A Review of Rev Jb Jeters Book Entitled Campbellism Explained

The 19th-Century Response to the Rise of Campbellism

When the followers of Alexander Campbell attempted to insert themselves into Baptist life in the 1820s, they were rebuffed. When they subsequently courted Baptists to join their ranks in their independent churches throughout the post-obit decades, scores of Baptist ministers and Baptist paper editors rose up to decry such defections. The Campbellites asserted that their position was the true position of the "aboriginal church," who preached the "ancient gospel," and they appealed to Baptists to lay aside their denominational prejudices and embrace their motility. Exacerbating the tension was the credible similarity between Baptists and Campbellites on many points that had previously united Baptists against other denominations. In light of this claiming, Baptists brought forth other elements of their doctrinal identity to distinguish themselves from those who seemed to be of similar mind regarding many essential Baptist positions.

At what points did the Disciples differ from the Baptists? This conflict demonstrates that Baptists saw themselves in terms of historic orthodoxy, reformed evangelicalism, a two-fold confessionalism, all as necessary elements in a theologically-integrated ecclesiology.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Alexander Campbell was born September 12, 1788 in Ballymena, County Antrim, Ireland. After immigrating to the United States in his early twenties, Campbell labored in ministry first among the Presbyterians and and then among Baptists in Pennsylvania before moving to Bethany, Virginia. Campbell's remarkable influence along the borderland was due largely to his unique bulletin of unity against the backdrop of the Second Great Enkindling in the western states. Campbell, like many, had get frustrated by the rivalry among denominations in the wake of the revival, and he sought to restore the "ancient church building" by preaching the "aboriginal gospel," free from the sectarian arrogance. Nathan Hatch observes, "Similar many of his generation, Campbell believed that stripping away the accretions of theology and tradition would restore peace, harmony, and vitality to the Christian Church."^ane By 1830, Campbell'south followers numbered over 22,000, and his publication, The Millennial Harbinger, reached readers beyond a broad swath of the United States. By the advent of the Civil War, Disciples or "Reformers," as they came to be called, numbered 190,000.²

Campbell vigorously opposed denominations and the party spirit that seemed to pervade the U.s. in the midst of the religious fervor following the Second Slap-up Enkindling. He instituted what was in his heed a movement of reform, aimed at uniting all Christians under the one original imprint, free from the strictures of denominational control and influence, especially as embodied in creedal statements. Campbell saw himself as a great reformer in the line of those whom God raised up in the 16th century to gainsay Roman Catholicism. Campbell, nevertheless, felt that no sooner had Protestants freed themselves from the shackles of the Pope than

a secret animalism in the bosoms of Protestants for ecclesiastical power and patronage worked in the members of the Protestant Popes, who gradually assimilated the new church to the sometime. Creeds and manuals, synods and councils, soon shackled the minds of men, and the spirit of reformation gradually forsook the Protestant church, or was supplanted by the spirit of the world.ⁱⁱⁱ

In truth, the reform move that Campbell inaugurated was not entirely new and did originate beyond the Atlantic; even so, its roots stretched back only a century and merely to Scotland.⁴

Roots in Sandemanianism

Campbell'due south male parent, Thomas, "was a Seceder minister in the Anti-Burgher branch" of Presbyterianism. Due to financial difficulties, the elder Campbell sailed for the United states of america in Apr of 1807. Alexander remained backside with his mother and siblings and, somewhen attended the University of Glasgow where he befriended Greville Ewing, a university professor and follower of the Sandemanians. The founder of Sandemanianism was John Glas, a Scottish Presbyterian minister who objected to the Westminster Confession of Faith at a few particular points. Specifically, Glas argued for the separation of church and state and that the truthful church was to exist composed simply of those who had experienced a 18-carat piece of work of grace. Above all, he resolved that he should "accept to himself no other dominion only the word of God."⁵ By 1725, Glas had formed his own religious societies of only regenerate persons, a movement which resulted in his expulsion from the Kirk of Scotland in 1730. Undeterred, Glas and his followers (named Sandemanians due to the influence of his son-in-police, Robert Sandeman) established their own contained congregations. Within a few decades, the Sandemanians had farther splintered, dividing over a host of issues including the ordinances, ministerial compensation, the nature of the Sabbath, and ecclesiology. Nevertheless, they remained united in their antagonism toward whatever formal confession or doctrinal standard, the trait that became their unifying principle.⁶

Under the influence of Ewing, Campbell became enthusiastic with Sandemanian ideals. Several shifts in Campbell'south thinking can be traced to his association with Ewing, such every bit a reduction of religion to the practise of the intellect,⁷ the diminished role of the Holy Spirit in conversion, the nature of truthful church equally comprising only believers, and the selection and role of officers in the church. Campbell fifty-fifty adopted much of the vocabulary of the Sandemanians, employing terms like "ancient gospel," and "ancient church" to describe the ideal which he sought. Like Glas, he felt disdain for the "pop preachers" and held tenaciously to the maxim, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where they are silent, we are silent."⁸

