Stone-Campbell Movement is a lie: It is a lie because it does not tell the truth and it intends to hurt the ANTI-instrumental church
Stone-Campbell is SECTARIAN because those receiving an unScriptural dole intend to divert the churches of widows and honest working people something they know is divisive and which has no Scriptural, historical or logical rationale.
Proof-texting and even changing facts has always been attributed to clergy and Doctors of the Law whom Jesus affirms "take away the key to knowledge."
This is an issue only for the Stone Campbell Sect since Churches of Christ rely on the Word of God: this person born in 1930 never heard of Alexander Campbell before 1954 and then never considered him the FOUNDATION upon which Churches of Christ--according to the Stone-Campbell Sect--rose or fell. The Church of Christ was practicing baptism FOR the remission of sins at least 7 years before the Tennessee preachers had heard of Alexander Campbell. So Hurt-Journalism continues the purpose driven Stone-Campbell Sect.
We will show that bleeding off other false teachers--Doctors of the law take away the key to knowledge--says Jesus: that is their job: that is what they do. We will show that whatever the motive the teaching is utterly false.
Richardson Memoirs Alexander Campbell: At his baptism Alexander Campbell [395] At this unexpected announcement, Alexander smiled, and told her that he was now upon his way to request the services of Mr. Luce, as [395] he had himself determined to be immersedBobby Valentine: For some like Austin McGary, the founder of the Firm Foundation, Campbell's baptism was downright embarrassing. The cause of that embarrassment is rooted in two historical facts: 1) Alexander (and his father Thomas) was baptized by a Baptist and 2) Campbell did not understand baptism's role in the remission of sin -- and would not for quite some time after. This presented such a problem for McGary that he even suggested that Campbell was secretly rebaptized -- a notion that David Lipscomb rightly dismissed as highly dubious. Even as late as 1999 a brother wrote an article concerning "Alexander Campbell's Baptism"[1] that was another stretched attempt to remove this apparent black eye from Campbell.
[396] "In his remarks, he had quoted, among other Scriptures, the command of Peter to the believers on the day of Pentecost: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit;" and had dwelt at length upon the gracious promises of God to all who should obey him. When he had concluded, James Hanen, who, with his wife, had also concluded to be baptized, took his child from its mother's arms, and requesting her to walk aside,
asked her what she thought of the declaration of Peter, "You shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," and how she understood it. Mrs. Hanen, being well acquainted with the Scriptures, soon gave a satisfactory reply, and both were accordingly baptized along with the rest, consisting of Alexander Campbell and his wife: his father and mother, [397] and his sister--in all seven persons.In an interview in later years, published in the American Christian Review in 1879, his widow, Selina Huntington Campbell, stated:
Alexander had stipulated with Elder Luce that the ceremony should be performed precisely according to the pattern given in the New Testament, and that, as there was no account of any of the first converts being called upon to give what is called a "religious experience," this modern custom should be omitted, and that the candidates should be admitted on the simple confession that "Jesus is the Son of God."
Some of the brethren say that because ‘remission of sins’ was not named at his baptism, he was not scripturally introduced into Christ’s kingdom. Alexander Campbell was baptized into the full faith of forgiveness of his sins . . .The Baptists took great delight in the immersion of a prominent Presbyterian family. Although Campbell was never officially a Baptist, he preached for the Baptists and worked with the Baptists over an extended period of time. When he finally disassociated himself from the Baptist denomination, he carried thousands of their members with him. In the early days, however, the discussion related primarily to differences with Presbyterians and Methodists regarding the subjects of baptism (whether believers or infants) and the action of baptism (whether sprinkling or immersion). Campbell’s views agreed with the Baptists on both of these crucial issues.
Alexander Campbell was first of all a Bible student: a Disciple of Christ. What if he NEVER believed that baptism was for the remission of sins. The Stone Campbell Sect could never extend their "gotcha" to those historic scholars ALL of whom declared that baptism was "for" the remission of sins. The folly comes when people say that Peter said "repent and be baptized TO PAY FOR the remission of sins. However, the Greek is EIS which means that we are baptized INTO the remission of sins based on the PAY FOR work done by Jesus.
Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted,Both Alexander Campbell and Walter Scott quoted John Calvin and would have known the PURPOSE of baptism. John Calvin's paper on baptism was endorsed by Campbell who said he could be a Campbellite. The only issue one who had read any historic scholar would understand that no one ever said that "baptism does not save" without quickly saying "without faith." The only issue with Zwingli and others was to refute infant baptism where baptism was symbolic and did not save because the child did not know why it was being sprinkled.
that your sins may be blotted out,
when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
1Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,
but the request for a good conscience toward God,)
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
It is NOT a fact that Campbell or Lipscomb etal ever said that baptism is NOT required for baptism. For instance, Lipscomb writing about the REbaptizers simply repudiates that we are baptized TO PAY FOR
The difference in the meaning is, “for the remission of sins” suggests the idea that the baptism is to pay for remitting the sins as a man pays for a horse. It is giving value received; that we are entitled to if for the service rendered. The human heart is prone to run to this extreme.It is not easy but probable that people take any comment that Baptism is not FOR the remission of sins and fail to understand the "context"
To be baptized into Christ, into the name of Christ, teaches plainly and truly that in entering into Christ we come to and enjoy the remission of sins:
because of and by virtue of our entrance and union with Christ, we become children of God.
This is the expressive declaration that we are saved by the blood of Christ, and not because we have been baptized for [to pay for] the remission of sins—a selfish end.
To be baptized into Christ is an expressive declaration that baptism is the step, the last step a man takes in entering Christ. Scanned but not read by Bobby Valentine, John Mark Hicks, etal
Any hesitation came when Alexander Campbell worked with the Baptists because they taught immersion. If you read the Baptist history against Campbell you will not be so certain.
Bobby Valentine: The debate over Campbell is important. At the center of the debate is how much of the NT teaching concerning baptism a person must grasp before she can obey the Great Commission. Is one saved by submissive faith or precise knowledge? It is a critical question.
Even those who demand that one must absolutely know that baptism is the POINT
that one obtains remission are reticent to condemn Campbell to hell.
Some even try to force Campbell into the rebaptist camp -- a great irony.
Baptizing without this knowledge would see baptism as legalism. To say that Campbell did not know that ignores his quotations of Acts 2:38 and agreeing with Calvin that everyone believed that BAPTISM is REGENERATION or the remission of sins.
Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart,Was Campbell really so ignorant.
and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them,
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
That is quite different from saying that Campbell did NOT think that baptism was required for salvation.
D O C T R I N E S O F R E D E M P T I O N Campbell affirmed:Bobby Valentine: For example, the aforementioned article attempted to show that Campbell did indeed understand that baptism was for the remission of sins in 1812. The evidence from Robert Richardson’s Memoirs of Alexander Campbell is dismissed. Attempts are made to buttress the rebaptist position with a quotation from Selina Campbell that comes second hand from a debate that H. C. Harper had in 1917.
Truth: Neither the volume of creation, nor that of God's providence, is sufficient to remove from the natural man these misconceptions, and the consequent alienation of heart... . A third volume, explanatory of both, and replete also with supernatural developments, is wanting, to furnish the most diligent student of nature and providence, with the means of learning the true and full character of him against whom we have rebelled.
That volume is the Bible. Holy Prophets and Apostles spake as they were moved by the Spirit OF (preposition) Knowledge and Revelation. Its records, its history, its prophecy, its precepts, its laws, its ordinances, and its examples, all develop and reveal God to man, and man to himself.
That certain things, parts of this great process, may be well understood, certain terms which we are wont to use to represent them, must be well defined, and accurately apprehended. These terms are Fact, Testimony, Faith, Repentance, Reformation, Bath of Regeneration, New Birth, Renewing of the Holy Spirit, Newness of Life.
Alexander Campbell himself is quoted from his 1844 Debate with N. L. Rice and from Campbell's 1853 book on Baptism. These quotes have zero relevance, however, because Campbell is not discussing what he knew or what anyone must know about baptism at the time of their immersion. Selina's "evidence" (she was not even married to him at the time -- they were married 16 years later) there is simply no evidence to support the position that Campbell understood the "design" of baptism [2]. There is no reason to doubt Richardson in the Memoirs.
Pertinent to our discussion here would be Campbell's understanding of baptism exhibited in his 1820 Debate with the Presbyterian John Walker.
