Alexander Campbell on Rebaptism

Alexander Campbell on Rebaptism

Posted in the Collinsville Forum

jorge

Charlotte, NC

#1 Nov 9, 2012
http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/2...

Above is a link to a very interesting blog that explores the beliefs of some of the founders of the restoration movement. Interestingly enough, I believe that Johnny Robertson and some of the other local C-O-C preachers think of Alexander Campbell as a great leader; however, under their understanding of doctrine, Alexander Campbell was never saved.
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

#2 Nov 10, 2012
Odd, isn't it, that none of them brought out the point Peter made, that it is the fulfillment of the promise of God to Abraham? Sure, it's a commandment, but a commandment with supreme promise.

Secondly, since repentence is to turn to do what God said to do, and Jesus did command baptism of those who come to Him as disciples, that baptism is a necessary point in repentance that one does what God said and believes and trusts in the Lord and the promises of God!

Having gone to David Lipscomb College, I found them to be very dull of mind in perceiving most anything - especially that the Holy Spirit indwelling is real and also directly connected to baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -(or as the AENT says,'Master YHWY Y'shua')

quote fron link:

Rebaptism could not be justified simply because a person did not grasp the specific "design" of baptism but rather that they were really unbelievers at the time of the first immersion. He writes:

"Let me once more say, that the only thing which can justify reimmersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is a confession on the part of the candidate that he did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God -- that he died for our sins, was buried, and rose on the third day, at that time of the first immersion -- that he now BELIEVES the testimony of the apostles concerning him ... The instant that rebaptism is preached and practised [sic!] on any other ground than now stated -- such as deficient knowledge, weak faith, change of views -- then have we contradicted in some way and made void the word of the Lord, "He who believes and be immersed shall be saved" -- then have we abandoned the principles of the present reformation" [11].

The simple fact is that Campbell taught that if a person would believe One Fact (i.e. that Jesus is the Christ) and submit to One Act that reflects that Fact (baptism into his name) that person has been inducted by the authority of God into the Kingdom [12]. On this point Alexander never wavered.
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

#3 Nov 10, 2012
should read (Master YHWH Y'shua)

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#4 Nov 12, 2012
Barnsweb wrote:
"Let me once more say, that the only thing which can justify reimmersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is a confession on the part of the candidate that he did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God -- that he died for our sins, was buried, and rose on the third day, at that time of the first immersion -- that he now BELIEVES the testimony of the apostles concerning him ... The instant that rebaptism is preached and practised [sic!] on any other ground than now stated -- such as deficient knowledge, weak faith, change of views -- then have we contradicted in some way and made void the word of the Lord, "He who believes and be immersed shall be saved" -- then have we abandoned the principles of the present reformation"
GREAT quote!
Walkinginlove

Danville, VA

#5 Feb 1, 2013
Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is an alteration of scripture done to combat Gnostic incursion into the body of believers.

There are no examples of the trinity formula of baptism being done by the Apostles, not one. They always referenced baptism as being done in Jesus Name.

Acts 8:16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

(Only example of re-baptism done because they did not receive the Holy Spirit when baptized)

Could it be the early Church baptized in Jesus name because he is the one who died for their sins, not the Holy Spirit of God the father?

The trinity formula is not referenced during baptism in the New Testament thus has to be considered an addition by man to the word of God.
New Guy

Morehead, KY

#6 Feb 1, 2013
Isn't it possible that the Spirit didn't inspire any of the NT writers to record the exact wording performed during baptisms? To make the claim that the text has been changed or altered is a serious charge. I know of no one who disputes the accuracy of Matthew 28. The burden would be on you and others who believe this to prove the charge is true.

To me, it seems the accuracy, inerrancy, inspiration, and integrity of the scriptures are in question here. I don't think myself that this is a good place to stand on.
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

#7 Feb 1, 2013
Walkinginlove wrote:
Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is an alteration of scripture done to combat Gnostic incursion into the body of believers.
There are no examples of the trinity formula of baptism being done by the Apostles, not one. They always referenced baptism as being done in Jesus Name.
Acts 8:16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 10:48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
(Only example of re-baptism done because they did not receive the Holy Spirit when baptized)
Could it be the early Church baptized in Jesus name because he is the one who died for their sins, not the Holy Spirit of God the father?
The trinity formula is not referenced during baptism in the New Testament thus has to be considered an addition by man to the word of God.
When given,'the name' was 'Master YHWY Y'shua'. The Greek translations are really deficient on the name aspect. Not even a transliteration....
nobody

Nicholasville, KY

#8 Feb 2, 2013
New Guy wrote:
Isn't it possible that the Spirit didn't inspire any of the NT writers to record the exact wording performed during baptisms? To make the claim that the text has been changed or altered is a serious charge. I know of no one who disputes the accuracy of Matthew 28. The burden would be on you and others who believe this to prove the charge is true.
To me, it seems the accuracy, inerrancy, inspiration, and integrity of the scriptures are in question here. I don't think myself that this is a good place to stand on.
I am ignorant about the verses you are discussing here as to whether they were alrtered or not. The bible has some discrepensies that leave no doubt there has been some alteration at some point intentional or not. Mark 16 with three different ending shows there were changes. Not as given from God but changed by scribes or whomever. The text believed to be the oldest Mark version, I understand to be the shorter version. So why do our bibles have the later version?
New Guy

Morehead, KY

#9 Feb 2, 2013
nobody wrote:
<quoted text>I am ignorant about the verses you are discussing here as to whether they were alrtered or not. The bible has some discrepensies that leave no doubt there has been some alteration at some point intentional or not. Mark 16 with three different ending shows there were changes. Not as given from God but changed by scribes or whomever. The text believed to be the oldest Mark version, I understand to be the shorter version. So why do our bibles have the later version?
WIL is claiming that Matthew 28 has been altered, the part of "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.".
nobody

Nicholasville, KY

#10 Feb 2, 2013
New Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
WIL is claiming that Matthew 28 has been altered, the part of "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.".
I have heard that before but I just haven't been totally convinced of that. I am open minded but do not see a contradiction there. This other example (Mark 16)I gave is pretty well documentated, that there were changes. The dating of which is the oldest manuscript may be debatable but the fact changes were made is hard to argue when we have at least three different endings. These are not just minor variations.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Collinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Annual coat drive kicks off another year in Dan... Dec 7 Blecchh 1
dr.joel smithers (Sep '16) Sep '17 Lurliec 5
Name that store (Mar '15) Mar '15 Old timer 1
Debate: Marijuana - Collinsville, VA (Aug '10) Dec '14 mr.cheef 4
News Indictments issued (Sep '14) Sep '14 shannonsmith 1
We are now open!! Life to Live Counseling and W... (Aug '13) Aug '13 L2LWellness 1
Rachel Kenyon (Aug '13) Aug '13 Tracey 1

Collinsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Collinsville Mortgages