, or to profess the faith and be immersed into his name, we can never justify ourselves before God or man in presuming hi our judgment of charity to set aside his commandment, and in accepting for it a human substitute. (24 Campbell, Millennial Harbinger, Vol. II, p. 393.)
Paden concludes:
“Surely Campbell’s idea that if one had never had opportunity to hear the truth or study the Bible, but had done all that he knew of right and wrong and all he knew to do to be a Christian, he might be considered a Christian in an imperfect sense and the Lord might save him is of little comfort to those who set aside the plain teaching of the New Testament when they have learned it. Campbell’s insistence that those in error come out of denominationalism is decisive as is his plain teaching that baptism for remission of sins is a part of the New Testament pattern.”
Jay, this won’t be a shock, but just as progressives and conservatives don’t read and understand the Scripture the same, neither do we on the restoration history, which many of us believe is being “twisted and distorted” just as the rest of the scriptures are by some to fit their views and understandings.
Robert Prater
Robert, thanks for the full understanding of AC’s view of baptism, realizing he is just a fallable man. Campbell was very driven by the idea that since establishment, the church never ceased to exist. For that to be possible with imperfect baptism practiced over the centuries, no access to the Scriptures by common man, and most people illiterate, some allowance would have to be made. God did not strike David dead for eating the showbread, or punish repentant wicked kings, etc God is consistant judging the heart, while we are commanded (end of sermon on the mount) to judge by the fruits, i.e. works.
We cannot read the heart like God can, but a correct heart produces good works just like a good tree has good fruit. We are asked to judge by a followup standard because we cannot judge the heart. I’m not sure that the church has existed in every age like AC, but God has judged by a standard we cannot use.
Now to apply this to baptism. Should a repentant beleiver be immersed? Yes, that’s the good fruit. Could a person misunderstand this and produce conversions (or fruit of the Spirit)? Seems so, which is the imperfect years of AC’s continual church.
We are God’s ambassadors, and must tell others what He wants, not what He might accept. Our job is simple; teach belief, repentance and immersion. Any other is a poor ambassador. Now when God judges He can use His perfect reading of the heart. He is in charge, we are only the trusted servants.
Royce had a good point that baptism is like a wedding, where loved is confessed (vows) and demonstrated (the kiss) before others, just like baptism is our reinactment of the DBR. It’s so ingrained to have a wedding ceremony that even if youj just get a marriage license, almost all want a civil ceremony as a condensed wedding.
It’s hard to beat Alexander on AC! (A pair of good Alexanders is powerful.) His comment near the begininng of this, is real important. To paraphrse ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’ is our attitude to the imperfect. That’s good for imperfect faith, repentance, baptism, or even obedience.
Alexander of Vienna, explains AC further to remind us to not accept sects or demominations, often based on imperfect teaching. More or less ‘love the demominated person, hate the imperfect teaching’. I think that sums both Alexanders.
The question that is being raised is this one. Why did Jesus die? Did He die to save sinners? Or, did He die to help sinners save themselves? Does He save people 98% and then they do the other 2%?
In the economy of God’s justice one tiny infraction makes a person guilty of the whole of God’s law. It is such an unapproachable thing to keep God’s law in a way that pleases Him. And especially after Jesus raised the stakes. Lust in the heart equals adultery, hating a brother makes you guilty of murder, etc. No living being could perfectly keep God’s law (Jesus excluded). The result is that every person (except Jesus) is guilty before God.
Jesus’ perfect life fulfilled the law completely. He gave the Father what we could never give Him, He was perfectly obedient. And, He did it for our benefit. He died the death of a guilty sinner and took the punishment of the law that you and I deserved. Then He defeated death by rising from the grave as promised. All of this he did as our representative. Just as Adam represented us in our sinfulness and death, Jesus represented us in righteousness and life.
I will never commit a sin that Jesus didn’t die for. God has already meted out punishment for all my sins, past, present, and future, and yours. Jesus paid it all!
Not one person comes to God about the matter of salvation with his or her own merit. We have nothing to offer. in our lost condition we were dead in our sins, children of disobedience, living according to the lusts of the flesh, and our hearts were only evil continually. In fact we were God’s enemies and the wrath of God was headed in our direction.
Because of the work and worth of Jesus God can now justify a filthy sinner and declare Him righteous and not compromise His holiness or His justice. He justifies based upon the righteousness of Jesus and upon His faithfulness. One of the reasons God justifies sinners by faith is so boasting can be excluded. You see, no person who is finally saved and where God is in eternity can claim any part of his own salvation. He can only boast in Jesus and His holy work on his behalf.
This is what the good news is! God has done all that needs to be done and makes a gracious offer. “Whosoever will let him come”. Those who take God at His word are justified and made righteousness. God at once indwells them, writes His law on their hearts. and their very nature is to please Him.
Obedience is what God produces in us. God designed and destined us for good works. He is at work in us both to will, and to do His good pleasure. Any good that matters is God’s good.
Paul chided the Galatian Christians asking them, ” Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Galatians 3:2,3 It’s a question maybe we should answer too.
And, earlier Paul said to them “yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
17But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. Galatians 2:16-21
God still justifies sinners who believe the record of the good news about Jesus. Those sinners who have instantly been made saints will want to please God in everything they know to do. They will start off like babies, being fed spiritual milk and as they progress they can move on to meat. Not one of them will be in heaven by human effort, they will only be there because of the obedience of Jesus.
To obey the gospel is to believe it. To disobey it is to refuse to believe it. Every good act of one who puts his trust in Jesus are evidences of salvation, not the basis of it.
I am trying to make the case that Jesus is enough! Put your whole trust in Him and then do everything you know to that will please Him. If your assurance rests upon the church you attend, or upon baptism, or a host of other things, at best your security in Christ will always be tenuous. Your assurance should be in the faithfulness of Jesus and his great and precious promises and nothing more.
In local gatherings of believers there are believers and make believers. There is tares among the wheat. And there are wolves in sheep’s clothing deceiving many. Only those who are right now trusting Christ alone are safe. Everyone else is a target for the wrath of God that is as sure as God’s promise.
If trusting Christ alone makes me a heretic I will proudly wear the name.. I was helpless and hopeless, headed for perishing in my sinful condition and He sent a messenger who taught me the good news about Jesus and His love. I believed the record, I repented the best I knew how, I was baptized and joined with a group of believers to work and worship in His name. Now over 51 years later I am still following and loving Jesus and telling others about Him. I might be wrong on a host of issues. Some of you know the Bible far better than I. But I’m right about Jesus! And I am fully convinced that He and He alone is the remedy for sin and death.
This is like a poke in the eye to those who insist on pulling themselves out of the pit by their own boot straps. It is not comforting to admit that you are worthless and can’t do anything on your own to appease God’s wrath against sin. But, the truth is, God only accepts the once for all time, once for all people, offering of Jesus who by himself has purged sinners from their sins.
