In relation to the Christian Church and many Pentecostal groups often we are quick to judge, writing them off as unscriptural and emotional. But we must be reminded of Barton W. Stone's own words when he related the account of the various manifestations that he witnessed at the Revivals prior to and after Cane Ridge, "Much did I then see, and much have I since seen, that I considered to be fanaticism; but this should not condemn the work. The Devil has always tried to ape the works of God, to bring them into disrepute. But that cannot be a Satanic work, which brings man to humble confession and forsaking of sin- to solemn prayer- ferverent praise and thanksgiving, and to sincere and affectionate exhortations to sinners to repent and go to Jesus the Saviour. I am always hurt to hear people speak lightly of this work. I always think they speak of what they know nothing about."

Perhaps it is time that another Cane Ridge to explode opon the scene within the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ! Maybe, just maybe we must allow a mighty Revival to sweep across the RM churches? Can Cane Ridge happen again? If so, what would it look like- maybe like other Revivals of past and recent such as the Welsh, Argentina or even Pensacola?

-- Anonymous, October 06, 2001

Answers

Hi David,

I don't know if the RM is capable of revival at present, but who knows? God can work miracles.

As far as Barton Stone goes -- he was quite heretical in his views of the Trinity, so I am hesitant to follow his lead in other areas.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2001

Barry;

From what I have seen in my own (former) church, I agree with you. When people are more concerned about their building, their organ, their pews, their hymnals than they are about reaching out to their community, when people actually say in open congregational meetings, "we don't want our church to grow" - revival is far away from these people. But you are right: God can work miracles.

I also agree with your comment about Stone; I am also reluctant to follow his lead. I have always been a bit uncomfortable about how people in our movement hold him up.

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2001

Since RM history is one of my specialties.....rest assured.....that I will be returning to this issue....once I have my "ducks" in order.

However.....I want to share a couple observations....

1) Define "revival".....not by popular 21st century culture....but by a biblical defintion. Point me to the N.T. Scriptures that describe "revival."

2) As usual.....A Kelley....is guilty of selective historical malpractice.

3) Since when can we not admire what a man did....while not agreeing with all of his positions. Admittedly.....especially in regards to his view of the Trinity (or lack thereof) Stone would be a controversial figure. However, the fact that A. Campbell was willing to join his movement to the Stone movement.....ought to cause us to take notice and consider more closely the reasons why.

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2001

Danny,

In regard to #3: 3) Since when can we not admire what a man did....while not agreeing with all of his positions. Admittedly.....especially in regards to his view of the Trinity (or lack thereof) Stone would be a controversial figure. However, the fact that A. Campbell was willing to join his movement to the Stone movement.....ought to cause us to take notice and consider more closely the reasons why.

I think there are a number of things we can admire about Stone. The problem is, was he even a Christian? Can you be a believer and deny the very essense of Who God is? I would view him in the same way I would a Jehovah's Witness -- lots of zeal, some techniques and character traits that are admirable, but hardly an example of what one should believe/understand about the faith.

I'm sure you're aware that some in the Non-Instrumental camp deny the reality of the indwelling Holy Spirit? Are they Christians? I'm not so sure -- I tend to see them as a cultic offshoot of the RM. Do they have some areas that we can learn from? I'm sure they do, but I wouldn't invite one with their heretical views to share my pulpit.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2001

You scare me Barry. You really do.

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2001

Danny, please explain your last statement. Please explain the incorrectness of what Barry said.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

When you call individuals from the non-instrumental camp of our brotherhood...."not Christian"....and yet fully embrace Billy Graham.....that's scary.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

I've pulled out my Restoration History notes from the course at Roanoke Bible College, because I thought there were some things about BWS that were kind of odd. I found them. Here is a sample:

BWS was iffy on the trinity. Others around him sounded very "Unitarian"; although he wouldn't have gone that farm, apparently A. Campbell had some qualms about BWS's understanding of the persons of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

BWS saw the death of Christ as a moral influence to bring men to God, where AC taught a substitutionary death, necessary to salvation.

BWS held that baptism and the Lord's Supper could only be administered by ordained ministers, and not by "lay people".

BWS accepted the unimmersed into his congregations as fellow Christians.

Danny, if any of this does NOT represent Stone's positions, please correct me. I generally trust the teaching of William Griffin at RBC, a man who loves the Restoration Movement with great passion but tries to teach things as they are; these notes are from his prepared papers for his RM class.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

Sammy......

I have not....and possibly will not have any time soon to address this issue in the depth that it needs to be addressed (to which this forum is generally not able to handle....we tend to like "sound bites.).