Retreat from Presbyterianism

Upon arriving in the Usa in 1809, Alexander Campbell joined his begetter in Pennsylvania and found him in the aforementioned frame of mind regarding the Presbyterian form of church authorities and its adherence to creeds. Thomas Campbell was censured by the Presbytery of Chartiers in 1809 for schismatic practices and teachings, and, seeing that he stood little chance of being exonerated by the Associate Synod of North America, he formally resigned his position inside the presbytery and constituted his own congregational church with Alexander.^nine

The nativity of Alexander's daughter in 1811 sealed his break with the Presbyterians. Campbell ended that infant baptism was unbiblical and that baptism was to exist administered but to believers. Convincing the majority of his congregation to follow accommodate, they were immersed by a nearby Baptist government minister, and they constituted themselves afresh, excluding those who would not arrange. His attempt to institute the pure church and create unity was thus initiated through separation and disjunction.¹⁰

Rivalry with Baptists

Though he now practiced baptism by immersion, there were signs that Campbell'southward tenure amongst Baptists would be short-lived. Campbell's church building at Brush Run applied for admission to the Redstone Baptist Association in Pennsylvania, and they were accepted into fellowship despite the protest of some ministers who questioned Campbell's views on baptism and his refusal to accept the Philadelphia Confession, the standard of the Association.¹¹

While preaching through regions of Kentucky, Campbell became a prominent debater with Presbyterians over the mode of baptism. His skill in debate won him broad acclaim, but it soon became obvious to those most familiar with his arguments that he was teaching what amounted to baptismal regeneration, namely that baptism was for the remission of sins. Campbell'southward theological system as well involved features that prompted hostility from Baptists, such equally the denial that regeneration must precede faith. Campbell began disseminating his views in his ain paper, The Christian Baptist, in what many saw as a usurpation of the characterization. By 1830, numerous associations in Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois had weighed in and excluded churches espousing Campbellite theology.¹² When information technology was clear the championship was no longer expedient, Campbell subsequently ceased its publication and instituted The Millennial Straw.¹³

Campbell would continue writing and preaching up to his death on March 4, 1866. Due to their geographic proximity and the similarity of their practise of immersion, the primary rivals of the Campbellites were the Baptists. Exactly where and how they differed was itself a thing of controversy.

CAMPBELL'South THEOLOGICAL COMMITMENTS

Because Campbell was committed to the eschewing of any formal creeds, determining his precise theological position on any given doctrine or practice was decidedly difficult. Baptists who engaged Campbellite theology were quick to note this frustrating feature of the Reformers' movement, and they were frequently charged with misrepresenting Campbellite theology. The principal locus of Campbell's teachings were restricted to The Millennial Harbinger, which over the course of time would publish seemingly contradictory statements on a particular upshot.¹⁴ Campbell did, however, crystallize his teaching in his piece of work, The Christian System, originally published in 1839. In The Christian System, Campbell articulates what he believed the Bible taught regarding doctrines such as the fall of man, the essence of saving faith, immersion, conversion, regeneration, etc.

According to Campbell, flesh was in a state of fallenness. Man's main problem, even so, was not that he was dead in his sins, but rather that he now had a bent toward sinfulness. For Campbell, the remedy for man's fallen state is found ontologically in the sacrificial death of Christ, notwithstanding the way in which this remedy is practical to the individual sinner is through his rationality.

Campbell argued that "religion in Christ is the event of conventionalities," which itself is the mental assent of certain facts.¹⁵ Upon a person's profession of faith and repentance from sin, he becomes an appropriate candidate for baptism. According to Campbell, baptism "has no abstruse efficacy. Without previous faith in the blood of Christ, and deep and unfeigned repentance before God, neither immersion in water, nor any other activeness, tin secure to us the blessings of peace and pardon; it can merit zip." He continues, "Still, to the believing penitent it is the means of receiving a formal, distinct, and specific absolution, or release from guilt."¹⁶ For Campbell, the conversion of a sinner is "the change which is consummated by immersion," and he argues that regeneration is not to be confused with the procedure of conversion.¹⁷

Regeneration itself is moral and physical, and it is effected in a man when he realizes by the impression of the Give-and-take upon his centre that God loves him in spite of his sinfulness, and he is thus moved to dearest God in render. Hence, Campbell asserts, "The thou principle, or means which God has adopted for the accomplishment of this moral regeneration, is the full demonstration and proof of a unmarried proposition addressed to the reason of man [emphasis added]. This sublime proposition is, that God is Love."¹⁸ Campbell continues, "The change of heart and of character, which constitutes moral regeneration, is the legitimate impression of the facts or things which God has wrought."¹⁹

J. B. Jeter was the start to issue a formal response to the teachings of Campbell in the class of a total monograph, Campbellism Exposed, published in 1855. Jeter's piece of work was widely read by those who interacted with the Reformers, and it was steadfastly denounced by the Disciples as misconstruing the theology of Campbell. Campbell himself vowed a rebuttal, just instead the chore fell to his immature and promising protégé, Moses Due east. Lard. Lard's response was more detailed than Campbell'due south original systematic exposition, and for Baptist detractors, Lard's work stood as the best encapsulation of the views of Alexander Campbell, if not the unabridged Reformers' move.