Here is eternal life, full and free, take it by faith, His name is Jesus Christ. Or, go your own way, trust your rites and rituals and personal goodness and you will die in the end with no hope.
Jay,
I also think it’s always helpful to keep in mind when asking questions like: “What was Alexander Campbell’s position on such and such a subject,” it may be necessary to reply “To what time in his life are you referring?:)lol!”
As is true with us all, his views on several subjects underwent revision and sometimes reversal in light of a further understanding and knowledge of the revelation of God’s Word.
But the fact remains……in The “Lunenburg Letter,” Campbell stated that he had expressed an opinion that those who loved Christ, but who through “insuperable ignorance, involuntary mistake, or defective knowledge” had neglected one of Christ’s commands “might be considered Christians.”
The words of Campbell in his reply to the Lunenburg letter are most frequently being appealed to by those who want his justification for the position that the unimmersed may be freely admitted into the full fellowship of the church.
There is simply no vindication for this position in the answer to the Lunenburg letter or in ensuing discussions in the Millennial Harbinger. It is interesting in this connection that very few of those who advocate such a position of accepting the unimmersed include in his discussion of Campbell’s position on the unimmersed, rarely look carefully at his views in The Christian System.
Here, in this work, the second edition of which was published in 1839–two years after “Lunenburg”–Campbell devotes sixty-five pages to a chapter entitled, “Remission of Sins.” In this chapter he considers possible objections to his argument connecting baptism with the remission of sins. One of the anticipated objections is, “But do not many of them (i.e., those who have not been immersed) enjoy the present salvation of God?”
Campbell replies,
“How far they may be happy in the peace of God, and the hope of heaven, I presume not to say. (There are those who think that this should have been his reply to the Lunenburg letter-rp!) And we know so much of human nature as to say, that he that imagines himself pardoned will feel as happy as he that is really so. But one thing we do know, that none can rationally and with certainty enjoy the peace of God and the hope of heaven, but they who intelligently and in full faith are born of water, or immersed for the remission of sins.” (Alexander Campbell, The Christian System, p. 204)
Friends, a clearer statement of Campbell’s position on this question cannot be found. If one, familiar with this statement, persists in argument that Campbell gave license for unbaptized persons to be united in fellowship with those in the body of Christ….the ones promised forgiveness through faith, repentance and baptism, they are consciously misrepresenting Campbell’s view.
Sincerely,
Robert Prater
Royce,
We all know we can’t boast and that Jesus paid it all. But the Bible still says the Jesus is the author of eternal salvation “to all them that obey him”. What does that mean to you?
And what was Peter saying when he (by inspiration) said, “Acts 2:40 ESV
And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”?
Save yourselves?
And was the work of Christ enough to save sinners who believe and trust Christ without repenting?
Peter charged lost sinner to “repent and be baptized” and then followed that up with a plea for the same to “save themselves.” Does not that mean that by repenting and being baptized, they would (in whatever sense Peter meant it), “save themselves”?
Why did Peter say such a thing?
Royce,
I totally agree with the gist of what you’re saying, and K.C. Moser would loudly applaud “Amen!!” But I’m not sure everyone will agree with everything.
The part where you said,
“Every good act of one who puts his trust in Jesus are evidences of salvation, not the basis of it.”
I would have worded it as “evidence of accepting salvation by faith.” That’s because not everyone agrees on when salvation is said to be complete. Some think it is when a person with obstinate unbelief turns back to God by faith…e.g. “Sinner’s Prayer.” Others will say that it is not until all the requirements of receiving the gospel are met.
Those conditions are not just “rites and rituals” but instead they are commanded by Christ Himself. Therefore, faith, repentance, confession, baptism, and living by faith until reunited with Christ at death…these things are not negotiable on the part of a sinner. But as you have eluded…faith in Christ is everything. Not one act or rite or ritual can be complete unless it is an expression of heart cleansing faith.
Hank,
As I’ve said to others here, I will not tolerate personal attacks here, especially including intimations that I or anyone else here is being less than honest. Please try to find kinder ways to express your disagreements.
(2Ti 2:24-25 ESV) 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
Hank,
When you quote from some other source, please provide the citation. You have forced me to dig out the quote from Campbell you offer in order to find out the context.
Readers,
The full quote to which Hank refers is from “Reply to “T.T.” in The Christian Baptist, vol. III, no. 7 (February 6, 1826), available in full text at http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tcb/TCB307.HTM. It’s also available at p 216 of http://books.google.com/books?id=WhkRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=I+and+the+church+with+which+I+am+connected+are+in+%E2%80%98full+communion%E2%80%99+with+the+Mahoning+Baptist+Association+of+Ohio;+and+through+them+with+the+whole+Baptist+society+in+the+United+States;+and+I+do+intend+to+continue+in+connection+with+this+people+so+long+as+they+will+permit+me+to+say+what+I+believe,+to+teach+what+I+am+assured+of,+and+to+censure+what+is+amiss+in+their+views+and+practices&source=bl&ots=YDz3Y1wp77&sig=zTblZYggakFX6ZDy8a-ZXkS5_Lo&hl=en&ei=UnddTr7sA8yBtgearLThAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
I’ll respond to Hank’s comment shortly.
Hank quoted Alexander Campbell’s statement,
He interprets this to mean —
The issue here is whether we should consider other denominations as fellow Christians, not whether we should agree with them on all point. Quite obviously, Campbell not only considered them fellow Christians, he participated in a Baptist association! He disagreed with them on some important matters, but he did not allow those disagreements to create a barrier to fellowship. Amen.
Campbell said in the same article —
Did Campbell wish to censure the Baptists and Paido-Baptists (infant baptizers)? Absolutely. Why? “I labor to see sectarianism abolished, and all Christians of every name united upon the one foundation on which the apostolic church was founded.” What is this “foundation”? Surely, he is referring to —
[Compare Campbell’s later statement, “The Saviour expressly declared to Peter, that upon this fact that he was the Messiah, the Son of God, he would build his church; and Paul has expressly declared, that “other foundation can no man lay (for ecclesiastical union) than that Jesus is the Christ.” found at http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tcb/TCB109.HTM#Essay4%5D
In short, in very typical fashion, Campbell was asserting that (a) he does not desire to create a new sect; (b) therefore he associated with the Baptists so that there’d be no new sect; (c) but he insisted that the Baptists allow him to freely express his views; and (d) he intended to “censure” the Baptists in hopes of ridding them of their sectarianism, as they insisted on binding their creed as a term of fellowship rather than the simplicity of the only foundation for unity there can be: faith in Jesus.
Sounds right to me.
Ironically, the roles are reversed today, as the Baptists rejected creedalism around 1900 and we adopted it around the same time.