However......you missed the whole point. Campbell still embraced Stone and the two joined their movements....despite some of Stone's theology with which Campell disagreed. Students of history should examine the reasons why he was able to do this....and how this formed the basis of approach for unity in the RM.

Second....this statement is to you and everyone in general. It is historical malpractice to not judge a man....IN HIS TIME. It is very easy sitting here in the 21st century to pass judgment on a man's theology. I could as easily....pull out a number of things that A. Campbell taught....that could make a number you very uneasy.

For instance....did you know that A. Campbell was a non- instrumentalist???? Does that make him a potential "cultist" as Barry says???

He also taught.....that Preachers should not be paid!!! (I've got a strong disagreement with that one.) LOL!!

Seriously though....at the end of his life he did back off of that one and came to see the need for a man who spent his living preaching the gospel to receive his living from the gospel.

Again.....if one understands these men...and judges them....IN THEIR TIME....things begin to take on a new meaning.

Let me give you another example. For all practical purposes....Abraham.....remained a polygamist. Remember Hagar?? Do we disregard the faith and courage of Abraham because his was less than the perfect man of God??

Of course not. God takes people where they are and leads them to where they need to be.

Some of you act like RM peope should have been perfect theologically speaking from day one. What nonsense.

It took a great deal of time....and courage....for them to break away from some of their thelogical positions of the past. For some..it took a life time. For some...they never shook all of their denominationalism.

Courage??? A. Campbell believed most of his life....that infant sprinkling was a necessity or the child burned in hell. Yet...after intense biblical study he came to the conclusion that such was not scriptural. That's great to have that thinking. However, when Campbell's first child was born....and he had to make the decision of whether or not the child would be sprinkled.....that's where the rubber met the road. He decided not to do it. That's courage.

His opponents even threated him with saying that Campbell would allow his own children to burn in hell.

So before we are quick to whip out the old history notes and make declarative statements about the men of the RM...I would suggest we be a little more intensive in our research (as opposed to just sound bites and paragraphs that support our position). This will also keep us from practicing historical malpractice and revisionism.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

Danny,

It is interesting to me that you believe it is necessary for a person to have a complete understanding of the theology behind baptism to be saved, but they can be completely mistaken on the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit and they are okay. Do you really believe that an understanding of baptism is more important than an understanding of the nature of how God works in a human being?

I understand your position of giving some grace concerning the time period and available knowledge behind a person's understanding. Which just adds to my point -- there is absolutely no excuse for a person who claims to be a follower of Christ in the 21st century to deny the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In fact, it is pure heresy.

If I had to choose between fellowship with a person who had a right view of the Trinity and a false view of baptism or a person that had a right view of baptism and a false view of the Trinity, I would choose the former any day of the week -- at least I've got something to work with.

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

>>However......you missed the whole point. Campbell still embraced >>Stone and the two joined their movements....despite some of Stone's >>theology with which Campell disagreed. Students of history should >>examine the reasons why he was able to do this....and how this >>formed the basis of approach for unity in the RM.

Well, Danny, I guess I just get to stay confused about evrything, then. On the one hand, if I understand you correctly, it's fine to embrace ministers and leaders EVEN IF THEY HAVE SERIOUS THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS (some of which you have mentioned here, and some of which I mentioned above). On the other hand, according to your words in other threads over the last two years, we should steer clear of things like Promise Keepers, and dare not call Christians people who love God and are following Him the best they know how but who remain unbaptized, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SERIOUS THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS.

Why is it ok for AC to embrace BWS when BWS accepts the unbaptized into Christian fellowship and teaches that it's fine to do so, but it's not ok for us to embrace Billy Graham because he accepts the unbaptized into Christian fellowship and teaches that it's fine to do so?

If AC can have Christian fellowship with BWS, why can't I have Christian fellowship with Chuck Swindoll, or with Adrian Rogers, or with the Baptist minister down the street?

>>Second....this statement is to you and everyone in general. It is >>historical malpractice to not judge a man....IN HIS TIME. It is >>very easy sitting here in the 21st century to pass judgment on a >>man's theology.

And I would put it to you that we should pull back from making such pronouncements about popular Bible teachers in THESE times, for the same reason. In the 21st century, the general theological climate does not much involve our understanding of baptism and its appropriate place in the scheme of salvation. Men who go thru seminaries of all kinds in this century are almost all taught that we are baptized BECAUSE OF our salvation. You and I and Barry know and teach that we are baptized INTO salvation. But most of them don't know that. Most of them have been inundated with arguments and scripture interpretation against that position, and that's all they have known, so that's what they teach.

Again I must ask, if AC could embrace BWS and his work, knowing that BWS held positions that AC thought were extremely unbiblical, then why can't we embrace the person and work of those who we think hold extremely unbiblical positions, in an effort to share more of the truth with them?