THE BAPTIST RESPONSE – DEFINING AN IDENTITY

The Baptist response to Campbellism did non depend upon the refutations of a few individuals. In fact, the showtime opposition to Campbell occurred in his earliest days equally an immersionist in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, opposition to his theological positions was already vocal and rigorous in regions as far west as Illinois by 1830, not to mention the regions of Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia and Tennessee that were the heart of Campbellism.^twenty

Baptists were well known for their disputations with Methodists and Presbyterians over matters of distinction, similar the manner of baptism and the nature of the church. The response to the Campbellites, however, was of a different graphic symbol altogether considering Baptists agreed with Campbellites on many of these so-called distinctives, yet they vigorously opposed them on more substantial matters. Baptists also relentlessly opposed Campbell's followers for perceived usurpation of their own identity, namely the identity of being a true Baptist. Hence, the confrontation forced Baptists not only to define problems like believers' baptism, merely the larger framework of theology whereby Campbellites were necessarily excluded from their fold.²¹

Orthodoxy

The foundational result for Baptists was conspicuously orthodoxy. Information technology was non uncommon for many Baptist rebuttals of Campbellite positions to brainstorm with the concession that the Reformers were orthodox, as respecting the keen doctrines of the Trinity and the person of Christ. Such a concession reveals implicitly that to be Baptist first required other, more than basic commitments to the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

The reason for stringently examining the views of the Campbellites with respect to doctrines like justification, sanctification, regeneration, baptism, etc., is because the Disciples met the threshold for what was necessary to be considered "Christian." In that location are few occasions of published debates betwixt Baptists and Mormons, Unitarians, or other groups that failed to subscribe to essential orthodox positions.

1 historical feature of this agreement over issues of orthodoxy is the effort at ecclesiastical union between Baptists and Disciples in some locales, including Virginia and Ohio. The original call for an investigation into the terms of union in Virginia was initiated by W. F. Broaddus, a prominent Baptist leader in the state, published in a January editorial of The Religious Herald.²² In Ohio, the overtures came from the side of the Disciples, who went so far as to outcome a argument highlighting perceived areas of agreement between the two camps. A delegation of Disciples delivered their argument to the Baptist land convention meeting in Columbus. Amidst the brief statements were the post-obit assertions of orthodoxy:

1. The divine authenticity an [sic] authority of the Holy Scriptures of the Onetime and New Testaments equally a revelation from God to homo.

2. The divine authorisation and sufficiency of the New Testament equally a revelation of conservancy through Jesus Christ, and equally a rule of faith and practice for Christians.

3. The revelation of God therein in the threefold manifestation of Male parent, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the groovy piece of work of human redemption.

4. The divinity of Jesus every bit the Son of God, and his Messianic offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, to enlighten u.s.a. by his teachings, to redeem united states of america by his sin-offering, to rule over us by his kingly authority, and guide us to eternal life.

v. The mission of the Holy Spirit, to convict the earth of sin, righteousness and judgment, and to abide with the saved as a divine Comforter—the hostage of the heavenly inheritance.²³

Such statements were encouraging to many Baptists, for they showed that despite their reticence toward confessions, Disciples were somewhat willing to utilise theological language in order to build bridges with other Christians. Clearly the article upon which Baptists shared the most with the Reformers was their high view of Scripture.

Not everyone within the Baptist fold gave the Disciples the benefit of the doubtfulness regarding their orthodoxy, all the same. In an open letter published past The Western Recorder, A. H. Strong questioned the proposed fraternization of Baptists and Campbellites in Ohio. Strong references this full general argument of faith offered by the Disciples at the coming together in Columbus, but finds it deficient.

I desire, also, earlier going further in this direction, to have about serious attention given to the manufactures of organized religion presented past these brethren, lest the mere sound of orthodoxy be mistaken for the substance. So far am I from assenting to the opinion that upon the presentation of just such articles alone, any Baptist council would recognize a church or ordain a minister, that I see in well-nigh every one of these articles ambiguities which I should wish most advisedly explained before accepting those who offered them as audio of belief. Not to mention modest criticism, I see in the 3rd commodity no intimation that these brethren are not Sabellians, believers in a mere trinity of divine manifestations, instead of a trinity of eternal distinctions, immanent in the divine nature. For aught I can see, one might profess this third commodity as his belief and all the same deny that either the Son or the Holy Spirit were in whatsoever proper sense persons of the Godhead. I see in the 4th commodity no clear recognition of the essential and proper Deity of Jesus, nor any expression which a Unitarian might not prefer. I see in the fifth article neither a declaration of the Deity of the Holy Spirit, nor whatever intimation that pre-baptismal dearest is the work of the Spirit in the soul.²⁴

Fifty-fifty if i grants that the Disciples were actually orthodox in their Christology and pneumatology, too many differences remained for any such marriage to exist genuinely possible. These differences were with respect to those doctrines and behavior one might classify as "evangelical."