Robert wrote,
As I recently posted, I do not tolerate accusations of intentional deceit, no matter how worded.
Robert,
In the same essay found in the Christian System, Campbell writes,
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tcs2/TCS231.HTM#Sec13
And this is entirely in accord with my posts here.
Robert,
I responded regarding Campbell’s writings in The Christian System at /2011/08/what-must-the-church-of-christ-do-to-be-saved-the-baptism-question-part-4-the-lunenburg-letter/#comment-141165
Your quotation from 24 A. Campbell, Millennial Harbinger, Vol. II, p. 393 is from 1831 and predates the Lunenburg lettter by 6 years.
Campbell concluded the Lunenburg correspondence saying,
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/LUNEN.htm
It is not necessary to quote others’ paraphrasing of Campbell when he so ably speaks for himself. I provide the links to encourage the readers to read the full text for themselves.
With all due respect for Brs. Highers and Paden, we are fortunate that Campbell’s writings are themselves available on the internet for all to read. The
Enterprise,
I appreciate your spirit and questions, but I’ve covered those same questions several times here recently (and my fingers are tiring). If you’ve not already done so, please read the preceding posts in this series, especially the posts on baptism.
I am constantly reminded of a few of Jesus’ most powerful sayings; “you will know them for their love for one another”, and “you will know them by their fruits”. “A new commandment I give you that you love one another, Just as I have loved you”, and of course the much quoted, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many WORKS in your name?’ and then will I declare to them, I NEVER KNEW YOU; Depart from me, you WORKERS of lawlessness.”
I am a recovered alcoholic who was raised in the coc. I was taught the God’s part man’s part theology and believed it. I was baptized at the age of 20 because I didn’t want to go to hell, and was confused when my “sin problem” didn’t disappear. I tried so hard to be “a good person”, but have the unfortunate quality of being painfully aware of my flaws. I tried studying my bible, going to church and all the acts I was told would make me better; it didn’t work and I became an alcoholic. By the grace of God I found myself in AA where I was told I needed to believe in a Higher Power that was able to do for me what I could not do for myself, namely, remove my addiction. All I had to do was ask and believe. This from people outside the coc. I began my path of recovery with a new found faith in a God that loved me where I was and didn’t expect perfection, or good works, to earn His grace (an oxymoron). I will never forget the moment I prayed to God sincerely and tearfully for Him to rescue me, and He did. I realized that my understanding of God had been flawed and that maybe those in the coc could be wrong (gasp). I had to take a real leap of faith and let go of my preconceived notions of God, which is difficult for someone who is told only people in the coc are truly saved. I picked up my bible and began reading it with fresh eyes and what I discovered was amazing. I discovered a God that loves so much that He was willing to come to this earth as a man himself, live a perfect life of love, then die for me while saying, “forgive them for they know not what they do.” I discovered that the Spirit of God is essential to a transformed life (I was amazed at how plainly HS was described in scripture). God began working miracles in my life, the most important one being my recovery. Love and Joy and Peace came into my life. It wasn’t until 3yrs into my sobriety when I stumbled upon 1 John 3, ” Every one who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness…no one who abides in Him keeps on sinning…” The legalistic view that physical immersion was my ticket to Heaven was destroyed. What God wanted was my heart. I had not believed in the perfect saving power of Jesus when I had been baptized so I was never in a real relationship with him. getting wet is just getting wet if it is not accompanied with the understanding that only the death burial and resurrection of Jesus will save. That day I was baptized into the Lord. But what about the previous 3 years? I cannot say it was me transforming myself, I had tried that to no avail. I know God was working in my life. Is there a line in the sand of my salvation? I think that is a very human concept. God knew my heart the moment I turned to Him in prayer. He knew My heart and motive was to trust Him with my life. God doesn’t work in our time/space continuum. Was Paul saved that day on the road to Damascus or the moment his nose broke the
water? The truth is, who cares? I’m pretty confident He is with the Lord right now and I am confident I will join him one day. What is so sad to me is people thinking things like clapping or the use of instruments as serious topics that need proper bible study when there are people dying and in desperate need of Jesus to save them. I can only imagine Jesus looking down on all this foolishness with tears in his eyes. I hate to sound cliche, but where is the love? where is the mark of our discipleship? Who will He really be saying “never knew Him”? How self indulgent to think perfect understanding is needed for salvation? Like others have pointed out-if that was the case there is very few people-if any- in heaven. I can safely say we are probably all wrong on our understanding of something. One more thing; Campbell-who I admire-was just a man, and whatever he said or believed is kind-of irrelevant. Thank you, Jay, for your thoughtful and insightful lessons.
@ Royce
Too bad that you did not understand my hydrogen-oxygen analogy (or just skipped over it). Let me pu it differently:
There are promises in the scripture that are almost always tied to conditions. You fight vigorosly aginat those who make the conditions very big and the promises very small. But you do this by going to the other extreme: You make the promises so bright that the conditions become almost invisible.
Is it so hard to give equal weight to both? If you would be willing to do that our debates would be ended.
Alexander
Alexander,
Apparently, you and others here believe a sinner has a legal right to God’s benefits when he is immersed. Is that a fair representation?
I believe salvation is by faith ( blical faith always obeys though not perfectly so) and you believe salvation is by fath and…
Baptism is for disciples and expresses the disciple’s faith. You believe baptism is for lost people and that baptism makes them disciples. Its a big difference.
I give Jesus top billing and based only on your comments here over many months, you give water baptism and human effort top billing.
Maybe I’m wrong about your beliefs. I hope I am.
Jay,
Isn’t being dishonest worse than accusing the same of being dishonest? I will try to find “kinder ways” of pointing out when others are displaying “intimations of being less than honest” but, even the apostle Paul called certain ones “liars” – a term which I have actually refrained from using (Don’t taze me bro)
And, while you do a great job of addressing the questions/accusations of the ones of whom you disagree, isn’t there a rule or something here that says we all have to do likewise? Cause certain people here have seemingly resolved to ask a lot of questions and give a lot of “pokes in the eyes”, without feeling any real need to actually listen to and answer the questions asked of them.
As far as I know, I have responed to every question asked of me here. And it just gets frusterating to know that others feel no such obligation.
Royce,
I applaud your faith in Christ, and the belief that Christ paid it all. I agree that all a person can bring to the foot of the cross is their penitent faith. But where I have a problem is you say things as if they were explained in the bible the way you state them, but I cannot find them mentioned in my bible anywhere.
You said,
“Baptism is for disciples and expresses the disciple’s faith. You believe baptism is for lost people and that baptism makes them disciples. Its a big difference. .”
I agree that baptism is an expression of faith, but the second part I do not agree with.
