Expert: Marvin Howard - 9/13/2008

Question
QUESTION: Is it true that Alexander Campbell the founder of the church of Christ was himself lost? He was not baptized using the words "for the remission of your sins".

ANSWER: Hi!

Robert, What is said at baptism is not some magic formula. It is simply to ascertain whether the candidates for baptism understands what they are doing. Thus, if a candidate is baptised, and understands it is for the remission of sins, it is in fact for the remission of sins regardless of what words are said by the immerser.

You must remember, baptism is a passive act. Of all the God ordained works in the plan of salvation, it is the only one that is passive. Nevertheless, it is still for the benefit of the recipient vice the administrator.

Below are the words of Campbell, himself. You decide whether Campbell was baptised for the remission of his sins.

"1. The action of Christian baptism. 2. The legitimate subject of Christian baptism; and 3. Its design. These are logically and evangelically the attitude in which this divine and solemn and most significant institution is placed before us in the Christian Scriptures. That a penitent believer is the only evangelical subject of this solemn and sublime institution was demonstrated by a broad appeal to the whole Christian oracles; that immersion in water into and not in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is the one only Christian ordinance called baptism, and that a formal remission of sins was and is the end and design of it. We exposed the calumny frequently employed by the opponents of a return to the ancient order of things, alias apostolic Christianity, affirming that we give to the water of baptism the virtue of the blood of Christ as cleansing the subject from the guilt and pollution of sin. They might as truthfully charge upon us the doctrine of Roman transubstantiation, because we quote the words 'this is my body' in dispensing [629] the monumental loaf and cup of Christ's own special institution. Neither wine nor water possesses any such inherent purifying power, but these may be instruments through which to communicate or to commemorate the blessings of pardon, or of a spiritual cleansing from the guilt and the pollution of sin, provided that God has so instituted and ordained them; and that we have the faith of implicit obedience to each and every divine institution that may have been clearly propounded to us, and accredited to us as of unquestionable divine authority."

in His Service,
Marvin Howard



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: If the words are not necessary, why do we without fail, always use them in our congregation? Also, we would never accept the baptism of a baptist, yet Allexander Campbell was baptized by a baptist preacher, what is up with that? Thanks for your time.

ANSWER: Hi!

Robert, I am so sorry I had a busy week. Several people needed transportation to various medical appointments, and I had to prepare for college classes this weekend. I did not forget you, nor did I mean any disrespect.

Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost..."

This is the passage where most see a formula. Many are so stuck on this they become as ritualistic as catholicism. Nevertheless, look at this passage:

Acts 2:38, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Well, which is it. Are we to baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit? Are we just supposed to be baptized in the name of Christ? The debate rages. Neither side can prevail, for both have "proof" of their position. Is this a contradiction? Hardly. What is missed is the third option, and I am sorry I did not expound on this more deeply for you in the previous reply.

We are baptized by the authority of Jesus. He got His authority from the Father. The Spirit wrote it for us, so we do it by His authority, too. This is the meaning of the phrase, "in the name of." We have authority to be baptized. The words are not the important thing, or we could be proven wrong with whichever formula we choose to follow.

That something is always said is easy to explain. It is tradition, but it is an expedient tradition based on a concept. If baptism is to remit sin (and it is), and someone does not want to remit sin when they get in the water, all you have is a wet sinner. If we allow them to think they are saved, they may never obey. We would be the cause of their damnation if we allow it. We simply say this to make sure there is understanding of exactly what is happening. That it has become rote is disappointing. It diminishes the meaning. We should examine ourselves when we do things. Motives are not all important as believed by the denominational world, but they are important. Consider the equality of lust and fornication outlined in the New Law.

For this reason, people are extremely hesitant to recognize a baptism performed away from Christian witnesses; such as what happens in a baptist denomination. Additionally, those people are taught that baptism is not to be saved, so usually all that is produced from such an occurrence is a wet sinner; the very thing we are trying to avoid in the process.

With that said, we must remember, on Pentecost the first baptism was not performed by a Christian. However, it was done in front of witnesses that would be Christians, so they are valid. If a person knows why they are being baptized, and two or more Christians are present as witnesses (2nd Corinthians 13:1), then the baptism is valid regardless of who puts one under the water. That is not the important part. The important part is who is put under the water. This is extremely rare. I have seen it exactly once in 39 years, and that was the result of a father teaching a child in advance of the mother. Eventually the mother obeyed and there were two witnesses. This is similar to the instance with Campbell. There were people, as on the day of Pentecost, who would become Christians that could verify the event.

Is there a valid baptism that can happen in water held within denominational walls? Yes. Can one remain a Christian and continue with them thereafter? No. This is why such is not accepted. This is why Campbell had to leave. There may be those who are weaker in the faith and cannot admit to the facts of this. Do not offend them. Just be sure in your own knowledge. I hope I managed to clear the water for you.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I'm sorry, I'm more confused than before. Thank you anyway.

Answer
Hi!

Robert, I do not know where I lost you in this. If you want to provide some points where it did not make sense, maybe I can delve a little deeper. Quote me if it helps. I feel horrible when I am unable to help. That is my sole purpose for being in this forum.

In the meantime, I am going to do some research over the next few days. Perhaps I can find more examples from the life of Campbell to show you what really happened.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard