Baptist-church of Christ/Campbellite Debate

   Last week, I debated a so called "Church of Christ" preacher. He was what you might call a "hardline" Campbellite. As much as they like to claim that their movement is unified, that is false. I have found three strains of them with regards to baptism alone, not to mention many other issues. Some have recently started to embrace a more baptistic view of baptism. Although they are few, that view is growing. The next view, which I call "middle of the road" will say baptism is the equivalent of being born again, but dying without baptism doesn't necessarily consign you to hell. They would say it is like a baby who is aborted or dies in the mother's womb, but was never "born". The child still is saved and goes to heaven. So baptism completes the process, but the lack of it does not negate the personhood or new nature that is in progress. Most of the churches who hold this view go by the name of "Christian Church" (both Independent and Disciples of Christ) although many are called "Church of Christ". The third view is the hardline view, that even if you make it to the water, but die of a heart attack before being immersed, you are lost and go to hell. 

   The subject of the debate was supposed to be baptism. When I gave my view of John 3:5, he rejected it, saying "No Christian in the first two centuries ever espoused such a view". I explained that my interpretation was that Jesus was speaking of a physical birth when he said "born of water" and the spiritual birth when He spoke of "born of the Spirit". Why do I hold this view? Because in the very next sentence Jesus said so. Jesus compared born of water and being born again, when He said "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit". Why would Jesus even say "born AGAIN" if He were not referring to two different births, one physical and one spiritual? Right after that, He said "born of water" alluding to the physical birth, when a woman's water breaks and a child is born. "Born of the Spirit" comes AFTER being "born of water" so if being baptized is the equivalent of being born again, that would place the new birth BEFORE Spirit birth, and that statement would make no sense. From there, he went on many rabbit trails, as he thought this was his opening to attack me on other things.

   After this, the Campbellite went on a rampage and began to quote the church fathers and others who lived in the first 200 years after Christ. I told him, that while I studied what the fathers and others wrote, that they did not determine doctrine for me. (The Campbellite also believes this, but it wasn't convenient for him at that time to say it). They give us a picture of what things were like at that time, and sometimes they mean different things by words than we mean today. For example, I could say that I agree that baptism "saves", but saves from what? If it saves from sin, and places me into union with Christ, and puts me into contact with Christ's blood as the Campbellites teach, then in essence the Campbellites believe in transubstantiation of the water, like the Catholics do of the Eucharist or Lord's Supper. After all, Jesus did say "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you". I asked him "how do we eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood in order to have life? Obviously you reject taking this literally, yet you take the washing away of sins literally in baptism. Tell me how we can know which things are literal and which are symbolic." Without a response, he began to quote from more ante Nicene fathers. At that point, I realized he was going to use others to prove his view, even tho his own tradition rejects anything but the Bible itself.

   Without missing a beat, no pun intended, he went straight to the use of musical instruments, also quoting the ante Nicene fathers. I explained that the church had "errors" before the canon of Scripture was even complete, look at the mess they made of celebrating the Lord's Supper and Paul's rebuke of them. So while the ante Nicene fathers are useful study for a picture of the church at that time, they are not necessarily inspired or authoritative. I explained that many things were cultural, because in that day, once Christianity had come to be a mostly Gentile movement, the only "music" they knew of involved paganism, so they rejected music. There was no such thing as "neutral" music like love songs, or pop and country songs. He quoted Clement, and his view of music in the church. I suppose he didn't expect me to be knowledgeable enough to know that Clement condemned ALL music in or out of the church. So once I quoted Clement on this fact, I asked the Campbellite , that if he holds Clement as a standard of truth, why does he listen to the radio, or teach his kids piano and guitar? He eventually started to quote Baptists like Spurgeon, who clearly said he did not like instruments in worship. However, Spurgeon also said that others like Luther and Calvin did use instruments and if it helped in their praise of God, he respected that, and that we had "gospel liberty" on such issues. Again, he tried to employ someone he thinks to be in hell, to be the truth bearer.

   At my closing remarks, I stated the following propositions which the Campbellite had ignored. I suppose I "may have" (lol) started to use my preaching voice and I fear I "cleared and cleansed the temple", and I then felt truly what Jesus felt in His anger at the Pharisees for the valuing their traditions more than truth, and their self righteousness more than souls. I ended my rebuttal by saying the following 16 points below. When it says "I" its refers to me, and where it says "you" it refers to the Campbellite. After I said these things there was total silence for what seemed like an eternity. I wondered if soldiers might come at any moment and take me to Pilate for execution. That's what happened to Jesus when He silenced the crowd and got no response. Whether it was a "good silence" or a "bad silence" I will leave that for you to judge.  

My closing remarks:

 1. You said "no one in the first 3 centuries ever taught that John 3:5 referred to physical birth". I said "Jesus made it plain when He said in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE "flesh gives birth to flesh and spirit gives birth to spirit". So in verse 5 Jesus referred to 2 things, "born of water" and "born of the spirit", the word "and" being a conjunction indicating two separate things. In the next verse He refers to the SAME TWO things and says "flesh/birth" and "spirit/birth". You kept appealing only to those in the first 3 centuries, and I said I don't base my doctrine on what others say", and then YOU appeal to them AGAIN, even tho your own churches say they also do not look to what others say, but "the bible alone is our creed". hypocrite 

 2. You use Spurgeon and call him the greatest Baptist preacher of the 17th century and use him as "proof" that instruments are wrong. Then I asked if you accept his 5 point Calvinism since he is your "expert" in doctrine. You gave no response 

 3. You continually appeal to the "church fathers, esp Clement (Clementine as you call him) and his denunciation of music in worship. I tell you that he also condemned ALL music as sinful even outside the church, and asked since you hold Clement in such high esteem, do you also follow his teaching that ALL music is sinful, and you should never listen to music on the radio since he said all music was "pagan". You gave no response. 

