The Campbellite Plan Of Redemption

Mark,

bmerr here. To be quite honest, I'm not that familiar with Restoration history. I know that men like Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and Barton Stone had a worthy goal: to leave the creeds, catechisms, and doctrines of men, and return to the NT for the sole authority for faith and practice.

I know that many men before their time had the same vision, often emphasizing one Bible truth above others, and most resulting in yet another denomination.

While the success of men through the ages in their quest to return to the Bible as their final authority may be questioned, the goal, in and of itself, is a noble one, would you not agree?

And, while "churches of Christ" may not have been known in America prior to the 1800's, the church of Christ has been in existence since Acts 2.

The church is the body is the kingdom of Christ. God nowhere commanded anyone to "join it", as you remarked, but people were added to it by the Lord when they obeyed the commands of the gospel (Acts 2:47).

The conditions upon which one may be added to the church of Christ are the same today as they have been since Acts 2. If you "joined" a church, it wasn't the one Christ built.

Alexander Campbell is not my authority. He is no Christian's authority. What truth he taught is right and acceptable, just as any truth Spurgeon taught is. There may have been some doctrinal points that Campbell had wrong, I don't know.

Each man has the duty to study (2 Tim 2:15), and to live accordingly as best he can (Phil 3:16). On these boards, I would hope we would be more interested in coming to a better knowledge of the truth than we are in finding "reasonable" names to call each other, especially if it's with indended offense.

If I refer to someone as a "Baptist", it's nothing that they don't call themselves, so no offense should be taken, since no sane person would call themselves a name they objected to. But to continue to use a term that you know is offensive is childish at best.

I'll look for better from you in the future.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Not to get in the middle of your discussion with the Baptist board's local Campbellite; I notice it is funny that he hangs around here on a "Baptist" board where he can "debate" us.

The one thing I remember from college was my roommate who talked me into going to the local Bible Chair---(Big mistake). They spent the entire evening gripping about Baptists and how stupid they were and how they ought to beat them up for telling people that Baptism wouldn't save you. AND YES, they did say you had to JOIN their church. Just like our friend here, they loved to hang around where they could get into debates. Why? I dunno, Campbellites just LOVE to duke it out with their doctrines.

Is anybody here hanging out at a Church of Christ bulletin board?

 

Phillip,

bmerr here. I'm sorry you don't like my being here. I have found in the past that members of the church of Christ are the most un-welcome people on debate forums. Why this is, I don't know.

As for why I post here, why did Paul not preach solely to Christians? Why did he go to where people were in error? To convince them of the truth!

Is that not why you're here? To help others see things the way you see them? Isn't that what we're all doing here?

Perhaps a reason the church of Christ is often not welcome is that we all tend to say pretty much the same things. We all tend to preach the same doctrine. Truth isn't supposed to be different every time you hear it.

As for the "Bible Chair", I'm not familiar with it. If those people were from the church of Christ, they had pretty sorry attitudes, and I apologize for their conduct. If they weren't, I can't defend them.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Mark,

bmerr here. From what I've heard and read about the Restoration, Alexander Campbell was far from the first to attempt to get back to the Bible. He was one in a long line, including Luther and Calvin, among others.

Many with this goal tried so hard to get out of one error, they ended up in another. Like overcorrecting to get your car out of the right ditch, only to end up in the left. The Campbells had the works of other men to help keep them clear of the ditches on both sides of the road.

Again, if you can show me something I teach that isn't found in the Scriptures, then do so. And if you still want to call me a Campbellite, go ahead. I've been called worse, I guess.

Concerning the term "join", Paul had already been added to the church by the Lord back in Damascus when he obeyed the gospel. His attempt to join himself to the disciples at Jerusalem was an attempt to congregate with them. He wanted access to their fellowship, but they were afraid of him due to his past actions.

I think it would not be required for the "join" in Acts 5 to mean "become Christians". It may have been a general fear of the disciples connected to what had happened to Ananias and Sapphira, and by the "many signs and wonders" performed by the apostles.

There seems to be a distinction between "the people", and "the rest". I'm not sure what it is, though.

We also find that "believers were the more added to the Lord", which seems different from "the rest", who dared not join themselves to them.

And when I sign off with "In Christ", I'm signing off from where I am, not necessarily where you are, though I hope you will be.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

No they ban you when you post Bible to refute their false works based religion. I have inlaws who are members of this cult. They do believe that they are the only true church and that one does not enter the body of Christ until baptized by immmersion for the remission of sins. They are wolves. They will enter community Bible studies saying they are just there to learn when infact they are there to argue and try to lead people into their own religous organization. Campbellites are a cancer no different than the mormans or the jws. Works based, human founder (ie smith, campbell), you must join them or you are lost, only their baptism is biblical, and it actually washes away sin, you can lose your salvation.

