The "Church of Christ"
CRISIS CENTER
This site is intended to help the Campbellite study his way out of his errant doctrine using the word of God rather than the traditions of men.
The Truth about the "Church of Christ"
101 Questions for Campbellites
Acts 2:38 - Satan's favorite Bible verse
The CAMPBELLITES claim that you must be dipped in water or be damned in
hell. They claim that they and they only are the "Church of Christ."
They further claim that unless you are in the "Church of Christ" you
are not in Christ, hence cannot be in a saved state. They claim that they wear
the "Bible name." They claim that they only perform "Bible
worship."
The noted Baptist scholar of the 19th century, Alvah Hovey, in the Appendix to his commentary on the Gospel of John, remarks that John 3:5 "has probably been appealed to oftener than any other text of Scripture in support of" the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. However, the nineteenth century religious movement led by Alexander Campbell, which referred to itself as the "Restoration Movement," developed the theory of the baptismal remission of sins, and the verse most often appealed to in support of this position is Acts 2:38.
The interpretation placed upon this verse of Scripture might well be
called the "chief cornerstone" of this movement which is more commonly
known by the nickname of "CAMPBELLISM."
Alexander Campbell, one of the men who "discovered" the water gospel, but never obeyed it, stated that baptism for the remission of sins is "the all-important evangelical fact," (and stated as "baptism for cleansing"), meaning the REAL remission of sins. According to the claims of these Restorationists, Acts 2:38 was the primary verse that led to the "practical restoration" of the "ancient gospel" (later called the "Gospel Plan," with emphasis on the "baptismal remission of sins"). Supposedly, this restoration took place under the ministry of Walter Scott on November 18, 1827 (see Memoirs of Alexander Campbell Vol 2, pages 207-214), as the theory of baptismal remission was formulated previously in its earliest stages during the period of 1820-1823.
Probably to most professing Christians of evangelical convictions, the idea of baptismal remission, as advocated by Campbellism, is considered to be the same as, or equivalent to, baptismal regeneration. However, Campbellism does not hold the evangelical concept of regeneration (or the "new birth"), and therefore denies that it teaches baptismal regeneration. So, the real core of controversy on Acts 2:38 is the question: in what sense does baptism remit sins? Acts 2:38 clearly relates baptism to the remission of sins; the Greek word "eis" ('for') indicates such relationship. The one great significant question that arises (as put by Alexander Campbell) is: "In what sense is baptism for the remission of sins?" Campbellism holds that a real remission of sins is obtained at the point of immersion in water. Baptism is "an instrumental cause" of salvation, according to Campbell ? a real, literal remission of sins in the act of baptism ? rather than a metaphorical, ceremonial remission.
If the Campbellite position be correct, it means that God has attached an efficacy to baptism that is nowhere attached to any other ordinance or ceremony in the entire Bible. No act of obedience, in the form of an ordinance, ever had Divine efficacy related to it to the extent that the obedient party obtained a literal remission of sins. The ANIMAL SACRIFICES of the Old Testament, although called "atonements" in numerous places (such as Leviticus 1:4), were only typical, rather than real atonements. Being representations of the Christ who would come, they were called "atonements," but we have it on Divine authority that they did not secure a literal remission of sins, as the writer of Hebrews informs us in Chapter 10:1-14, and Chapter 9:9-12.
These sacrifices, therefore, while called "atonements," did not take away sin. This was an accomplishment which only Christ could bring to pass. When Christ affirmed that His blood was shed "for the remission of sins," there are numerous passages which justify the conclusion that He had reference to a literal remission (Hebrews 9:26, Galatians 3:13, 1 Peter 2:24 and 3:18); therefore, if His death were for the purpose of literally remitting sins, animal sacrifices could not have been for that purpose, neither could any other ordinance be for that purpose.
The LORD'S SUPPER, a New Testament observance, is regarded by evangelicals as a memorial ("remembrance") of our Lord's death. Terminology used in referring to this ordinance could easily be separated from the whole tenor of Scripture and perverted into sacramentalism, as is illustrated by Roman Catholicism's "MASS." The words of Christ, when He took the bread, "This is my body," and His words when He took the cup, "This is my blood" (Matthew 26:26-28), are used to establish the Romish idea of transubstantiation, which is the claim that the bread and wine are really the body and blood of Christ. Yet, only in the metaphorical sense is this the case. Obviously, Christ used the bread and wine representatively, as being only tokens of His flesh and blood. Augustus H. Strong comments: "'this is my body' means 'this is the symbol of my body.' Since Christ was with the disciples in visible form at the institution of the Supper, he could not have intended them to recognize the bread as being his literal body."
If such literal terminology is used of the Lord's Supper, yet is understood by all but sacramentalists to be metaphorical in nature, it is a parallel to the sacrifices of the Old Testament in this respect. While the language is literal, the meaning is obviously metaphorical.
Is BAPTISM, another New Testament ordinance, to be considered differently than Old Testament ordinances and the New Testament ordinance of the Lord's Supper? If there is some literal terminology to the effect that baptism remits sins (Acts 2:38), washes away sins (Acts 22:16) and saves (1 Peter 3:21), where is the justification for understanding this language to imply a Divine efficacy related to baptism that is not related to the animal sacrifices and the Lord's Supper? The Campbellite quibble that there is no efficacy in baptism, as such, is beside the point. There was no efficacy in the blood of animal sacrifices, but they were called "atonements" ? yet the New Testament ways they never "put away sin." They were types of Christ, that and nothing more.