We have living next door to us a house of young Coast Guard men. They claim the name of Christ and endeavor to live the life God calls us to. In their understanding of Scripture and biblical teaching, they are Christians. They are not baptized. They have been taught for all of their Christisn lives that baptism is "an outward sign of an inward grace", and that folks like us teach "water regeneration" and such.

My wife and I have choices. We can say to them, "Sorry, guys, I can't have Christian fellowship with you, because you're not baptized, so you're not Christians." Or we can embrace them as, at least, fellow believers, and try to work in our relationship toward their better understanding of what God calls us to and how we come to it.

The second of those choices is what we did, and do. Just a couple of nights ago, we had Toby over for birthday cake and fun. The evening ended with about a two-hour discussion of first tongues and miraculous gifts and then baptism. He did not leave convinced, but he left with a determination to search the scriptures more diligently and to see if what we said was true.

That's the kind of fellowship I see between AC and BWS and the rest of them. They were believers who found common ground on which to unite and on which to call for unity, and then they worked at ironing out differences and understandings of Godly matters.

Yes, they were men of their times. And so are the men of OUR times. We should see both those men then and these men now in the context of who they were/are and what they have been taught by the people they respected. And, as you said later, "God takes people where they are and leads them to where they need to be." I say, we should also heed this when considering those men today who do not teach what we teach.

>>I could as easily....pull out a number of things >>that A. Campbell taught....that could make a number you very >>uneasy. >> >>For instance....did you know that A. Campbell was a non- >>instrumentalist???? Does that make him a potential "cultist" as >>Barry says???

See, now there's an example of the misrepresentation I spoke of elsewhere, this time by not viewing the entirety of what Barry said. An honest look back at Barry's statement shows clearly and plainly that it is the denial of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that Barry calls cultic and heretical, NOT the fact of being non-instrumental.

>>Some of you act like RM peope should have been perfect >>theologically speaking from day one. What nonsense.

And many folks here act the same way toward denominational believers, even to the point of refusing fellowship with them. Again, what nonsense.

Cordially,

Sam

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

Sammy.....

First....your presentation of Stone accepting the unimmersed is again....historical malpractice. Most RM leaders did....UNTIL....they came to see the necessity of immersion for salvation through their study of the Scriptures on the subject.

Second.....check other threads and you will see that Barry takes great pleasure in questioning the Christianity of the non- instrumentalists. Not one time did I ever say the instrument had anything to do with it. It simply appears that Barry is ready to "write them off".....and I find that somewhat humerous when he is so ready to accept Billy Graham. The fact is....the Christian Church has (or at least should) have much more in common with the "nons" than we do the Baptist. (BTW....Barry's statement about the "non" not believing in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I may not believe in it the way Barry does. In fact....probably most my views on the Holy Spirit would not sit well with the denominationally saturated people we have the pews today.)

Third.....I don't have fellowship with any group that can't get the plan of salvation straight.....PK....or otherwise. By the time Campbell met Stone....Stone at least had the plan of salvation correct. In fact, if memory serves me correctly....he was closer to the biblical position than was Campbell.

Fourthly....your neighbors next door.....is a straw man. I have plenty of denominational friends. I have denominational people in my college classes. You know what I call them?? Prospects....not brothers.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

Oh....one more thing. I'm perfectly comfortable judging the doctrines taught by men of our day. In fact....the Scripture commands us to do such things.

Please don't make me pull out ad infinitum the Scriptures that warn us against false teachers.

Well...in fact...I won't. I think E. Lee has done a more than adequate job of doing that.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2001

I do find it a bit peculiar that some in this forum would pronounce anathemas on those who have been baptized because they believe it is a requirement of their obedience rather than a requirement of their salvation, and yet on the other hand justify Campbell for accepting Stone, who was "iffey" (in the words of another) on the Trinity and the atonement of Christ.

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2001

Really John??? I find this statement in your last post "peculiar."

"I do find it a bit peculiar that some in this forum would pronounce anathemas on those who have been baptized because they believe it is a requirement of their obedience rather than a requirement of their salvation,"

Question John.....Isn't being obedient....a requirement for salvation??

Doesn't the syllogism break down like this.....

Baptism is necessary for obedience. Obedience is necessary for salvation. Therefore.....baptism is necessary for salvation.

Seems to me John....it is not "we" who have created the false dichotomy.

Hmmmmmm....

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2001

Danny, I think you know what I meant. There are those who believe that it is the final part of the entry into the covenant, there are others who believe it is rather the first act of obedience. Some of us are quick to label those in the latter camp false teachers, yet here we are defending Campbell's accepting Stone when he was out of line on far more crucial issues.

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2001