"The debate was on the subject and MODE of baptism. Walker opened and Campbell closed it. Walker contended that baptism came in the room of circumcision, and therefore, infants had a right to it. Campbell, who for the past eight years had dwelt on the subject of the covenants, was thoroughly acquainted with his ground, and answered by a general reflection upon the place, purpose, and relationship of the two covenants. The two contenders traversed the usual ground on the mode of baptism, Campbell frequently going out of his way to state the ground on which he proposed a restoration of the church." (West 65) FromIf Campbell did not realize the dangerous nature of connecting baptism and remission of sins which is not true of circumcision that does not remove the fact that he held that view without any felt need to make an issue of it since earlier preachers had affirmed the Biblical Teachings.
If Campbell's championing of immersion as Bible baptism in the Walker Debate in 1820 revived Baptist sympathy with his position, his debate with McCalla, in 1822 lost it again. In that debate he made clear the design of baptism, for "the remission of sins."
The words of Campbell in his reply to the Lunenburg letter are most frequently appealed to by those who want his justification for the position that forgiveness and baptism are unrelated, and that the unimmersed may be freely admitted into the full fellowship of the church. There is 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 none of the liberal interpreters includes in his discussion of Campbell's position on the remission of sins his carefully reasoned and systematically presented views in The Christian System. William Blake
Bobby Valentine: It is critical to remember that this discussion took place eight years after his immersion. Campbell affirmed in this debate that baptism confers spiritual blessings only "figuratively" [3]. Campbell argued that the phrase "the renewing of the Holy Ghost" in Titus 3.5 is used figuratively with respect to baptism and not in reality [4]. Campbell then explicitly places the new birth PRIOR to baptism. In his own words:
As a Calvinist Alexander Campbell knew that John Calvin and all recorded history equated baptism to REMISSION OF SINS or REGENERATION. Campbell had to refute the idean that "baptism saves infants" who cannot believe."Renewing of the Holy Spirit," pp. 459-460. Reprinted from "Renewing of the
- Holy Spirit." The Millennial Harbinger Extra 4 (August 1833): 356.
"He has saved us," says the Apostle Paul,
"by the bath of regeneration AND the renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
that, being justified by his favor, [in the bath of regeneration,]
we might be made heirs according [459] the new life as the atmosphere is to our animal life in the kingdom of nature. But on this topic we have said so much in our "Extra Defended," that to it we must refer our readers who are still inquisitive on the subject.
All that is done in us before regeneration,
God our Father effects by the word,
or the gospel as dictated
and confirmed by his Holy Spirit.
But after we are thus begotten and born by the Spirit of God--after our new birth, the Holy Spirit is shed on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; of which the peace of mind, the love, the joy, and the hope of the regenerate is full proof; for these are amongst the fruits of that Holy Spirit of promise of which we speak. Thus commences [ THE NEW LIFE.]
Thus the Scriptures encourage all to activities. The whole world with whom this Spirit of God strives in the written word now as it once did in the mouths of the prophets and apostles, have no excuse for their infidelity or unregeneracy--and those who have put on the Lord Jesus are invited to abound in all the joys, consolations, and purifying influences of this Holy Spirit. Such is the operative system of supernatural truth--the scope of the practical principles of the Bible. Campbell's Response MAY 5, 1828. But I have not yet done with the subject. I must resume it in my next, and operations upon unbelievers, you are happily safe from the systems which I have beenCampbell: I deny that Baptism has a respect to the blood of sprinkling,
Richardson Memoirs Alexander Campbell: At his baptism Alexander Campbell [395] At this unexpected announcement, Alexander smiled, and told her that he was now upon his way to request the services of Mr. Luce, as [395] he had himself determined to be immersed
Why accuse Campbell with being so Bible and history literate?
[396] "In his remarks, he had quoted, among other Scriptures, the command of Peter to the believers on the day of Pentecost: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit;" and had dwelt at length upon the gracious promises of God to all who should obey him.
We obey a form or typeThe form or type as "a pattern capable of being imitated.
BUT that it denotes "the Washing of regeneration, and renewing of the [A holy spirit] holy ghost,
and is emblematical of the burial and resurrection of Christ,
and of our death and burial with him unto sin, and of our resurrection with him to a new life
When we have OBEYED that form in baptism we are THEN FREE from sin.Bobby Valentine: This "outward rite," according to Campbell in 1820, is a "representation" of a reality that has already been accomplished by the Holy Spirit.