 

But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

And Jesus answered and said unto them, "Take heed that no man deceive you. "

 

Lawson,

bmerr here. The administrators of this site have provided this space for discussion among those from "other Christian denominations", of which they would say I am a part. I'm in my little corner, abiding by the rules. Why is this a problem?

The rest of us don't mind if Baptists post in this section, and that includes you. If you don't like what's being discussed here, why not stay on the "Baptist Only" threads?

Also, where is the church of Christ board you were banned from? I'd like to check it out. Maybe I can get you back in, if you want.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Good Job, Mark!!!

 

bmerr:
Good to see you posting again. I just happen to drop by to see which topics were active. I see this thread is very active. I am amazed at the numbers of people who know what you preach, teach and live before they ask you.

While I am not a scholar on the restoration movement, I do know the things Campbell taught. It is obvious there are some who are ignorant of this. There is a proverb that King Solomon once spoke that bodes well from most of what I have read on this topic. Even a fool is counted as wise when he holds his tongue.

Have a good day. Talk to you later.
Frank

 

Frank,

bmerr here. Nice to be back. Good to see you're still here, too.

I'll be looking forward to your posts.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Philip,

You do have to hand it to bmerr for obeying the rules. He's more polite than most here. Besides it makes things interesting.

I have always appreciated the Campbellite/CoC attempts to get back to a "new testament church". Shouldn't we all!

But my problem with the CoC as it is now pertains to the legalistic "hangups" on baptism, "addition" to the church, and no instruments to name a few. To an outsider this looks like a NEW MOSAIC LAW. You must do this, this, and that in order to be saved.

In order to be saved you must first _____ and then ______.

We can fill in the blanks with "be baptised" and "be added to the CoC" - but how would that be different from "be circumcised" and "keep Torah"?

Salvation by faith alone is freedom from such legalism.

 

Charles,

bmerr here. Thank you for the kind words, sir. I appreciate the priviledge of posting here, and many thanks to the administrators/moderators for making it available.

Regarding the "hang-ups" of the church of Christ, each one is grounded in the teachings of the NT. There is a law in the NT, else the law did not go forth from Zion, or the word of the LORD from Jerusalem (Is 2:3).

Paul was under the law to Christ (1 Cor 9:21), and yet, he was not a legalist. He was simply obedient.

The difference between the command to be baptized for the remission of sins and the commands to be circumcized and keep the Torah, is that the former is under the NT, while the latter are under the OT.

The NT does away with the parts of the law that were unique to the Mosaic, or what God gave the Israelites and no other.

Other aspects such as moral issues (murder, fornication, lying, etc) have always been, and will always be sins, and must be repented of to become a Christian.

While it may seem that the doctrine of salvation by "faith alone" gives one liberty, it is not a doctrine found in the NT. In fact, it is one that is flatly denied by the NT (James 2:24).

In Christ,

bmerr

 

bmerr,

While it may seem that the doctrine of salvation by "faith alone" gives one liberty, it is not a doctrine found in the NT.

I agree that some baptists' concept of "liberty" is a bit of a "reductio ad absurdum". No one should assert that salvation by faith gives them liberty to ignore the consequences of behavior.

But I do not agree that the NT contains "law" as does the OT. Yes certain things are sin - both now and then.

But the message of the NT is that salvation cannot be earned. The faith that saves is a transforming faith; a faith that absolutely yields good works. James points out that such true faith WILL have works.

Paul intends to show that it is because of and ONLY because of Christ's finished work that we can have salvation. The idea that someone could have true faith but be denied salvation because they have not completed an aspect of "NT law" such as baptism is antithetical to the whole concept of salvation as laid out in the NT.

The case in point would be baptism. No Christian is going to REFUSE baptism. That's essentially a non-issue. But we should be quick to see that it is not the baptism that is saving but rather the faith and willingness to submit to it.

Again I should reiterate that the point of the gospel is that salvation is not earned. If you insist that a person must perform several works in order to be saved then what necessity do you see in Jesus even having to have died?

 

Charles,

bmerr here. We're really not that far apart. I'm beginning to see similarities in our thinking. Scary, huh?

We are agreed that salvation cannot be earned. I think one spot we're not seeing eye to eye on is whether one's compliance to God's conditions for salvation equals one's "earning" his salvation.

I would say, "No". I think that's what Paul was saying in Eph 2:8-9, as the works he speaks of are those of which a man could boast.

Also in his letter to Titus, Paul declares that we are not saved by works of righteousness that we have done (Tit 3:5). We could boast of things that we had done, or devised on our own.

Paul gives a list of things concerning the flesh of which he could boast (if he were going to) in Phil 3:4-6,

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

5 Circumcised the eigth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

At the same time, Paul speaks of the Christians at Rome, and how they had obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine that had been delivered them, and that when they had done that, they had been made free from sin (Rom 6:17-18).

James makes the point that true faith is one that is completed, or made perfect by works, not merely one that is followed by works. In other words, an obedient faith is a saving faith.

