I had read somewhere that Alexander Campbell was actually a heretic. Marq posted
this excerpt from some of his writings. Campbell actually went so far as to say that there are Christians in other denominations...and some other heretical statements that I tend to agree with.
))
13 comments:
Campbell's letter reflects the spirit of what I believe well. I believe that there are believers/christians in other "denominations" and that the basis of Christian unity/fellowship is faith in the Lord Jesus.
I, however, disagree with the following statemnent:
"There is no occassion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of the faith, absolutely essential to a Christian - though it may be essential to his sanctification and comfort."
This statement seems to contradict the clear teaching of biblical texts like Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21. Also Romans 6:3ff doesn't make baptism essential (necessary) for sanctification but it does show that sanctification is the proper response that grows out of Christian baptism.
I am one of those who believe that we are Christians only, but not the only Christians. Karl Kietcherside was famous for saying, "Where God has a son, I have a brother." Amen and amen. I think we should be gracious in areas of disagreement and let the Lord Jesus be judge in these matters. He will make the believer stand or fall. At the same time, we must not be ashamed of clearly speaking where the Bible speaks. F.F. Bruce in his commentary on Acts, I believe, said that the N.T. knows of no unbaptized Christians. That's fine and well. The Christians that we have in mind don't disagree about immersion; our disagreement is over the significance of baptism. And on this matter, God will be judge as well.
Love to all
To add to what John said, many people would be surprised to learn that Campbell and Stone disagreed about major doctrinal issues and still decided to united their movements under the banner of being "simply Christians." Things like the deity of Christ, the nature of man, eschatology, and issues around the Eucharist. This is so contrary to divisive spirit that is so prevalent in churches of Christ today.
unite not united. that's what you get when you're in a harry (not hurry) as my african-american brothers would say.
"Campbell Soup" is very inclusive. Not just one flavor, tomato. No it includes various flavors, tomato, onion, green peppers, and potato. Not just church of Christ, but Baptists, Assembly of God, Episcopalians, etc. I wonder how many church of Christ would line up with Campbell.
I doubt too many with line up with Campbell. On the other hand, I doubt too many of the other flavors would line up either.
Luckily, I am vegetable soup.
:)
I think the downfall of ecumenism has been not the inclusive attitude, but the apathetic attitude toward false doctrine. What Campbell and Stone had (I am only speculating) was a desire to consider one another's doctrine in light of Scripture -and to critique it- and yet, in the light of Scripture, live together as brothers. Modern ecumenism literally says, "I don't care what you believe, you are my brother." Well, we should care. Just because there is an apparent unity, doesn't mean that the "false" is not destructive.
Two cents.
Amen, my brother
Even though I believe and teach that all converts, disciples, and believers should experience water-baptism, I tend to agree with Campbell that "there is no occasion for making immersion, on a profession of faith, absolutely essential to a Christian." That makes perfect sense to me, especially in light of AC's well-reasoned, biblically grounded arguments.
Then again, I believe that there is much more to baptism than the physical form. We must consider the spiritual essence above the form. If baptism is simply immersion in water, that's one thing. If baptism is more than immersion in water, that's another. I think AC knew that there was more to baptism than the form and that is why he reasoned as he did: essence over form, faith over obedience, intent over content, substance over style.
by linking baptism to salvation only (as SK seems to do) we miss the thrust of Paul's case for sanctification in Romans 6. I would argue that baptism serves as a connective link between justification by faith and sanctification by obedience of faith. so baptism is for salvation and for sanctification, the one necessarily flowing out of the other.
i agree with JW that ecumenicism is a disaster. when i appeal for it, i mean it in the true sense as you described. for me it is helpful to think of the historical-eschatalogical church. (this a more precise variation of the visible-invisible church explanation based on Paul's observation that not all national Israel are spiritual Israel.) by historical we mean all people, true and false believers, who claim to be christians in space-time history. by eschatalogical we mean all true christians who will stand with Christ at the end of all things. all false christians and unbelievers will perish.
The Lord knows those who are his. Even if we do not recognize all of God's people none of his people will perish. The Stone-Campbell Movement instilled in its descendants the unfortunate and imprudent habit of judging the wine before its time. "immersed saved, non-immersed lost."