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
5 ouk ex ergōn tōn en dikaiosunē ha epoiēsamen hēmeis alla kata to autou eleos esōsen hēmas dia loutrou palingenesias kai anakainōseōs pneumatos hagiou,
1. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, Ep.5:26
We are baptized INTO the WORD or into DISCIPLESHIP
It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the WORDS that I speak unto you,
they ARE SPIRIT and they are life. John 6:63
Now, if THAT is hard to understand then maybe I do have a mental problem:
My WORDS are SPIRIT says Jesus. How now dare call Jesus Christ a liar. That is because spirit NEVER identifies a PEOPLE but the MIND of that person. Paul said in 1 Cor 2 that the Holy Spirit IS the Mind of Christ.
2. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,
by the washing of regeneration, baptism
and renewing OF the Holy Spirit; Titus 3:5
Both Scott and Campbell are aware that it is OUR spirit which has been made into A holy spirit
Regeneration
Paliggenisia A. rebirth, regeneration, of the world, paliggenesias hēgemones, of Noah and his sons, Id.2.144; “hē anaktēsis kai p. tēs patridos” J. AJ11.3.9; renewal of a race, Corp.Herm.3.3; of persons, beginning of a new life, transmigration, reincarnation of souls, Plu.2.998c; cf. metempsukhōsis fin.
II. in Roman Law, = restitutio natalium, Just.Nov.18.11.III. in NT.,1. resurrection, Ev.Matt.19.28.
Renewing is Anakainosis making new, renovation
Our UNholy spirit is now A HOLY SPIRIT.
There is no assurance of FAITH until that faith has acted to request A good conscience from God (1 Pet 3:21) which is A holy spirit Acts 2:38
Rom 12:[2] Don't be conformed to this world,
but be transformed by the
renewing of YOUR mind,
so that you may prove what is the good and acceptable
and perfect will of God.
Renewing is Anakainosis making new
Let us draw near with a true HEARTin full assurance of faith,
having OUR hearts sprinkled FROM an evil conscience,
and OUR bodies washed with pure water. Heb.10:22
Heb. 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn,
which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all,
and to the SPIRITS of just men made perfect
When OUR Spirit has been washed by Jesus Christ the His Spirit or Words will dwell in our sanctified spirit. Otherwise, Romans 6 is just a flat lie.
Rom. 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly;
neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom. 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly;
and circumcision is that
of the heart,
in the spirit,
and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Col. 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col. 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Col. 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands,
in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh
by the circumcision of Christ:
Col. 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Col. 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Campbell-Walker p138 He shews it to be a spiritual discovery of the import of the death and resurrection of Christ, that produces this change upon the mind ; and which leads the subject of his gracious work to submit to "be buried with Christ in Baptism" —Preaching the gospel (Spirit, Word John 6:63) is that power unto salvation.
"to be planted in the likeness of his death,
that he may be in the likeness of his resurrection."
This outward rite, then, must bear an analogy to the doctrine exhibited in and by it.
Hence immersion in water, is a beautiful and striking representation
of our faith in the death and burial of Christ ;
and our emerging out of it, a suitable emblem of his resurrection from the giave,
and of our obligations to a new life: so that the sprinkling of a few drops of water
has no analogy to the thing signified in Baptism.
The REALITY is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The Spirit OF (preposition) Christ is the MIND of Christ. 1 John 2 John says that the NAME (singular) of The promised COMFORTER is "Jesus Christ the Righteous." Not even Calvin taught a direct operation other than through the Spirit which is contained in the Word as a gift to us
This was a TYPE or TUPOS: a tupos is "a pattern capable of being imitated." When we obey that pattern in LITERAL baptism only then are we free from sin:
Campbell-Walker p138In fact, Campbell makes this point crystal clear earlier in his Debate with Walker, "THE CALLED, cannot mean those whom every preacher invites to Baptism, but those whom the Lord calls by his grace or Spirit" [6]. Quotations of this nature can be multiplied from the Walker-Campbell Debate but such is needless. It is clear, though, that in 1820 Alexander Campbell did not have a doctrine of baptism that would be embraced by many of his descendants -- he clearly did not think baptism was "necessary" or for the remission of sins.
Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey,
his servants ye are to whom ye obey;
whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Romans 6:17 But God be thanked,
that ye were the servants of sin,
but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
AGAIN: All that is done in us before regeneration,
God our Father effects by the word,
or the gospel as dictated and confirmed by his Holy Spirit.
Campbell-Walker p138 Peter makes it even more plain than Joel ; to your cliildren — to them also that are afar oft" — even to as many as the Lord our God shall call." The promise, then, is to the called only — whether far oft* or near — whether parents or children— -whether young or old — whether infants or adults.Campbell would understand Scripture and John Calvin who said that it is IMPOSSIBLE to come to God without a direct operation of the Spirit: he said God gave us the SCRIPTURES and sent Evangelists out to preach it. He identified as fanatics those who thought that they got the Spirit in any other way than through the Word..
The called, cannot mean those whom every preacher invites to Baptism, but those whom the Lord calls by his grace or spirit. In this sense it is used, when calling is esteemed a blessing — " whom he called, them he also justified."
Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.But, never before the obedience of The Faith.
John 6:44 No man can come to me,
except the Father which hath sent me draw him:
and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:45 It is written in the prophets,
And they shall be all taught of God.
Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
The Spirit which calls is the Words of Christ.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
And of those who heard the Call:
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:
and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
On the contrary:
Campbell-Walker Debate overflows with "the remission of sins"
In the seventh place: Baptism differs from circumcision in the blessings it conveys —
circumcision conveyed no spiritual blessings —
Baptism conveys no temporal, BUT spiritual blessings —
Baptism is connected with the promise of the remission of sins, and the gift of the holy spirit —
Again, the 38th comprehends just two things — a command and a promise.
The command is — repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.
The promise is — and ye shall receive the gift,
Now the 39th verse is to establish the promise, to shew the grounds on which it was given. So that no man acquainted with language, no man who understands even the first principles of grammar, whose mind is not infatuated with a system repugnant to reason as well as Scripture, could hesitate for a moment, in suspense, as to the meaning of the promise.
Contrary to this of infant baptism or adult baptism without faith:
Besides all this, let it be considered, what is the reason that, whereas the Baptism of the church is given for the remission of sins, infants also are by the usage of the church, baptized ; when, if there were nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of Baptism would be needless , to them."
Alexander Campbell states: "The preposition [FOR] "eis" here means in order to - in order to the remission of sins." (Campbell, Walker debate, 1823 p.124)
Robert Richardson C H A P T E R V I . p 223 During the past year, as a sort of sequel to his essays on the "Ancient Order of Things," he had published some church letters, which, at the time, created much interest. These were occasioned by a circular from the church at New York, transmitted in 1818, to various independent churches in Great Britain and Ireland, giving a sketch of its own order of public worship, along with its views in brief of Christian duty, and requesting in return a similar statement from each of the churches addressedBeing a Bible student, Campbell understood that believers are "begotten by the Word" whis is the SEED. A person who has responded in faith has begun the processof REgeneration: In the Christian system Campbell says that baptism is the LAST step in the process. A coneived child which does not develop and "come forth" has not finished the last step. Christian System Regeneration
In speaking of the views presented in these letters, Mr. Campbell highly commended the manifest agreement in all the essential matters of the primitive faith and practice. As the New York letter, however, revealed a disposition to adhere to a fixed routine in the order of worship, based upon a narrow and textuary method of construing the Scriptures, and to insist upon a unity of opinion, he took occasion to express his dissent from such rules as being relics of popery.
"When men," said he, "make communion in religious worship dependent on uniformity of opinion, they make self-love, instead of the love of God, the bond of union, and elevate matters of mere speculationDuring this year he published a series of essays upon the "Ancient Gospel," which, as he said, consisted in the simple facts connected with the work of Christ in the redemption of man. These facts, as he endeavored to show, again appeared in the symbolic ordinances of the gospel. In the Lord's supper, the Lord's day, and especially in the immersion of a believer, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ were pointed out as the grounds of justification and of hope. Baptized [224] into the death of Christ, buried with him in baptism, and therein raised again to walk in a new life, the penitent believer thus "put on Christ," and of necessity entered into the enjoyment of his salvation. Having thus "put on Christ," it now became his duty and his happiness to "walk in him," and to bring forth in life and conduct the fruits of that Holy Spirit of promise which he received upon the obedience of faith. Thus the gospel was discovered to be of so simple a nature as to be perfectly adapted to the understanding of every creature, and yet so effective in its direct and practical application, through its expressive ordinances, as to secure to the penitent the divine assurance of pardon, the renewing power of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling earnest of an eternal inheritance.
above the one faith, the one Lord and the one immersion."
As to a rigid observance of a particular order of worship, after remarking that "the patriarchal age was the infancy, the Jewish age the minority and the Christian age the manhood of the religious world, and that in the latter condition persons are allowed to have a judgment of their own and to exercise it," he deprecates any attempt to prescribe positive rules in matters of mere expediency.
This process may consist of numerous distinct acts; but it is in accordance with the general usage to give to the beginning or consummating act the name of the whole process. For the most part, however, the name of the whole process is given to the consummating act, because the process is always supposed incomplete until that act is performed. For example: In the process of tanning, fulling, forging, etc., the subject of these operations is not supposed to be tanned, fulled, forged, until the last act is performed. So in all the processes of nature in the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms -
[230] the last act consummates the process. To all acquainted with the process of animalization, germination, crystallization, etc., no further argument is needed. But in the style of our American husbandmen, no crop or animal is made, until it come to maturity. We often hear them say of a good shower, or a few clear days, "This is the making of the wheat or corn." In the same sense it is, that most Christians call regeneration the NEW BIRTH; though being born is only the last act in natural generation, and the last act in regeneration.
In this way the new birth and regeneration are used indiscriminately by commentators and writers on theology, and, by a figure of speech, it is justified on well-established principles of rhetoric.
By "the bath of regeneration" is not meant the first, second, or third act; but the last act of regeneration, which completes the whole, and is, therefore, used to denote the new birth.This is the reason why our Lord and his apostles unite this act with water. Being born of water, in the Saviour's style, and the bath of regeneration, in the Apostles' style,
in the judgment of all writers and critics of eminence, refer to one and the same act - viz.: Christian baptism.
Hence it came to pass, that all the ancients (as fully proved in our first Extra on Remission AcCSPropXI) used the word regeneration as synonymous in signification with immersion. In addition to the numerous quotations made in our AcCSPropXII all denominations, from the creeds and liturgies of Protestant churches,
we shall add another from the Common Prayer (?) of the Church of England, showing unequivocally that the learned doctors of that church used the words regeneration and baptism as synonymous.
Stone-Campbell Sectarians intend to deny that the Church of Christ
has a handle on baptism because must believe that misquoting all
recorded history will spook some weaklings.
The death, burial, enspiriting and resurrection of Jesus was the FORM of Doctrine. Form is TUPOS meaning a Pattern Capable of being imitated. John Calvin insisted that it was not an empty symbol but the means to God's grace.
1 Pet. 3:21 The like figure (Antitupon or Antitype counterpart) whereuntoBobby Valentine: Campbell testified in 1838 that he had not given the special meaning of baptism much thought prior to 1820. In the winter of 1821-1822 Walter Scott and Alexander Campbell discussed a tract on the specific import of baptism by a Scotch Baptist minister named Henry Errett (later to be the father of Isaac Errett). It was from this tract that both Campbell and Scott learned of a deeper meaning involved in baptism. Even with this significant discovery, Campbell, says he was "engaged so much in other inquiries, it was put on file for further consideration" [7]. The wider paragraph from Campbell is significant,
..........even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,
..........but the answer of [Appeal FOR not PLEDGE] a good conscience toward God,)
..........by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Paul said the same thing for those baptized in the NAME of Jesus Christ and NOT into Paul.
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin,
but ye have obeyed from the heart that form (tupos a model for imitation) of doctrine
which was delivered you. Ro 6:17
............ But now being
............ made free from sin, and
............ become servants to God, ye
............ have your fruit unto holiness, and
............ the end everlasting life. Ro 6:22
The PATTERN capable of being imitated is an EXAMPLE for us to follow.
2 Thess 3:9 Not because we have not power,
but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
Anti (g473) an-tee'; a prim. particle; opposite, i.e. INSTEAD or because of (rarely in addition to): - for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, SUBSTITUTION, correspondence, etc.