Evangelicalism

For Baptists, orthodoxy could non be sufficient for ecclesiogical or denominational union. J. K. Dudley notes that in spite of the supposed harmony on issues of orthodoxy, the areas of difference render the prospect of ecclesiological unity virtually impossible.²⁵ As previously noted, the Baptist distinctive of baptism of believers only by ways of immersion was in some senses shared past Campbellites. Yet, a perusal of the periodicals of the twenty-four hours reveals intense debates between Baptists and Disciples over the ordinance. What could possibly divide 2 camps in such a hostile fashion over an event upon which they seemingly agreed? The respond is the proper subject area of baptism; specifically, what qualifies a person to be a candidate for Christian baptism? While both groups would answer repentance and faith, the definitions of these terms offered by both sides differed dramatically. The reason for this chasm was the difference in soteriology.

The beginning of the debate frequently centered upon the extent or character of man'due south fallen nature.²⁶ This was the starting point of Baptist soteriology; to define the necessary elements of salvation, one must get-go deduce the status from which man must exist delivered. J. M. Peck, editor of The Western Baptist, asserts the following as the model "which is by and large maintained by intelligent Baptists both in England, and the U.s.:"

The mind of a sinner earlier conversion is opposed to God—it is a lecherous mind—at enmity against God. The sinner does non merely error nearly God and the gospel method of salvation. He does not merely labor under the influence of ignorance. He is non simply deficient in the cognition of divine things. His middle is mendacious above all things and desperately wicked. His inability consists in a wicked heart, and this is shown along in disobedient comport. For this wicked heart he is wholly to blame…²⁷

The total depravity of human was not merely an abstruse doctrine, simply a foundational truth upon which the scheme of regeneration rested. The reason mankind required a total conservancy is because he was totally, not merely intellectually, ruined. Peck farther illustrates this human relationship:

Simply the sinner volition not plough when he is exhorted. His middle is opposed to God—he loves sin—and goes on though he knows it will ruin him. Hence the necessity of the Holy Spirit to modify his heart—to course the image of Christ within him. And the Holy Spirit does alter the sinner's centre, and work inside him to will and to exercise the good pleasure of God.²⁸

Hence, the depravity of human being, if denied, removes the need for any true work of regeneration by the Spirit. Since the Campbellites made this denial, the resulting doctrines were thus the logical decision and necessary outworking of rejecting full depravity, as we shall see.

Moses Lard defined organized religion as "the simple confidence that what the bible says is true."²⁹ To have faith is to believe, merely with mental assent, that God exists, that His law condemns sinners, and that Jesus Christ is the proper Savior for man. R. Yard. Dudley, the editor of The Western Recorder, takes exception to this definition, arguing that this is merely historical faith, the same faith held by the demons and by Satan himself, and it is therefore insufficient to save anyone. Furthermore, Lard relegates repentance to an act merely of the will and ane which follows faith. Dudley challenges this exclamation, noting that the Scripture prescribes both faith and repentance in order to be saved. Dudley farther rebuts that repentance is wrought in the heart of a sinner prior to his exercising of religion, just every bit a sick person must be brought to awareness of his disease before he will seek out a doctor.³⁰ Lard's view is like to other Campbellites, such as one Dr. Hopson. The following summary of Hopson'due south view of organized religion and repentance demonstrates the process of conservancy in Campbellite theology from first to finish:

[This] truth when believed and obeyed makes men free from the chains of sin and introduces them into the family of God as adopted children. The listen of homo is equanimous of three parts—the intellect or the understanding, the sensibilities and the will. Spiritual truth, similar all other truth, in order to be believed must be presented to the intellect and must be accompanied by such bear witness as is sufficient to convince the understanding. Every step in the procedure of reaching the decision arrived at is intellectual; and if the outcome is the acceptance of the proposition as truthful, that judgment of the mind is belief, or faith, which two terms are of the aforementioned import, since they stand for the aforementioned Greek word. The proposition to exist believed by one who would be saved is, "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." This is presented past the Holy Spirit to the intellect; and it will exist believed or disbelieved equally it may seem to be sustained or unsustained by the evidence adduced in its support. When the truth of the proposition has been accepted, and so the will is operated upon past the Spirit through the discussion, commanding the believer to reform, or to alter his purpose; and when the will resolves to make the change required, then the newly formed purpose is to be carried into execution by obedience to the control, exist immersed.³¹