As important, necessary, essential as baptism is, it does not rise to the level of being the mark of the christian. According to Jesus love, not baptism, is the distinguishing mark of his people.
I think I understand what SK meant by "the clear teaching" (I am not picking a fight) but I would caution us that what is clear to one may not be as clear to another. Regeneration, election, and predestination are clear biblical teaching to some, but unclear to others. We all have our blind spots.
If I understood Cambell's reply correctly, perhaps we could summarize his salient point(s) like so:
+ the Christian, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Catholic, who strives to keep the spirit of the law will be saved
+ the [Legalist] who strives to keep the letter of the law will perish
Hi Marq,
It is true that love is the distinguishing mark of a Christian. The question that I'm dealing with is, "what is the initiating act of becoming a Christ?" To that, I would say baptism. Agree or not, baptism is the initiating act of faith for the Christian/disciple according to Matt.28:18-20
Another thing ... I do see baptism as a connective between justification and sanctification. I do not, however, see baptism as essential for sanctification - i.e. you cannot be sanctified without it. Paul wasn't saying that. On the other hand, Paul and the other NT writers does teach that baptism is essential to justification - you cannot be saved without it. Here is how baptism ties in with justification and sanctification. We are justified by faith in Christ alone at the point of baptism. Our baptism is not a legalistic, ritualistic act but it is filled with meaning. It is dying with Christ and a death to sin which links it with the sanctified life. The one who has identified with Christ by faith in his death through baptism must now identify with his Lord in his life - a life of holiness. This to me is the thrust of Paul's argument in Romans 6.
SK: thanks for your response. let me pick on two things you mentioned.
1. if baptism is the initiating act of becoming a christian and the initiating act of faith, would that mean that faith (not baptism) is the initiating act of becoming a christian? surely you agree that faith precedes baptism. not to mention repentance. that would make baptism the second
2. you do not see baptism as essential for sanctification, yet you seem to make a very strong case for it in your comments on romans 6. (how could anyone read all of romans 6 and not see sanctification?!) SK wrote: The one who has identified with Christ by faith in his death through baptism must now identify with his Lord in his life - a life of holiness.
all i am saying here is that justification necessarily flows over into sanctification. since baptism is part of the process it is essential for both j and s.
you seem to think that i hold a very low view of baptism, but i actually hold a very high view of it. but i hold a higher view of faith.
one of my elders and i have been engaged in an on-going, brotherly, friendly, conversation about baptism and romans 6.
he treats it much the same way SK does. but here is how i treat romans 6.
jesus died on the cross
discipleship begins when a person when a person repents of sins and trusts in Jesus. that is, he/she takes up the cross and dies with Christ.
jesus was buried
when the penitent believer experiences baptism he/she is buried into death with Christ
jesus was raised from death.
when the baptized believer is raised into newness of life with Christ.
so you see, i am arguing that just as Christ died before his burial so also we die to self prior to our burial. Jesus did not die in the tomb, he died on the cross. neither do we die in the watery-grave, we die at the cross. even if you disagree, does my point that make sense, did i express it in clearly?
(side note: baptism is historical in that it points us backwards to the crucifixion and it is eschatalogical in that points us forward to the resurrection and judgment.)
Marq,
Let me address point 1. I don't separate faith, repentance and baptism as initial responses to the call of the gospel. Repentance and baptism are particular faith responses which makes faith the overarching principle. So that from the N.T. perspective and Jesus (Matt.28) baptism, that faith response, is the point at which one becomes a Christian/disciple.
About point 2, I think it is simply an argument about semantics. I don't like the language of "essential." I would much better prefer the words "sanctification is the only moral/faithful response to Christian baptism."
Thanks again for your thoughts.
You make your point well, Marq. The flaw in your argument from my perspective is that you fail to see baptism is a identification with Christ in his death and resurrection. The identification with his death doesn't take place prior to baptism so that the result of baptism is identification with his life. All of this takes place in the act of baptism.
Now let me be clear that sometimes God will accept the faith for the act as in the case of the thief on the cross.
Post a Comment