Your statement, "No Christian is going to REFUSE baptism", IMO, puts the cart before the horse, so to speak.

While we agree that salvation is not earned, and is only available because of Christ's finished work, we also must concede that one must "work righteousness" to be accepted of Him (Acts 10:35; Is 64:5). We must do the will of the Father to be a part of the family (Luke 8:21).

In Christ,

bmerr

 

bmerr,

My problem with your stance is that you seem to insist that there are certain things WE must do in order to be saved. Either salvation is by faith or it is not.

You refer to Eph 2:8 and Titus 3:5 approvingly but then cite others verses to show that salvation demands a few works after all. Once again either salvation is by faith or it is not. If a person MUST be baptized and MUST join the CoC to be saved then Paul was wrong when he said salvation was by faith.

We all agree that true faith (saving faith) will produce fruit. And it's a pretty safe bet that a "believer" who has NO fruit probably is not really a believer.

But that does not change the fact that the Bible is 100% clear that NO works are REQUIRED for salvation.

 

I John 6:27-29, Jesus said, Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unot everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto yoou for him hath God thte Father sealed.
In verse 28 Jesus is asked the question, Then said they unto him, What shall we do to work the works of God?
In verse 29, Jesus responds, Jesus answered and ssaid unot them, This is the works of God, that ye believe on whom he hath sent.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.Romans 10:17. When one is understanding, examining the word he is working based on the biblical definiton of work from the word of God.

 

Charles,

bmerr here. I'm going to work this one in reverse order.

I'd point out that it is works of which one could boast that have no part in salvation. These would be things like works of the Law, or doing "good works" to be good enough for God. I don't think this rules out obedience.

I would go a bit further and contend that without obedience, faith cannot be true, saving faith. I believe this is the point James makes.

What throws some is the fact that both Paul and James use Abraham as an example of justification by faith, Paul showing that Abraham's justification was without works, and James showing that Abraham's justification was with works.

They appear to be opposing each other, fighting toe-to-toe, but we know this cannot be the case. I have concluded that the only way they can be on the same side is if they're fighting back-to-back, facing different enemies.

It seems that Paul's main opposition came from Judaizing teachers who tried to keep (Jewish), or bring (Gentile) Christians under the Mosaic Law. He uses Abraham to show that Abraham was justified without the Law, since the Law did not come until about four hundred years after Abraham. His main argument is that justification is not by works of the Law.

James, on the other hand, seems to be battling against those who would obey the gospel, and then do nothing. [Good thing all those folks are gone ]

James uses Abraham to show that Abraham was only justified when he obeyed God, and did what God had commanded him to do. Faith made perfect by obedience = justification.

That's the only way I know to have Paul and James on the same side: if we leave room for obedience.

I do approve of Eph 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5, it's true. But I can't overlook Acts 10:35 and others in doing so. If a verse conflicts with my understanding of other verses, the problem is not with the verses, it's with my understanding.

Baptism is a command under the NT. That's just a fact. There is a certain way it must be done, and there are certain reasons it must be submitted to, as well as certain spiritual blessings one receives having submitted to it. I'd list all the verses, but they've been given in the past, and you're aware of them.

One of the blessings one receives as a result of being baptized is that he is added to the church by the Lord. One may relocate, and join in fellowship with another congregation, but a Christian is only and ever added to one church, whose builder is Jesus Christ.

Again, one is saved by faith, but the faith that saves is the one that obeys.

Thank you for the time you have spent, and will spend discussing these things with me. I know your time is a precious as mine.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

That's the only way I know to have Paul and James on the same side: if we leave room for obedience

They are indeed on the same side. And yes obedience follows true faith.

My problem with your theology does not reside in your insistence on obedience. As I said before no true Christian would refuse baptism or refuse to keep Jesus' commandments to love one another (fall short yes but refuse - no).

My problem with "strict" CoC theology is its insistence that unless once is baptised in the name of Jesus (not the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and unless one joins the "church of Christ".

In essence that means that a person can confess Jesus as savior, submit to baptism, and live a life of Christian obedience - but if he/she was baptised in a baptist church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and attends that church (with the name "baptist" above the door) then he/she is not saved.

So in essence Jesus' blood is not efficacious. What IS efficacious is the WORDS uttered while be dunked. So Paul should have said, "Salvation is by words and not of faith, lest any man should boast."

You see it's not the fact that you and I diasagree on details of theology - no one has it ALL figured out - and no two people agree completely on everything. Rather my beef with your theology is that you insist that anyone who differs from you is not only wrong - but unsaved.

I have accepted Christ as savior. I submitted to baptism. I have lived a changed life.

I have the assurance of salvation as described in the Bible (1 John 5:13). To deny that is to say that Paul and Jesus were both wrong.

You may quote several verses on "obedience" - and that's fine. I applaud your attempts to seek as much truth as possible. But you cannot explain away what is plainly written in inspired words by saying, "but let's lok at some other verses."