- We are baptized by GRACE instead of having to build an Ark or drown
- We are baptized by GRACE instead of having to cross the Red Sea or be destroyed by FAITH ONLY when God said "Quit whining, lift up your arm and MOVE into the jaws of death.
- We are baptized by GRACE instead of having to be pinned on a stake and shed OUR blood.
When you have to EXPLAIN AWAY what the text MAKES CLEAR you may have exhausted God's Grace.
Maybe YOU can be SAVED without the REMISSION OF SINS (connected only to baptism) but I DON'T THINK you can go into the Most Holy Place wearing DIRTY CLOTHES. Paul says we are saved BY FAITH when we are BAPTIZED to be CLOTHED with Christ. Then we have A holy spirit translated into heaven WHEN we are added to the CHURCH which is AFTER we have been baptized.Tupos (g5179) too'-pos; from 5180; a die (as struck), i.e. (by impl.) a stamp or scar; by anal. a shape, i.e. a statue, (fig.) style or resemblance; spec. a sampler ("type"), i.e. a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning): - en- (ex-) ample, fashion, figure, form, manner, pattern, print.
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all,
........... and to the Spirits of just men made perfect, Heb 12:23
"In 1820 the Editor had a debate with Mr. Walker on the SUBJECT [sic] and ACTION [sic] of Christian baptism. He had not then turned his thoughts to the special MEANING [sic] or design of that ordinance.
Either during that discussion or in transcribing it for the press, an impression was made on his mind that baptism had a very important meaning and was some way connected with remission of sins; but engaged so much in other inquiries, it was put on file for further consideration ..."
CW p 12 responding to INFANT SPRINKLING--only
I will now suum up, in a few words, seven respects in which Baptism differs from circumcision, and thus give my opponent an opportunity of replying to them all together.
Baptism differs from circumcision: first, in the sex of its subjects —
men and women were baptized — males, only were circumcised.
Secondly: it differs from circumcision in the age of its subjects
Baptism has no age specified for any of its subjeds.
In the third place: Baptism differs from circumcision in the prerequisites required to a participation in the ordinance :
circumcision required only carnal descent fi om Abraham, or covenant relation to A braham —
but baptism requires no carnal relation to Abraham,
it requires simply faith in Christ as its sole prerequisite — " If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest" — no faith was required as a sine qua non to circumcision —
but the New Testament presents faith, as a sine qua non to Baptis ; Acts viii. 47.
In the fourth place: Baptism differs from circumcision iu the character of its adminis- [13
In the seventh place: Baptism differs from circumcision in the blessings it conveys —
Baptism conveys no temporal, but spiritual blessings —
circumcision conveyed no spiritual blessings —
Baptism is connected with the promise of the remission of sins,
and the gift of the holy spirit —
The SUBJECT was the Mode of baptism. Walker etal attempted to put "sprinkling in the room of circumcision." Campbell's focus was to show the difference:
Baptism in contrast to circumcision "had a connection to the remission of sins." Please pardon Campbell if he had not dwelled of baptism as IMMERSION until he worked with the Baptists.
Campbell then goes on to say "Immediately on receiving a challenge from Mr. Wm. L. M'Calla, of Kentucky, dated May 17, 1823, I resolved to settle the true meaning of baptism before I ever debated the subject again" [7].
Campbell went into the DEBATE to settle the meaning of baptism undoubtedly so that he could present the truth which he did. Most of us are not so obsessed with baptism that we make a profession of debunking it. If we were forced into a debate we would make certain that we had all of the facts. The charge that Campbell did not UNDERSTAND is false.
Bobby Valentine: Campbell's debate with William MacCalla was in 1823. Even with this public pronouncement of the notion of remission of sins it was largely just theory rather not practice. It was left to Walter Scott's famous tour of the Western Reserve (Ohio) in 1827 to not only put this theory in practice but to invent the five-finger plan of salvation as well.
Alexander Campbell was not a "full time" evangelist but a publisher and farmer: he didn't charge for his work, you know.