If baptism is not for lost people then why was Saul instructed to “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16 – ESV)
Now let’s consider some facts about Paul’s conversion:
1.) Acts 9:9 states that (Saul) was without sight for three days, and he ate and drank nothing.
Question:
After his encounter with the Lord on the road to Damascus and during the time he was blind and not eating or drinking, do you think Saul prayed to God? If yes, do you think he might have prayed something similar to a “sinner’s prayer?” Did he ask for forgiveness for the persecutions he waged against the early church?
If praying to God while in a lost state leads to immediate salvation and the other “rites and rituals” are not necessary then why was Saul asked to “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord?” If he was already forgiven by Christ through praying alone why was Saul said to still be with sins that needed to be washed away “calling on the name of the Lord?”
I do not think of any command of Christ to be optional, and while I agree that it is faith that leads to justification (as Paul wrote in his letter to the church in Rome) it cannot be said that repentance, confession, or baptism is part of some package of extra “rites and rituals” that are optional.
Peter stated in his epistle:
1 Peter 3:18-22 (ESV)
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,
20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”
Was Peter wrong to say these things? Was baptism (which he says “saves you”) just some expression of already being a disciple or for one who is already saved? How can baptism “save you” if you’re already saved through a “sinner’s prayer” or something similar?
I am not attacking you, I just need to be vocal about those who say things as if they are taught in the Scriptures when they are not. I’m sure I’ve said things that are not correct as well, so I pray for grace to allow me to discover the truth if I am wrong about anything.
My only point here is that I believe there is a complete gospel that must be obeyed by faith…and that not one part is more important than another…they are all required by God to take possession of the salvation He freely offers.
Peace!
@Laura – Your sharing of your experience, strength, and hope is encouraging. As a recovering alcoholic/substance abuser with a similar background myself, I was touched by what you had to say. My own experience has been similar to what you stated in many ways.
Something that has proven interesting to me is how many with Church of Christ backgrounds I have run into at various times in recovery group meetings, or elsewhere (such as here for example), whose experiences are similar to ours. There are a bunch of Baptists, et al, in the ranks too. As the AA literature says, we are people who normally would not mix.
I think that in some sense at least we are not merely in recovery from alcoholism, but from a misconception of God that crippled our spiritual growth. I recall that at first I was somewhat put off by the idea of approaching a Higher Power as the God of my understanding. I was well aware that doing so was an admission that my previous understanding had been flawed.
But since I got down on my knees and asked for Him to remove my craving for alcohol (3d step prayer), and since I got up from that prayer having absolutely no desire for a drink for the first time in years, my understanding of how God works in people’s lives has changed tremendously. I am able to relate a spiritual experience that I cannot explain in any other way than divine intervention. And I am able to see a lot of other things from a different perspective.
I still recognize that much of the doctrine that I grew up in is valid. I don’t think the hermeneutic is flawed so badly that it isn’t valuable, but the point of approach needs to be different. I feel that it simply isn’t correct to “put God in a box” to the extent that our tendency has been within conservative Churches of Christ. He wrote the book, and He hasn’t appointed any human as the arbiter of how His writings are to be applied in our lives. The personal freedom to apply the scriptures as he understood them is possibly the one thing above all else that Campbell saw as essential.
The Spirit of God hovered over the waters in the beginning. That same Spirit works within humanity today, individually and collectively, in ways that that I don’t even try to explain anymore. I just know, from personal experience and observation, that this is so. I am aware that some will decry this testimony, even to the point of quibbling with my use of the word testimony. But that is what it is – so be it.
Jay,
I apologize if I gave the impression that you are intentionally teaching to deceive. You have always seemed to be honest and sincerely passionate in all your views and they should be respected as such even though I strongly disagree with much of them and the direction you desire to take churches of Christ.
Yet, surely we all agree, on both sides, whether progressives or conservatives, that when religious teaching is presented as truth even though it cannot be proved by the Bible, deceit is always involved even if the teacher is sincerely in error and doesn’t intentionally seek to mislead. All false teaching is ultimately a lie in that it all originates with Satan, “the father of lies.” (John 8:44; 2 Cor. 11:3, 14; 1 Tim. 4:1)
May God help all of us to strive to become mature in Christ so that we will gain discernment with regards to truth and falsehood.
Now, Jay, specifically regarding Campbell’s view on the unimmersed and whether we should receive them into full fellowship in our congregations.
Jay, I think you are unintentionally (i.e., sincerely in error) misrepresenting the meaning of Campbell’s views and statements in regard to the unimmersed. (Yes, I accept the fact that either I or both of us could be wrong:).
Now Jay, you replied to Hank by saying:
“The issue here is whether we should consider other denominations as fellow Christians, not whether we should agree with them on all point. Quite obviously, Campbell not only considered them fellow Christians, he participated in a Baptist association! He disagreed with them on some important matters, but he did not allow those disagreements to create a barrier to fellowship.”
Jay, I believe you are wrong on several fronts here.
First, nobody doubts and questions the fact that Campbell clearly offered his ‘opinion” that faith in Jesus and the cross and obedience as far as one’s knowledge extended, even if the person had not been immersed, that it was probable God might save such a person.
But it hardly proves that Campbell advocated and preached such as a certain promise from the New Testament and that we should in fact accept such persons into full fellowship in our congregations.
This he did NOT advocate.
As a matter, evidence contrary seems to abound that you are wrong on both accounts of Campbell’s view of the unimmersed including understanding his various “usage” and understandings of how the term “Christian” applied. And also wrong in attempting to use Campbell to justify acceptance of those into the church today that haven’t been Biblically immersed.
Now, it again must be noted that it can be difficult to ascertain some of Campbell’s views in which there appear simultaneous contradictions or shuttle between two extremes. It is clear that Campbell left some vague assertions and demonstrates some varying actions concerning the circle of Christian fellowship.
But, still, even though we may say that God will judge those who have not submitted to the gospel as we understand it, this gives us little help in solving the problem as to what should be our attitude and relation towards them now. Who may be included, and what is the nature of the fellowship, if any, that can be had with believers in Christ who disagree with us on major doctrinal points.
It does seems earlier in the restoration movement that Campbell distinguished between the “near” New Testament churches, and those further from the New Testament position. He spoke repeatedly to the Baptists of their common ground; he reminds them that they believed the same basic gospel facts regarding Jesus and His salvation, and hoped for the same resurrection of the dead. (cf. Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell)
In fact, some restoration scholars point to the year 1831 as a turning point when the break between “the reformers and the Baptists was pretty well effected,” he wrote an article denying that “the Baptist sect had any part in the Scriptural church of Christ.” (cf. D. Ray Lindley, Apostle of Freedom, The Bethany Press, p. 44).
I will offer more in my next comment.
Sincerely,
Robert Prater
Jay
I want to offer the work of the highly regarded John Mark Hicks on better understanding Campbell’s shifting and at times “conflicting” statements.