 4. You made a huge deal about a few Baptist churches having female pastors, even tho they are NOT in fellowship with my type of Baptists. Then I showed you several examples of female elders in "churches of Christ" and you gave no response or apology. You love to shoot those arrows, but when those same arrows are shot back at you, there's no response or apology.

5.You said churches of Christ do not teach that you must be baptized by them to be valid, even tho in your opening statement you affirmed this teaching. I gave you several links to churches who affirm what I said. You gave no apology and no response. 

6. You made a big deal that some Baptists are landmarkers, I mentioned that your churches teach the exact same thing, no response. 

7.I showed you that ALL churches, and the early church fathers either believed that BOTH communion AND baptism were literal (born again in water, literal flesh and blood in the bread and wine or some variant like consubstantiation) OR that they are BOTH symbolic. NO one has ever taught that one was symbolic and the other literal. I asked you how do you follow Jesus' command when He said "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you." You gave no response  

8.You said you only do what the early church did. I said no you don't, you have hymnals, pitch pipes, sing songs other than psalms, have Sunday schools, fellowship halls and church property, meet on Sunday nights and Wednesday nights, while the early church did not. You have added to what the early church practiced. Do such additions help your worship and knowledge and fellowship, or hinder it? You had no response 

 9. You said that there were many different kinds of Baptists and that's proof we aren't the "real church". I proved that there are at least 12 different kinds of Campbellite churches and listed them. Your own church split because they could not agree on how many cups to use in Communion. You gave no response. 

10. You kept mentioning "so and so wasn't done in the first 500 years" blah blah blah. I mentioned that four part harmony was not done in the first 600 years, yet you practice that. You gave no response  

11. I said the early church ONLY sang the psalms and they sang in monotone. I asked what authority said you could sing gospel songs that had a tune. You gave no response  

12.I mentioned that the early church only baptized in living water and had no indoor baptistries, yet you do. You gave no response  

13. I asked why do you sing songs written my Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans etc, since they were NOT baptized by immersion, thus according to your doctrine they can't be saved. I asked if they are burning in hell while you are singing their songs. You gave no response  

14. You said baptism IS the new birth, I asked, well if it is, then you must be rebaptized when you "lose" your salvation, in order to put you into union with Christ again for you have essentially "died" and need another birth. Since you do not believe in "original sin" you cannot make the argument that baptism only washes away Adam's sin as the Catholics teach. So if you are not washing away Adam's sin, you are washing away your own. Thus, when more sins accumulate, you must be rebaptized for your doctrine to make sense. You gave no response. 

  15. I told you that women in the early church covered their heads and didn't wear pants, yet you do not follow that practice even tho it is explicit in scripture. No response.

  16. I also showed many of your churches acknowledge Christmas and Easter, and even those that do not, the people still celebrate in their homes. If all this was considered pagan by the early church, why even celebrate privately, much less in the church? I gave proof that the early church did indeed celebrate the "Passover of Christ" especially when it was still a mostly Jewish movement by keeping Passover, which would be Easter albeit with no bunnies etc, yet many of your churches ignore it. I showed you the debates on when the church should observe Easter even during the time of the ante Nicene fathers. I was certainly willing to acknowledge that Paul was speaking of a lifestyle when he said "Therefore let us keep the feast...with the unleavened bread sincerity and truth". Yet you have, by example at least, forbade the reading in December of Scriptures which speak of Christ's birth, and forbade the reading of the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection in March or April. I asked where was there any command in Scripture, or example of the early church that said we may not read some Scriptures at certain times of the year? You gave no response.  

As for using Scripture only in this debate, you can't debate someone who keeps changing the rules, decides on his own what verses are literal and which are symbolic, and who comes from a church that denounces all churches except their own, then uses those same churches who agree with you on one point, to defend your beliefs. You are a hypocrite and a Pharisee, it is clear that your "tradition" has become your god, just as the Law became the god of the Pharisees. And finally, if you are so zealous that you have the truth, why don't you go out and witness for that truth and start baptizing everyone? There are 3 CoC churches around me, and not one person has ever invited me to any of your churches, or tried to love me into their "kingdom" or shown the love of Jesus in any way! ahh but you have a debate and they will show up in droves! That's all you guys wanna do. debate debate debate. All the while, the world is going to hell and you couldn't care less. You care more about being the exclusive "church". You build up walls to keep people out, when Jesus came to break down walls so people could enter. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let in those who wish to enter.Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You traverse land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside, but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of impurity. On the outside you appear to be righteous, but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness!"

   In closing, we must all be mindful that we do not impose barriers that keep people from coming to Christ. We Baptists can be guilty of this as well, especially when we impose legalism which requires a "turning from sin" before the person has even been saved. We must be careful when we use the word "repentance" when calling on sinners to do so. "Repentance" simply means "a change of mind", but it can also mean "to turn around". A sinner can have a change of mind, and see their sin as it really is, but still have no power to actually stop sinning. The power that helps us turn from our sins, comes AFTER we are born again, and even then usually slowly as we grow in the faith, altho it can also be instantaneous. It is a fine line we must walk, but to imply that a sinner must turn from their sin in order to be saved, not only requires of them something they are unable to do, but it places works as a part of salvation, rather than the result of it. Remember that Jesus chose to spend His time with sinners, not those who imposed so many rules that kept them from entering the Kingdom.

                                                       Love them as He loved us!  Ken Mann