As this summary shows, the role of the Spirit in the conversion of sinners was, for Campbellites, one of presenting propositional truth to the heed of sinners. The Spirit exercised no existent activity, but was only present within the truth. In that location is no wonder, then, that Baptists attacked Campbellite theology on the grounds that it undermined the doctrine of regeneration and minimized the person and work of the Holy Spirit. A. P. Williams attacks Campbellites precisely at this betoken. He summarizes the views of Lard, "He does not believe that the Spirit operates. He believes that the truth operates considering it is of the Spirit. He believes that the ability past which information technology operates is now in it. And that the Holy Spirit can non increase this power without infringing the liberty of the human will." What follows is a quote from Lard: "An influence more intense than that of Divine truth, and in a higher place it, would of necessity infringe the freedom of the human volition, and hence can not exist admitted to be nowadays in conversion." To this, Williams replies, "Now, I ask, can the human who wrote the above judgement believe that the Holy Spirit now operates in conversion? I can non think that he does."³²

This unabridged scheme of human being's limited depravity and the rational nature of conversion opened the Campbellites to the charge of rationalism. In his critique of Moses Lard, Jeter demonstrates how certain tenets within Campbellism devolve into rationalism. First, they reduce total depravity to mere peccability, naught more a liability to sin and a personal infirmity. Secondly, though they do not formally reject the agency of the Spirit in conversion, they restrict His influence to just that which is upon the mind of the sinner through propositional truths. In other words, there is no experience of being brought to life or regenerated by the Spirit. "A human being, co-ordinate to the system, becomes a Christian, by his own unaided powers, without prayer, precisely as he would become an Odd Boyfriend or a Son of Temperance, except that in the latter case he would be moved by uninspired and the quondam by inspired arguments… Conversion, instead of being a Divine change, comprehending a new center—a new life—a partaking of the Divine nature—is a reformation originating simply in the forcefulness of truth and ending in immersion."³³ Hence, if the essence of saving faith is reduced simply to assent to propositional truth, and if regeneration is only a moral procedure whereby man's middle changes to dear God naturally because he apprehends with his heed that God loves him first, then the accuse of rationalism is indeed a fitting i. Such a religion is devoid of whatsoever truthful spiritual character.

The most noxious doctrine of the Reformers was their perversion of the design of baptism. According to Baptists, the Campbellite view amounted to baptismal regeneration.³⁴ Ironically, Some Baptists were willing to limited more charity toward those who held a dissimilar mode of baptism than they were toward the Reformers who perverted its design. S. Baker seeks to demonstrate that immersion cannot exist the cause of regeneration by offering as proof the examples of men such as Calvin, Edwards, and Baxter. Though these men were never immersed, yet no ane acquainted with their works would e'er question if they were indeed regenerated.³⁵

Every bit unsafe is the idea that baptism provides the remission of sins. In "Remission of Sins Through Faith in Christ," Joseph Weaver sets along the Baptist position that remission of sins is possible merely through the amende of Christ as He personally suffered for the sins of His people. Remission is granted to those who are united to Christ in organized religion. It is non, therefore, granted on the basis of human being repentance or baptism, only but upon faith.³⁶ Compare this with the Campbellite exclamation, "That faith, repentance, and immersion are necessary to the remission of sins, and the remission is guaranteed on no other conditions."³⁷

Modisett emphasized the danger of the Campbellite doctrine by highlighting its similarity to the organisation of the Mormons. "Now, is information technology not true, that in the fundamental doctrine of remission of sins, and concluding salvation of men, the boasted Reformation, and the infamous arrangement of Mormonism are identically one and the aforementioned, in holding and teaching that immersion in h2o is essential to remission of sins, and terminal salvation?"³⁸

J. W. Rust was glad to see the acrimony between Disciples and Baptists in Ohio abating, and he was encouraged by the aforementioned short doctrinal statement of Disciples, intending to highlight points of agreement betwixt the two groups. Nevertheless, he opines that union between the two would never be possible as long equally their theological identities remained as they were. Specifically, he challenged the Disciples on the evangelical points:

At that place is something very plausible on the surface of the above proposed platform of mutual faith [i.e. the statement previously referenced], just what lies beneath the surface! We would ask our Ohio friends of the "Current Reformation" if they believe in the personal presence and direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the spirit of human being in what is called regeneration, or exercise they still cling to their quondam view that the Word is all sufficient and that all the ability known in the Gospel consists in arguments addressed to the understanding, and in persuasions addressed to the middle. We would ask them if they nonetheless hold to their erstwhile view that baptism is necessary to the remission of sins, and no matter how strong and firm may exist a man'south faith in Christ as his Saviour, he is not in a state of salvation until baptized. Now upon these points there is a radical difference betwixt Baptists and Reformers… When Baptists stop to believe and preach regeneration by the Spirit of God, justification by organized religion in Christ—"without deeds of law,"—or when the Reformers stop opposing these views and go willing to accept them, permit the bailiwick of marriage be agitated.

Confessionalism

The oftentimes-repeated Campbellite slogan, "No Creed but the Bible," at outset peradventure sounds like a Baptist platonic. Indeed, many Baptists invoked this very phrase for their own purposes when distinguishing themselves from Presbyterians and other denominations. The freedom to adhere to the Bible alone above all ecclesiastical structures is part of the Baptist heritage. Despite this apparent similarity, withal, Baptists interpreted this liberty differently than did the Disciples. The liberty from oppression of a creed was not, for Baptists, a cause to impugn all confessional statements as "creedalism."