That if we just take these comments of his in isolation…i.e.,..Jay quotes his best Campbell statements were it seems he supports your views and Robert does the same.
Surely there is a better way to understand Campbell.
In his article, ALEXANDER CAMPBELL ON CHRISTIANS AMONG THE SECTS (http://johnmarkhicks.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=10070)
John Mark Hick’s note after dealing with Campbell’s view of the state of the unimmersed summarizes:
“Campbell’s position on the unimmersed may be summarized in this way: the unimmersed can have no concrete assurance in this life, nor are they to be admitted into the fellowship of church on earth, but it is possible (indeed, probable and to be accepted by Christians) that God will admit some of the unimmersed into glory when he takes into account their opportunities and ignorance. This basic perspective reconciles what sometimes appear to be conflicting statements in Campbell’s writings.”
Hicks continues,
“While Campbell may call some of the unimmersed “Christian”, he does not mean that he extends to them the right hand of fellowship in the church militant. Rather, he only means that, according to God’s gracious accounting of opportunities and ignorance’s, they may inherit heavenly bliss. He calls them “Christian” in deference to their profession of Christianity as will be shown below.”
Did you catch what Hicks noted, “he does not mean that he extends to them the right hand of fellowship in the church….”
Dr. Hicks then makes an important point when discussing the controversial Lunenburg letter:
“When Campbell says that there are Christians among the sects, it is important to understand what he means by the term Christian. In the Lunenburg letter, Campbell explicitly states that there are “Christians among the sects.”Garrison and DeGroot, therefore, argue that in this letter Campbell “insisted that the unimmersed were Christians.” This is linguistically correct (i.e., that is what Campbell said) but simplistic, and even misleading since Campbell used the term in different senses. In fact, later that same year (1837).”
Hicks continues,
“Campbell explained the sense in which he meant the term “Christian.” He used it in the sectarian sense, that is, those who make the “profession wrong, but live right,” so that “I don’t know what he believes, nor how he was baptized, but I know he is a Christian.”He did not, he declares, use the term in the Lunenburg letter in its “strictest biblical import” but “in the case before us I used it in its best modern application.”
Campbell explains himself in this manner:
“Now in this acceptation of the word, I think there are many, in most Protestant parties, whose errors and mistakes I hope the Lord will forgive; and although they should not enter into all blessings of the kingdom of earth, I do fondly expect they may participate in the resurrection of the just.” (cf. Millennial Harbinger, 1837, 8: 566)
Hicks observes:
“Consequently, while Campbell hopes that these sectarian “Christians” will be saved eternally, he cannot offer any scriptural assurance that they will be. The only one who is correctly called a “Christian” in the scriptural, stricter sense is the penitent immersed believer who obeys the institutions of God. The one who professes Christianity, but does not follow the directives of Scripture, may yet (due to either his ignorance or circumstances) receive eternal glory, but he cannot receive the praise of men based on Scripture. According to Campbell only he:
“has the praise of God and man, and of himself as a Christian, who believes, repents, is baptized, and keeps all the ordinances, positive and moral, as delivered to us by the holy Apostles.”
Jay, please carefully note the following what Hicks encourages us to understand:
“As a result, when one affirms that Campbell believed that there were Christians among the sects, it is necessary to define what is meant by the term “Christian.” For while Campbell may admit that there are Christians among the sects in an inferior sense (as defined above), it is also clear that Campbell would not align himself with nor commune with any sect as a whole.”
Hicks notes that in regard to inter-body fellowship, especially as it pertains to the Lunenburg Letter:
“Campbell also makes it clear that the Restoration Movement “cannot form a confederacy with the troops of Satan.” He rejects the Baptists, “as a people,” since they form part of the apostasy. Consequently, they “are not of the kingdom of God.” All sects are part of the apostasy since “all religious sects” have a “human bond of union.”
Hicks concludes,
“Therefore, while there may be individual persons within those sects who may be saved due to their ignorance, perhaps some who are Christians in the sense that they have been scripturally immersed, it is nevertheless the case that sects are sinful and the Restoration Movement cannot unite with them. Sects as a whole are apostate. They do not constituted the visible church of God on earth. Campbell is adamant on this point.”
Now, once again, Hicks makes an important point which those who seek to use Campbell to justify their position and view of accepting and fellowshipping unimmersed into the church must be honest about:
Hicks concludes further:
“It seems clear from these answers that Campbell rejected all fellowship with the sects and even regarded those who remained in the sects (except for ignorance or lack of opportunity) as heading for destruction. Indicative of this attitude is a statement found in the Campbell-Rice Debate where, while acknowledging that English Baptists commune with the unimmersed, he announced that “we have no such custom amongst us.” Campbell excludes the sects as bodies from the kingdom of God earth, and does not offer communion to the unimmersed. There is, therefore, an exclusivisic strain in Campbell’s thinking.”
An “exclusivisic strain in Campbell’s thinking.”
Hicks continues:
“It is, therefore, beyond doubt that Campbell did not commune with the unimmersed. The reason was not that he did not believe that any of them would enter heavenly glory, but the reason was that none of them were members of the Lord’s kingdom on earth. This is an extremely important distinction. Campbell did not, as he saw it, sit as the eternal judge over the unimmersed, but simply acted according to his knowledge of the Scripture. To assign an unimmersed person to heaven or hell was not his prerogative, but he could not, on the basis of Scripture, offer the unimmersed a place in the Lord’s kingdom on earth since they had not obeyed the first principles of the ancient gospel.”
Again, please carefully note how Hicks finally concludes:
“It seems clear to me that Campbell would not side with the progressive’s view that we should both now preach and teach as assured promise doctrine from God that will God save and we should receive into full fellowship those who have not been scripturally immersed into Christ. And that we should openly fellowship and worship with those who either have not been Biblically immersed into Christ or who teach false doctrine contrary to apostolic doctrine.”
Jay, it is no doubt, again, there are some contradictions and incompatible statements and at times practice of Campbell on this issue. There ultimately will probably be no unequivocal solution.
Just like maybe with us, there were unresolved questions which Campbell wrestled back and forth in his mind, seeking desperately the truth.
But it seems in my opinion that your usage of the Lunenburg letter, gives a false impression of Campbell’s position.
It seems that progressives want to desperately show Campbell to have been a bona-fide representative of the positions that they advocate, especially now in regard to the state of the unimmersed and/or those not baptized according to scritpure.
All this seems to make progressives “historical schizophrenics.”:)lol! Yet, all of us are susceptible, more to less, to this type of schizophrenia, i.e., presenting only historical materials that only coincides with our predetermined views.