Richardson p. 221 While these things were taking place upon the Western Reserve. Mr. Campbell was pursuing his editorial and other labors with his accustomed activity. He had in hand a new edition of the Testament, with sundry improvements suggested by scholars from among even the Pædobaptists, some of whom were much pleased with the work. New editions also of the earlier volumes of the "Christian Baptist" were called for and put to press. Meanwhile, his ministerial duties were regularly fulfilled at Bethany and Wellsburg, with occasional visits to other points, and he continued to direct and superintend the management of his farm, in which he constantly took a lively interest.Bobby Valentine: The mature Campbell’s views on baptism are more complicated than ours. Campbell’s theology of baptism certainly affirmed the rite was for remission, though he strongly denied that cognitive comprehension of that fact was required by God -- only submissive faith that was obedient. He thus never made specific knowledge of remission the litmus test of biblical baptism.
Campbell, like John Calvin, listed many things which can be attributed to baptism
Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, have not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism;In his 81st year this writer remembers being baptized about 65 years ago and has moved around a bit: Not once has he heard anything beyond what Campbell taught what everyone taught. Not being aware of Campbell, the believer was forced to understand the BIBE.and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved," (Mark 16: 16.)2. Its virtue not in water without the Word
In this sense is to be understood the statement of Paul, that "Christ loved the Church,
and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse
it with the washing of water by the word," (Eph. 5: 25, 26;)
and again, "not by works of righteousness which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us,
by the washing of regeneration
and renewing of the Holy Ghost," (Titus 3: 5.)Peter also says that "baptism also does now save us," (1 Peter 3: 21.)
For he did not mean to intimate that our ablution and salvation are perfected by water,or that water possesses in itself the virtue of purifying, regenerating, and renewing; nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation
Acts 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee,To claim that the FOUNDATION of the Churches of Christ rests upon simple Bible 101a is combat for combat's sake. The eunuch had an Isaiah Scroll with him:
of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water:
and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Acts 8:37 And Philip said,
If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still:
and they went down both into the water,
both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water,
the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more:
and he went on his way rejoicing.
| Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason
together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall
be as wool. Isa 1:19 If ye be willing |
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:16 He that believeth |
Acts 2:37 Now when they heard
this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the
rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, |
Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, |
| and obedient, | and is baptized |
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ |
and be converted, Epi-strephô cause to return to the source of Being Genn-aô beget, bring forth, engender, call into existence Phuo 1 Act.:--bring forth, produce, put forth, 2. beget, engender, get understanding |
| ye shall eat the good of the land: | shall be saved; |
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. A holy spirit=get understanding |
that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing [recovery of breath] shall come from the presence of the Lord; |
| Isa 1:20 But if ye refuse and rebel,
|
but he that believeth not |
Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, | Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, |
| ye shall be devoured [burned up] with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. | shall be damned | Save yourselves from this crookedgeneration. [Skolion singers] | shall be destroyed from among the people |
REBAPTISM WAS TO REFUTE BAPTISM TO REMIT SINS FOREVER AND EVER.
Bobby Valentine: On the contrary he believed such a position was sectarian to the core and a denial of the principles of the restoration movement itself.
Campbell even opposed adding the phrase "for the remission of sins" to the "name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" of Matthew 28.19 when immersing a candidate [8].That just proves that Campbell was a reader of the word contrary to those who perform a "trinitarian" baptism.
When Campbell reflected upon his own immersion in a "Dialogue on Reimmersion" he remembered that he simply confessed his faith that Jesus was the Messiah. Then Campbell adds, "Nor have I ever immersed any person but upon the same profession which I made myself" [9].
Again, that dagger will not draw any blood. Any Bible reader would understand that all AUTHORITY was vested in the NAME singular of Father, Son and Spirit. That is why Peter--good attention span--and everyone else baptized in the NAME (singular) of Jesus Christ. Campbel did NOT believe in the trinity which would deny that ALL authority in heaven and earth was vested in Jesus of Nazareth.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them,Only triadist baptized in three NAMES and then--consistently--they baptized THREE TIMES.
Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost
Bobby Valentine: Alexander Campbell responded in 1831 to a question about rebaptism put forward by Andrew Broaddus, a prominent Baptist minister. Campbell (who addresses Broaddus as "brother") says that though baptism is associated with remission that is not the total New Testament witness concerning the subject. He says,
If you miss the SUBJECT you might mislead people. The debate was over the MODE only.
Campbell DID NOT call him brother: CLICK