The contempt toward confessional statements can be traced to the Reform move's Sandemanian roots. Moreover, it found expression in Campbell's separation showtime from the Presbyterians and and so from the Baptists. Lard denigrated a creed as "a mere compound past human fingers of truths extracted from the Bible, metaphysics extracted from Plato, speculations extracted from Calvin, and the ecclesiastic corsets of the party in whose interest it is made."³⁹

The bravado of such sentiments is remarkable when ane considers that Campbell himself did publish a statement of faith. Campbell refused to cede any basis to his antagonists who accused him of hypocrisy, and he labored to distinguish between a creed in an ecclesiastical sense and what was merely a "doctrinal basis" of alliance. He fancied that his statement of faith occupied the latter category only. In response to his claim, Baptists were ready to defend their own practice every bit never rising above this very activity in the first place. "The things which Mr. Campbell hither declares to be no creed, and affirms so solemnly cannot exist a creed—'resolutions, and records, and exhibits, written and printed'—are precisely all the creed which the Baptists accept had, and upon which he has been constantly showering the envenomed shafts of his denunciation from the very dawn of his reformation to this present writing!"^twoscore

Commenting on the cocky-defeating nature of eschewing all man-made statements of faith, an editorial in The Western Recorder scoffs, "I venture the assertion that Mr. Lard, every bit unquestionably every bit whatever 1 else, has a creed. He believes, I presume, that sins are remitted in baptism; that, without baptism, there is no remission—hence, no salvation. Only if he does believe these, they are then many items in his creed; and if he were to brand a full list, this would constitute his unabridged creed."⁴¹

In reality, Moses Lard'southward theological statements held an almost creedal position among Campbellites, if not informally then. Upon the publication of Lard'due south response to Jeter'due south critique of Campbell, A. P. Williams further noted, "As Mr. Lard's book comes out with the indorsement [sic] of Mr. Campbell, we may justly conclude that it is regarded by him every bit a clear and successful exposition of his teachings. And as Mr. Campbell so regards it, of course all his followers so regard it."⁴² On this point, Jeter wryly notes that though the Reformers claimed to abominate central authority or absolutism, they wholeheartedly followed Campbell wherever he led. "They are held together by the magic of a name, and by a leader whose authority they have indignantly denied, and implicitly followed."⁴³ For Campbellism to merits it held no creed was just false.

Baptists were sympathetic to the platonic of holding to Scripture alone equally the terminal authority for organized religion and practice. This did non, however, preclude for them whatever apply of confessions, either personally or corporately. In his aforementioned letter, A. H. Stiff asserts the common Baptist practice of withholding fellowship from other churches or ministers until a proper confession is agreed upon. He asserts that this is the practise of "any Baptist" body.⁴⁴

Corporate confession was not the only point at which Baptists disagreed with Disciples; the role of personal confession was noticeably absent from Campbellite practice. Both Disciples and Baptists repudiated the practice of infant baptism, arguing that the ordinance was reserved only for those who had placed personal religion in Christ. Bated from the differences in what this religion entailed, the largest difference related to baptism was that Baptists required a personal confession of faith on the office of the 1 who was to be baptized. The candidate for baptism was expected to chronicle to the congregation a personal testimony of an feel of inward grace, often called a "Christian experience." Without this articulation of both the general truths of the gospel too as how these truths had come to affect the private'due south soul, he could non be baptized. The Disciples, on the other hand, repudiated this scheme altogether. Because they relegated saving faith to be only mental assent, the only testimony required by a person who was to be baptized was that he or she believed the facts of the gospel to exist abstractly true.⁴⁵

Decision

By the late 1860s, many were calling for peace between the two groups. There was sufficient basis for cooperation, if not full union, some argued. In 1866 Baptists and Disciples of Virginia convened a meeting in Richmond in society to explore the feasibility of such a matrimony. The proximity of their positions on Scripture, baptism, and the identity of the church led both sides to discuss the prospect of open up fellowship. In anticipation of this dialogue, The Millennial Harbinger affectionately characterized Baptists equally "earnest advocates for civil and religious liberty; for the independence of churches; and for a rigid adherence to the teachings and institutions of the New Testament."⁴⁶ In spite of their many similarities regarding these distinctives, withal, the representatives determined, "our differences were such as to foreclose ecclesiastical union and inter-communion."⁴⁷ These differences were no doubt the substance which made Baptists, Baptists.

Several implications can be drawn from the preceding analysis:

Kickoff, Baptists did not respond to the Campbellite insurgency by arguing merely over distinctives. The debate was not centered around the mode of baptism or the autonomy of the local church building or religious freedom. On these bug, Baptists found the Disciples to exist their natural allies. Instead, the response addressed more primal concerns such equally the piece of work of the Holy Spirit, the nature of regeneration, and the process of sanctification. For modern historians or theologians to emphasize mere distinctives as what defines Baptist-ness is quite short-sighted.