Truly we must all make a determined effort to prevent this. A conservative can be as guilty of misrepresenting history and misinterpreting Scripture in favor of his position as can a liberal (i.e., progressive)
Humbly in Christ,
Robert Prater
Emmett and Laura, thank you both for your example. For both of you, I appreciate not throwing out the baby with the bathwater; realizing that much of what you were taught was true but the attitude and slant on the truths poorly respresented the Living God.
I am been bery lucky, actually enjoyed God’s grace, by growing up in a moderate c of C congregation in Miami, Fl. I never heard anti those other denomination talk. In Miami on a Sunday morning less than half the people were going to church of any kind, so it seemed foolish to fiight the ones who did.
I remember one Sunday morning getting to church early, and one of our elders was in the lobby removing tracts from the racks. I asked him about it, and he said many of these are more divisive than teaching so those are going away. Sorry others didn’t have shepards as cleverly watching for troubles to their flock.
Jesus understood the value of all the imperfect God fearing Jews and their limits too. He said to go learn of the Pharasees because they sit in Mose’s seat, but be more righteous. Remember, Jesus complimented them on tithing completely, but reminded them that God wants mercy.
Our world is similar today. Listen to your conservative brothers to learn what actions God likes, for they keep that list well. Listen to your progressive brothers arguing for grace. Remember the full child of God worships in Spirit and truth, so learn from all, but put your own stamp on how God’s will is inacted in your life. See us moderates, don’t have to choose sides but can admire and learn from even the most extreme of our brothers. If you can harmonize Lamont and Royce comments here, you are a well rounded Christian!
Jay,
Correction: The statement: Again, please carefully note how Hicks finally concludes.” is NOT Hicks statement, but my summary statement.
Sorry for the mistake.
Sincerely,
Robert Prater
Robert, again thank you for completing our understanding of brother Campbell. AC had a soft spot for people who tried even without good knowledge to practice their faith. He even hoped that some of those in apostate sects he preached againist could be saved anyway!
Robert,
Thanks for taking the time to clarify all of that.
@Royce
Sorry, I have the impression you don’t read what I write or at least on’t evenm try to understand my point. Once again, this is what I wrote:
Please – at least – try to sum up my beliefs correctly, Royce.
Alexander
@ Robert
Thank you very much for the quotatiosn from John Mark Hicks concerning Campbell’s postion. If we read history as some red the Bible we can prove anything we want … the facts are quite often the opposite of what we’d desire.
But from the first reading of the Lunenburg Letters it was clear that Jay couild never call Alexander Campbell as a witness for his position. I doubt that Jay could win an open debate with AC on this …
Alexander
Larry and Hank (and Alexander abasnar)
I appreciate your kind words towards me as they are encouragement and support to me here when I comment from time to time.
I think Campbell as he grew in his understanding of the plan of salvation, like many of us have greatly wrestled no doubt with, what will God indeed do with those who seek Him in salvation but in imperfect ways or manners in which He has not commanded.
God is never well served when pictured only as a “God of technicalities”, who punishes simply because people are sincerely mistaken in how they approach Him. There is always more to the judgment of God than just “technicalites.”
I know I struggle with the issue of the heart verses obedience to the commandments of God. If none are saved except who obey perfectly, we are all doomed.
But salvation and God’s grace can only be offered according to His terms of pardon, not what man feels or thinks. We have no other answer to give people who ask, “What must I do to be saved”, then repent and be immersed for the forgiveness of sins. (cf. Acts 2:38; 22:16)
For years various voices have been trying to move us toward embracing the denominational world, but the teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation has stood as a very inconvenient obstacle in the way. Therefore, we should not be surprised that some are now even openly stating they no longer believe baptism is essential for salvation or rather they “do not dogmatically affirm that one’s baptism is the precise point in time when God imparts eternal salvation to a believing, penitent disciple of Christ,” (cf. /2011/01/baptism-an-exploration-al-maxeys-latest-reflection/)
No question others more follow suit in the coming years and will sound their voices loud and clearly from the classroom and pulpit.
It seems that because many are now convinced (no less sincerely) that since the grace of God does in fact cover sin, including the ignorant, that people can continue to enjoy the grace of God and continue in error. In my opinion, this is a redefinition of the grace of God. Some are even advocating grace will forgive everybody unconditionally. (how long before we hear some of Rob Bell, “Love Wins” ideas, if not already?)
Bottom line, it breaks my heart to see some in the church abandon the effort to bring the undenominational concept of the church to our lost world. Many seem more concerned about “courting” and cultivating full fellowship with the denominations then confronting them in love with the truth of the gospel, especially regarding the plan of salvation and “abiding in the apostles doctrine.”
Many have no desire for the denominations to “have to give up our distinctive practices with regard to our different organizational structures, worship….I see no need for that.” (cf. statement by Rubel Shelly, The Spiritual Sword, October 1996, p. 3)
What a contrast with the great men of the restoration movement like Alexander Campbell. During a time in Campbell’s early public ministry to bring restoration of the “ancient order”, he was being championed as the great defender of believer’s immersion among Baptists after his debate with the Presbyterian Walker in 1821, Campbell debated the Presbyterian McCalla in 1823.
But this time he also challenged the Baptist community.
“My Baptist brethren, as well as the Pedobaptist brotherhood, I humbly conceive, require to be admonished on this point. You have been, some of you no doubt, too diffident in asserting this grand import of baptism, in urging an immediate submission to this sacred and gracious ordinance, lest your brethren should say that you make every thing of baptism; that you make it essential to salvation. Tell them you make nothing essential to salvation but the blood of Christ, but that God has made baptism essential to their formal forgiveness in this life, to their admission into his kingdom on earth. Tell them that God had made it essential to their happiness that they should have a pledge on his part in this life, an assurance in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, of their actual pardon, of the remission of all their sins, and that this assurance is baptism. Tell the disciples to rise in haste and be baptized and wash away their sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (cf. Alexander Campbell and W. L. Maccalla, A Public Debate on Christian Baptism, p. 125)
Campbell like all of us was far from perfect and we certainly don’t follow him but only Christ. But one writer called him an “apostle of truth.” Truly the Bible was his ultimate source of authority. May God help us to imitate that.
Sincerely,
Robert Prater
Don Wade,
Jesus said in Matthew 28, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
More literally, it is “as you are going” make disciples…, baptizing them…” The imperative in the passage is “make disciples”. Who is the “them” the disciples were to baptize? The answer is the disciples they had made. This method has never changed. Preach the good news about Jesus and baptize those who believe and want to follow Him.
Most everyone agrees that the Holy Spirit indwells the new Christian except for those who don’t believe there is a Holy Spirit) at the moment he is saved. The disagreement is the point in time salvation happens. Peter’s testimony is that he received the Spirit when he believed, you know, like Cornelius and his folks.
Paul asked in Galatians, ” Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? ” (Gal 3:2) In Romans he makes the case that Abraham was not unique in that he was justified by faith. It was not for him only but for us.