Similarly, baptism is called a "likeness" (Romans 6:4-6) and a "figure" (1 Peter 3:21). If an Old Testament ordinance were an "atonement," yet only typically so, how can a New Testament ordinance, which is said to "remit sin," literally do what the former ordinance could not do? IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT CHRIST LITERALLY PUT AWAY SIN BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF; THEREFORE, THIS CANNOT BE PERFORMED AGAIN BY AN "OBEDIENT" ACT OF MAN. If the Old Testament ordinance were only a typical atonement, it follows that the New Testament ordinance could be no more, and must be only a typical remission.
H. B. Hackett in his remarks on Acts 22:16, makes the sense of baptism clear: "This clause states a result of baptism in language derived from the NATURE of that ordinance. It answers to 'for the remission of sins,' in Acts 2:38, i.e. submit to the rite in order to be forgiven. In both passages (22:16, 2:38) baptism is represented as having this importance or efficacy, because it is THE SIGN of the repentance and faith where are the conditions of salvation." ? H. B. Hackett, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1882), Vol 4. p. 258, all caps emphasis by Bob L. Ross.
Hackett considered baptism to be "in order to" remission in the sense of a "sign." By reference to the "nature" of the ordinance, it is obvious he understands baptism to have a nature other than that indicated by the mere terminology itself. Baptists have always considered baptism to be in order to the remission of sins in the sense taught by Hackett, so no concession at all is made to the Campbellite position. A. T. Robertson comments: "A SYMBOL IS NOT THE REALITY, BUT THE PICTURE OF THE REALITY."
J. R. Mantey makes the following observation: "When one considers in Acts 2:38 repentance as self-renunciation and baptism as a public expression of self-surrender and self-dedication to Christ (which significance it certainly had in the first century), the expression 'eis aphesin ton hamartion human' may mean for the purpose of the remission of sins. But if one stresses baptism, without its early Christian import ? as a ceremonial means of salvation ? he does violence to Christianity as a whole, for one of its striking distinctions from Judaism and Paganism is that it is a religion of salvation by faith, while all others teach salvation by works. ? H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: MacMillan Company, 1948), p. 104, italicized emphasis by Bob L. Ross
The last bastion of "unity" in the "CHURCH OF CHRIST" (so-called) segment of the 19th century "Restoration Movement," which was originally a "reform" and "unity" endeavor launched by Thomas Campbell in 1809-1812, is the practice of a capella singing as the exclusive 'music' in congregational worship.
Despite idealistic mottos and well-worn slogans which embellish the concept of "one church" in all aspects of faith and practice, the "pioneer" leaders who laid down the "old paths" and conceived the "patterns" in the 1812-1850 era would no doubt be astonished at the lack of cohesion which characterizes late 20th century "restorationism." Men such as father Campbell, Alexander Campbell (the son), Walter Scott, Barton Stone, Jacob Creath, John Smith, and the other early proselytes from the Presbyterians and Baptists, would perhaps launch a "new and improved" reform-and-unity movement were they on the scene today. Perhaps no professing Christian entity, indigenous to America, has more "splinters" than the "RESTORATIONISTS." There are even "splinters" within the "splinters."
The two broad "branches" of the movement developed after the introduction of "mechanical instruments of music" in the 1850's. The pro-instrument segment was primarily the northern churches while the anti's were dominant in the South. The controversy was a "family quarrel" in the early stages, each "side" viewing the other as "brethren." As the crevice widened, the consequences of "error" were perceived and pronounced to be of weighty significance ? even SALVATION itself was "on the line" in the minds of many.
By the 1900's, the "lines" were distinctly drawn ? two "parties" had crystallized: the "Christian Church" (or "Disciples of Christ") and the "Churches of Christ." The former was the leading party of the northern states, and the latter was the scourge against musical instruments south of the Mason-Dixon line. Names such as McGarvey, Lipscomb, Kurfees, and Hardeman became veritable "legends" in "restoration" history relating to "the instrument question." There was no doctrine or practice which became more "symbolic" of Church of Christ unity than their "sing only" worship.
The "five-acts-of-worship" segment had no place for an organ or piano except for repeated condemnation! Next to Acts 2:38 on baptism, Ephesians 5:19 on music became a primary "foundational" block in Church of Christ nomenclature. Since the clear-cut division of the pro-instrument and anti-instrument segments, the Churches of Christ have had several "splinterings" over many different "issues," but their UNITY in opposition to instrumental music remains rather constant. Only in recent times has there been any noticeable "digression" on this, and even those cases apparently represent a very low percentage of congregations. However, with the rise of the "NEW HERMENEUTIC" in some schools, congregations, and publications, the "last bastion" of that "wall of separation" between Churches of Christ and "denominationalism" may be destined for serious puncture in days ahead.
The Restoration Movement, or "Campbellites," were led
by Thomas and Alexander Campbell (as mentioned above). Though originating from
within the Presbyterian Church in the early 1800's, this movement found more
fertile ground in the Redstone and Mahoning Baptist Associations along the Ohio
River, south of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The movement divided into three major
segments: the "Disciples of Christ," "Churches of
Christ," and the "Christian Church" (independent).
Emphasis is placed up baptism as being essential to salvation, as
Restorationism teaches a view of regeneration which is regarded by Baptists as "THE
WORD ALONE" theory.