Second, the idea that Baptists are at their core a people who emphasize religious liberty or the priesthood of all believers to the neglect of statements of coherent truth establish in confessions is misplaced. Consider the following quote:

The ground of "like-minded to differ," is, notwithstanding all assertions to the contrary, the but possible ground of Christian spousal relationship. No one can prize such union more than I exercise; but in that location is something however higher than marriage —in comparison with which mere formal union is not to exist named—and this is freedom—freedom to practice your Christian reason in the light of the Holy Scripture, and to call back not equally whatsoever other person thinks, or any drove of persons who may call themselves the Church think, but equally the Divine Spirit may enlighten and guide you. Christians accept differed in all ages, and they will continue to differ as to all matters, whether of creed or government, into which the dividing edge of the intellect enters. They have merely ceased to differ when they take ceased to call up. Quietude of opinion has always been an omen of evil, and not of good for the Church.⁴⁸

These are words championed past the Disciples, but could easily be mistaken for the "Moderate" position on Baptist identity.⁴⁹ The appeal to the liberty of the conscience was not the basis upon which Baptists built their identity when faced with the encroachment of Campbellism. How, then, could information technology possibly serve as the means by which a cohesive or coherent Baptist identity is constructed? Furthermore, on what basis could whatever Baptist congregation or association exclude a Campbellite church building if the fundamental guiding principle is the competency of the soul in matters of religious confidence?

Third, Campbellism arose largely in reaction to the religious environment of the early on 19th century in the U.s.. Only as Alexander Campbell developed his theology as a reaction to the bickering and turf wars of American Christian denominations, Baptists found within their celebrated identity—perhaps enhanced and particularized—specific ideas to utilise to the conflict with Campbellism. Baptist identity has multiple flexible applications. Just every bit the early on church adopted new statements of religion with additional doctrinal nuances to combat theological crises equally they arose, and then besides, Baptists and other denominations are in each generation forced to run across challenges regarding their corresponding identities. If this exist the case, how do Baptists maintain an uncompromised sense of identity equally they seek to work in harmony for the purpose of the evangelization of the globe? Is agreement over the urgency and necessity of this task alone sufficient enough in itself to unite Baptists to the noble cause, or must there be a unity over more foundational matters in lodge to compel Baptists to go along walking together? Furthermore, is the loss of this deeper unity an intrinsic redefinition of Baptists?

When the early church acted to combat heresy by reformulating their creeds, they did not jettison their prior statements. They never reformulated their actual identity, but instead built upon the existing foundation new levels of understanding in an effort to articulate more clearly what they had ever believed. As for the Baptists faced with these questions in the 19th century, they stood together on the foundations of orthodoxy, evangelical truth, a theologically-integrated ecclesiology, and a robust confessionalism. May Baptists today learn from our forebears in this regard.