I could cut and paste dozens of passages that are in your Bible just like Matthew 28, Galatians 3, and Romans 3 & 4 but to what end? Each of us comes to a discussion like this with some presuppositions, some preferences (I include myself) and we tend to look for Bible references that seem to support what we have already decided.
I’m not here to convert anyone to my way of thinking, I simply stated my position. You can disagree or not, it doesn’t change anything. There is only one truth and it remains unchanged. Peter quoted Joel in the first gospel sermon saying “Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved”. He told the truth and it’s still true.
I’m getting old and I expect to die one day and when I do I expect to be present with the Lord. That will not happen because of me but because what has been done for me. My response has been to follow Christ (I have not always done my best), try to make disciples, and baptize them and teach them what Jesus and the apostles taught with my limited ability. It’s worked out pretty well for me.
I wish you well.
Royce Ogle
Are churches of Christ non-denominational? Read the Yellow Pages.
Presently I have in my pocket some money, (not a lot 🙂 and it is “denominated” in 1 dollar bills, 5 dollar bills, and penneys, dimes, nickles, and quarters. A group in kind is what a denomination is.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Denomination= “: a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices”
Just as in Baptists there are “free will”, “landmark”, “American”, “Northern”, “Southern”, “Reformed”, “Independent”, and more…They are all Baptists.
In the same way with all of our local and regional particulars those churches that are a cappella and whose heritage is the Restoration Movement we are all glad to worship and work under the banner “churches of Christ”. We are a denomination.
The first objection is that we have no central headquarters dictating what we can do and say. Neither do Baptists. Like us, each church can participate in convention practices or not. No one can tell a local church what to do with any authority.
We have people in Tennessee and Alabama trying to tell a church in Texas what it can do or not do, so we are much more like our neighbors than we are to admit.
Robert, thanks. While I’m very progressive in love, I tend to be very conservative in doctrine that is Bible based (as opposed to inferred). Baptism and Communion are initiated by Our Lord and for example, participated in by Him. How can divine example be dismissed as optional?
However, as to the fate of those who thought they did all required, especially in ages past where most were illiterate and had no access to scriptures, God can judge. He is a God of mercy but also faithfulness: faith followed by action.
The scenes that should scare learned people advocating baptism optional are in Revelation. Over and over its those who washed their robes, or availed themselves of the blood of Christ. Yes Revelation is figartive, but the image is people washing, or participationg in Christ death. Easily this represents immersion.
Peter did as good a job as James on real faith; beleif so trusting that it motivates action. Peter referred to the ark saving Noah and family, like baptism saves us. Yes it was faith in God that got the ark built, just like it should be faith in us that gets us immersed. Sadly much of the modern Christian world are lepers needing cleansing, given where to dip, and reasoning how is that going to help (distrusting the word of God), and heading home still sick. I hope the conservative c of C is the prophet’s assistant, runnig after the sick, reminding them that its’s the word of God, not the water that will cleanse the soul. From the progressives we are reminded to ask the afflickted in love and respect for God’s word.
Well, it certainly appears as though Leroy (and all who agree with his conclusions regarding the feelings of Campbell toward the Baptists and Pedobaptists) stand corrected.
For, when directly asked – “What, then, is the duty of all christians found in these communities?”
Campbell answered – “They are commanded to “come out of them.” Rev. xviii.4. “Come out of her, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins; and that you receive not of her plagues.”
And at the conclusion of the study of JM Hicks, he wrote:
“It seems clear from these answers that Campbell rejected all fellowship with the sects and even regarded those who remained in the sects (except for ignorance or lack of opportunity) as heading for destruction.”
Tonight one of our preachers read the following text during his lesson on self control. I thought of how appropriate it is for this forum.
Titus 2:11-14 (ESV)
11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.”
Salvation? The grace of God in the person of Jesus who is full of grace and truth.
Holiness? Grace teaches us to say no to unrighteous and to do right.
Transformation? “…to purify for himself a people for his own possession..” Jesus is the answer.
Good works? Jesus is the answer. He changes a sinner into someone who is “zealous for good works”.
Hope for the future? Assurance? Jesus is the answer. “waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”
Jesus who is God in flesh is both Savoir and Lord. He himself by his offering of himself redeemed us, we didn’t do it , he did. It is he who purifies us and makes us want to do good works.
Let us boast only in our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Royce said “Let us boast only in our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” and to that I say Amen! I have commented locally on what I see as a certain arrogance and pride in the CofC and most of those members of the CofC who have heard me say that assure me that is not the case… That I have misinterpeted things that I see and hear. But, I was the one who was not raised in the CofC. I was the outsider and the impression of arrogance and pride was what I I gathered from my dealings with the CofC in the past several years since I began attending a CofC. I think that my Outsider impressions are what really counts as far as whether the CofC grows or fades away. I sometimes dislike telling people where I go to Church because of their reaction. How can any Church flourish under such conditions? And that’s the purpose of this “What must the CofC do to be saved” topic, to come up with those things that must or need to be done. Unfortunately, I read some peoples comments to say “Nothing”. I think that “Something” must be done and would appeciate hearing from some of you what you think that “Something” might be. Blessings to all….
Doug
Royce, I want to thank you for your contributions to comments on this website. I appreciate your unyielding reminder of faith. Its real important because it’s our step toward God, and nothing can happen without the start. In the reality, all power is in God, and His most common instrument is His Word. He spoke the world and us into existance, and will speak the world and our end. Jesus reminded us that it’s all of His Word, scripture cannot be broken.
Alexander of Vienna reminds us that two elements make water, and take away either one, and it isn’t water. Similarly the Bible is full of faith followed by action, pleasing God. I think of faith being the hydrogen needing two parts and the action as oxygen. Hydrogen easy burns producing water (Hindenburg), so its usually it’s the start. Getting started is mighty important. Then so is doing the whole will of God.
Peter says baptism saves us like the ark saved Noah. I guess if Noah had great faith, and didn’t build the ark, God could have saved from the flood by a whale like Jonah!
Peter tells us the power is not in the water. It’s in God. Baptism is used in the NT over a hundred times. Any reader of it must be compelled to reakize it’s there, must be important, and why? I guess some reader can come up with a faith alone theory, but to me it does not honor Jesus saying scripture cannot be broken, that is take all of it.
Moment of salvation is another misread itdea. Does salvation start with faith, baptism, etc? Alex of V, reminds us that it’s a life process. To me, He gave His life for me, so I owe my life to Him. To me, there is no moment of salvation, it’s as John says “walking in the light”. How long to walk? As long as He gives me life. Ironic that John, apparently the longest lived apostle, taught of a live long walk.
Royce, I know you teach immersion. And I know you realize the power is not in the ritual. Please also realize many have made the moment of faith a ritual that evokes God to salvation forever. The power is in God, all of God’s word not just the word faith. All we need is the faith of Abraham, who after God asked Abraham always did, trusting God, even with the request to sacrifice Isaac, making no sense. Because many use faith distilled from works, I prefer trust. If I trust in the bridge ahaead, I’ll use it. If I trust in God, I’ll be baptised, like those NT Christians.
Did the ark save Noah, yes but force majure is trusting God then building it. Did it give him salvation for life? Don’t read it, but Noah sure should be grateful to God for the rest of his life.
Royce, I do appreciate your input, and suggest to stay away from the appearance that faith is THE ritual that evokes God’s power. In love you have taugh me, Larry.
I appreciate your kindness Larry. Anyone who has bothered to see what I really say, here and on GraceDigest.com will know that again and again and again I insist that belief only is useless. Biblical faith always and forever includes action or it is not faith at all. That was precisely the point James was making. Salvation is by grace through faith but the kind of faith that includes a knowledge and acceptance of facts, embracing those facts in the heart, relying on them, and then acting as if you believe them.
One of the problems with a forum like this is that we tend to talk past each other. We scan a few words or sentences and automatically classify the person (in this case me) as a faith only liberal who hates baptism. Some have said as much in almost that language. In fact I have been called a Satanist by a commentor on this blog.
I will insist with my dying breath that Jesus alone is the person of salvation, that he alone atoned for our combined sins, that he himself was a once for all people once for all time offering for sins, and that he himself is eternal life. What he gives to those who trust him is himself who is our righteousness, our peace, our life, and our blessed hope.
I am a Jesus preacher/teacher and It troubles me that on a Christian blog that some people only mention Jesus in passing seeming to prefer the men and methods rather than the One who alone can give eternal life to wicked sinners like me.
May I indulge each of you once more. Before God declared us righteous and made us His own dear children through Christ this was our condition. We were “dead” in trespasses and sins, we were children of wrath by nature, we were not seeking for God, we were all unrighteous and unclean, we were all under condemnation, we all faced the wrath of God and final punishment, we were hopeless and helpless and deserved what we had coming….But God who is rich in mercy, just at the right time, sent His son to redeem us from the slave market of sin and to set us free to live as His own dear children with hope and a future that is guaranteed by the presence of the Holy Spirit who abides in us.
We walk this earth with our eyes on the horizon looking for the Lord from heaven who will surely come for his own one day. The good news is Jesus Saves. So we tell the good news about the doing and dying of Jesus and beg people to turn themselves in. The judge will pardon you and give you eternal life even though what you deserve is death and destruction.
Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” Martha did and I do, do you?
Royce you have the soul of an evangelist. In corporate America the salesman that gets the customer started is highly compensated thus valued. After that, customer support folks keep the action going. Don’t be surprised that the support folks think their contribution is very important too.
Since its now September, an old football analogy is timely. During lunch of a offense scrimmage day, the quarterback and star running back argued on who was most valuable to the team. When they returned to practice, lined up for a play, the QB said hut several times but the center did not hike. Instead the center stood up, and asked, “now, who’s the most important?” Actually its a team sport, and a succesful play moves the ball downfield. Even that conservative that keeps saying baptism saves, is at least understanding some of the will of God. Paul said the body has many members, and I guess they cannot all have the spirit of evangelism teaching Jesus and Him crucified. Christianity is a team activiity too, and the church is the team where some preach, some plant, and with some good sheparding we succesful, as was Jesus saying, “i do my Father’s will” and “let not my will but Yours be done”. In Revelation Jesus is the One who overcame and we are those who wash our robes in his cleansing blood.
Royce, keep getting them started preaching Jesus, and reminding all of us to keep looking there, but please honor the rest of the members of the body who try to support a life of doing God’s will. Let them block, run, and hike, while you highly valued QBs do you thing.
Emmett and Laura,
Thanks for sharing and providing me with a refreshing reminder of what was really important to Jesus. Clearly, Jesus had little patience for those who wanted to bicker about the law and had a great desire to spend time with the broken and hurting. If Jesus showed up today I suspect you would find him sitting in an open AA meeting on Sunday morning. If only we would spend a little more time thinking through the story of the tax collector and the Pharisee and less time on Jesus’ teachings on the correct form of baptism…and in an effort to keep some focus on the topic of the post, I would say AC got it right when he wrote “I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most.”
Doug,You ask a very simple but right at the heart question and that question is the topic of all this isn’t it. Debates of various thinking comes from this, but no lists.
1) I am convinced those wanting to start afresh should have a new name. Not progressive or a position, we have 20 plus of those already but simply a name.
2) Do our own thing and be open to any direction study leads us, not tradition.
3) Fear God, but more than that actually love God and believe He loves us and wants us all with Him in heaven.
4) Love one another and not have the answer to a few questions mark us as hell or Heaven bound and allow our fellowship by those percentage of points won or lost.
5)Realize for a time most of the COC will not change and because of the mindset of we at this location are right and all others wrong we can’t change their minds. Pray for them.
6) Forget all this stuff that takes up so much time and especially thought and go on associating with others outside the COC doing good whenever possible. If we do that, questions will come that will cause you to teach in a humble manner. Success will come.
This is a start!
Jay: I did go looking for some post to explain ‘imperfect baptism’ I found an older post and a few others that I have not been able to read yet.
If I have this figured out I am going to link to my comment. Since it is an old post, I have no idea if you see all the new things that make it on here. LOL.
/2011/02/baptism-an-exploration-titus-3-2/#comment-144601
Enterprise,
I’ve had very limited time to commit to the blog lately. Most of the posts were written some time ago. I’m sorry I’ve not been able to offer clearer answers to your questions.
My views on baptism are evolving but the best place to start remains the ebook Born of Water. /books-by-jay-guin/born-of-water/ It’s a free download and not long.
Since I wrote that book, I’ve added some nuance to my thinking but the essential arguments remain the same. My recent series Baptism, An Exploration goes into the issues in more detail.
/index-under-construction/theology-church-of-christ-issues/baptism/
My recent comments on the topic also build on the case.
/2011/08/what-must-the-church-of-christ-do-to-be-saved-the-baptism-question-part-4-the-lunenburg-letter/#comment-140459
/2011/08/what-must-the-church-of-christ-do-to-be-saved-the-baptism-question-part-1/#comment-136266
/2011/08/what-must-the-church-of-christ-do-to-be-saved-the-baptism-question-part-2/#comment-135413
/2011/08/what-must-the-church-of-christ-do-to-be-saved-the-baptism-question-part-1/#comment-134388
/2011/08/what-must-the-church-of-christ-do-to-be-saved-chapter-4/#comment-132132
That’s a lot of reading material, I know. But it’s an important topic. My suggestion is that you start with the book, and if interested in reading further, read the other material linked here.