---

¹ Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven, CT: Yale University Printing, 1989), 163.
^two Martin Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1985), 197–198.
ⁱⁱⁱ Alexander Campbell, The Christian Arrangement: In Reference to the Union of Christians, And a Restoration of Archaic Christianity, Equally Plead In the Electric current Reformation (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Co., 1901, 5th ed. Originally published 1839) vii.
⁴ Robert G. Torbet, A History of the Baptists (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1991), 275; Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land, 197. Marty notes that Campbell's desires for unity did not foreclose him from expressing his feelings of contempt toward other denominations. Marty captures Campbell'southward declaration that if someone wanted to exist saved, he would ship that person to a Muslim before a Methodist circuit passenger (Pilgrims, 174).
⁵ Whitsitt, Origin of the Disciples, 2.
^six Whitsitt, Origin of the Disciples, 6–15.
⁷ Whitsitt records that while Campbell did eventually brand this shift regarding the nature of faith, it was non until after arriving in America that he accepted this persuasion. The seeds were undoubtedly sown, however, while under Ewing'southward tutelage. Origin of the Disciples, 73–74.
⁸ Whitsitt, Origin of the Disciples, 18–twenty, 55–68.
⁹ Westward. K. Pendleton, "Death of Alexander Campbell," Millennial Harbinger, March, 1866: 123–124; encounter as well Whitsitt, Origin of the Disciples, lxx–72.
^x Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land, 197; Torbet, History of the Baptists, 270–271.
¹¹ Torbet, History of the Baptists, 271.
¹² J. M. Peck, "Kentucky Associations vs. Campbellites," The Western Baptist, Oct, 1830, vol. ane, no. 3: 12.
¹³ Torbet, History of the Baptists, 271–273.
¹⁴ J. B. Jeter, "Introduction," in A. P. Williams, Campbellism Exposed in an Exam of Lard's Review of Jeter (Nashville, TN: Baptist Publishing Firm, 1866), viii–10.
¹⁵ Campbell, The Christian System, 37.
^xvi Campbell, The Christian Arrangement, 42.
¹⁷ Campbell, The Christian System, 44–45.
¹⁸ Campbell, The Christian System, 220.
^nineteen Campbell, The Christian Organisation, 222.
^twenty Torbet, History of the Baptists, 271.
²¹ Torbet declares unequivocally that Baptists were the aggressors in the contend, seeking to clarify their own positions against those whom they perceived equally insidiously using their appellation. History of the Baptists, 274.
²² W. F. Broaddus, "Union of Baptists and Disciples," The Religious Herald, Jan 4, 1866. The overwhelming response to Broaddus' suggestion was positive, and by March the ii sides had agreed to convene April 24 in Richmond in expectation of a friendly discussion and a fruitful event (Due west. F. Broaddus, "Marriage of Baptists and Disciples," Religious Herald, March i, 1866).
²³ Quoted in J. W. Rust, "The Baptists and Reformers of Ohio," The Western Recorder, Nov 12, 1870.
²⁴ Augustus H. Strong, "Proposed Campbellite Fraternization," The Western Recorder, February four, 1871, Vol. 37, no. 12.
²⁵ R. One thousand. Dudley "The Points of Agreement and Disagreement Between Baptists and Reformers," The Western Recorder, November 19, 1870, vol. 37, no. xiii.
²⁶ J. M. D. contributes a 12-function series in The Western Recorder from March 18 to August nineteen, 1871 entitled, "Campbellism Accused, Tried, and Proved Guilty," in which he examines the Campbellite scheme of soteriology and finds information technology wanting. He begins, quite tellingly, with the doctrine of total depravity. He asserts that depravity is a crusade, not an result. Hence, "If man were not depraved, he would never sin" (Baronial 19, 1871).
²⁷ J. M. Peck, "The Piece of work of the Spirit," The Western Baptist, Jan, 1831: thirty.
²⁸ J. Yard. Peck, "The Work of the Spirit," The Western Baptist, January, 1831: 30–31.
²⁹ Moses Lard, quoted in "The Faith of the Campbellites," The Western Recorder, July xi, 1868.
^xxx R. M. Dudley, "Respond to Mr. Lard," The Western Recorder, November 26, 1870.
³¹ R. M. Dudley, "The Points of Understanding and Disagreement Betwixt Baptists and Reformers, Role II" The Western Recorder, November 24, 1870.
³² A. P. Williams, Campbellism Exposed in an Examination of Lard'due south Review of Jeter (Nashville, TN: Baptist Publishing Firm, 1866), 154. For a thorough defense of regeneration, see J. P. "Regeneration," The Christian Index, December 22, 1836: 793.
³³ Jeter, "Introduction," in Campbellism Exposed, xi.
³⁴ In contrast to these charges, J. Thousand. Cox devotes four articles in The Western Recorder to an examination of the Reformers' view of baptism, and he concludes that what Campbell actually teaches is not baptismal regeneration, but baptismal justification. "Design of Christian Baptism,"
parts I–IV, The Western Recorder, June 13, 1869; June xix, 1869; June 26, 1869; July three, 1869.
³⁵ S. Baker, "Baptismal Regeneration Unscriptural," The Western Recorder, May xv, 1869.
³⁶ Joseph M. Weaver, "Remission of Sins Through Organized religion in Christ," The Western Recorder, March 13, 1869.
³⁷ Moses Lard, "The Faith of the Campbellites," The Western Recorder, July eleven, 1868.
³⁸ M. Grand. Modisett, "Origins of the Baptist and that of the Reformation Assorted," The Western Recorder, July 2, 1870.
³⁹ Moses Eastward. Lard, "No Creed Only the Bible," The Apostolic Times, April 1869.
⁴⁰ Editor, "The Reformation in Favor of Creeds," The Western Baptist Review, December, 1846. See also, "A Creed May Exist No Creed in 'An Ecclesiastic Sense,'" The Western Baptist Review, November, 1846.
⁴¹ Philos, "The Apostolic Times," The Western Recorder, May 25, 1969.
⁴² A. P. Williams, Campbellism Exposed, twenty.
⁴³ J. B. Jeter, "Introduction" in Campbellism Exposed, xii.
⁴⁴ Strong, "Proposed Campbellite Fraternization," The Western Recorder, Feb iv, 1871.
⁴⁵ Jeter, "Introduction," in Campbellism Exposed, xi.
⁴⁶ R. R. "Union of Christians," The Millennial Harbinger, March, 1866: 97.
⁴⁷ J. B. Jeter, "Convention of Baptists and Disciples," The Millennial Harbinger, May 1866: 224.
⁴⁸ An unnamed accost delivered by Primary Tulloch to St. Mary's College, St. Andrews; quoted in "Anti-Creed Motility," The Millennial Harbinger, January 1866: 30.
⁴⁹ For this emphasis on soul competency, run into Fisher Humphreys, The Way We Were (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002); Walter Shurden, Going for the Jugular (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996); Bill Leonard, Baptist Ways: A History (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 2003). Those who champion the notion of liberty ought to await not to Baptists equally their forbears, but to the Disciples of Christ.

bennettcolestook.blogspot.com

Source: https://founders.org/2013/07/01/baptist-identity-crisis/

Share this post