Reviewing all of Ben M. Bogard’s 101 reasons for not being a “Campbellite” would take much more space than we want to devote to it, but we do want to cover some of the meatier points that he made. We have already dealt with reasons 1-6, 17, and 19. We could also add to his list of reasons #102. One should not try to be a “Campbellite” because there is no such thing. The reader has only to look in the telephone book in any city in this nation for a “Campbellite Church,” and he will fail to find one. There is no sense in trying to be part of something that does not exist.
The fact is that Bogard uses this terminology to bias people against the churches of Christ. He thinks that, by referring to people with a term they never use (and which would violate the very principles to which they adhere), he is being clever, but the adjective abusive would be more appropriate. Members of the churches of Christ have never called themselves by the term Bogard seems so fond of. People frequently use terms of derision when their own argumentation is weak.
“7. Campbellites refuse to accept Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as a part of the Christian rule of faith and practice” (14). Bogard cites Luke 5, 7, 19, and 23, along with John 4, in which people are saved without baptism as proof that baptism is not required for salvation. When it is pointed out that all of these people lived under the old covenant, the charge is made that we “throw out the four Gospels and refuse to accept them as a rule of faith and practice.” (7). Why not accuse us of throwing out the entire Old Testament, because we do not accept it as a rule of faith, either?
Perhaps the publishers of Bogard’s tract can tell us what covenant they are under. The book of Hebrews contrasts the old with the new all the way through (2:1-4; 8:6-7; 9:16-17; 12:18-29). The law of the Old Testament system was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14) and is no longer in force. If anyone wants to argue, despite the wealth of Scriptures already given, that the old law is still valid, he should read Leviticus 1-7, 16, and 23 to make sure he knows how to offer all the sacrifices that God commanded and all of the holy times to observe.
If he is willing to acknowledge that there was an old law (of Moses) and a new covenant (of Jesus Christ), then the next question to consider would be, “When did the first end and the second begin?” Paul says that the law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), which would mean it remained in effect until the death of Jesus. In other words, Jesus lived and died under the Law of Moses; for that reason He obeyed its teaching.
But He was teaching the principles of the New Testament system: “Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God” (Mark 1:14). For that reason we find His teachings that are part of the new system recorded prior to the establishment of the new covenant. Jesus said, for example:
“You have heard it said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,’ and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…” (Matt. 5:21-22a).
He cites the sixth commandment but claims to have the authority to replace it with His own teaching. He takes this same approach with adultery:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28).
Jesus also taught on marriage (Matt. 5:3-9) and a variety of other subjects. The question was bound to arise in the minds of some, “Is the old covenant therefore invalid?” Jesus answered that question before it was asked: “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law” (Matt. 5:18).
In other words, the law of Moses remained in effect until it was nailed to the cross. No one could rightly say, “Jesus told me that I didn’t need to obey Moses.” Jesus abided by the law of Moses Himself and taught others to do likewise. BUT He could still teach the principles of the gospel system. He could even teach people to be baptized for the remission of their sins during this period of transition ( Matt. 4:17; John 3:1-5). As with most times of transition, there is some overlapping. They could not violate the old, but at the same time they could begin embracing the new. For that reason we can cite numerous teachings of Jesus from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as part of the Christian system–even though they were taught in advance of the kingdom’s establishment (Bogard’s 8th quibble).
However, the Jewish system remained in effect until Jesus’ death, and therefore Jews could be saved without baptism until that system ended, since baptism for the remission of sins was not part of the law of Moses. Therefore Jesus could forgive the sins of the lame man apart from baptism (Luke 5), as well as the “woman who was a sinner” (Luke 7), Zacchaeus (Luke 19), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23). Baptism was not required of them for salvation prior to the cross.
Why did Jesus not require it of them when He was so insistent with Nicodemus (John 3)? It may be that His purpose at the moment had something to do with His response. With the thief on the cross the reason for not requiring baptism is obvious. As a repentant Jew, he could be saved in that condition since the law had not ceased and the gospel system was not yet in place. In the other three instances Jesus makes a point of the fact that He has the ability to forgive sins (Luke 5:23-24; Luke 7:47-48) or that He can pronounce salvation upon someone (Luke 19:9-10). Of course, He could have told these three individuals to be baptized, but He wanted to get across the point of His Deity; forgiving sins and pronouncing salvation enabled Him to do so in a way that His normal manner of baptizing people did not. For Bogard to have a valid point, he needs to find those saved without baptism AFTER the cross.
We do not read in John 4 that the woman at the well or any of the Samaritans were baptized. Ironically, however, the chapter begins with these words:
Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)… (John 4:1-2).
So, if none of the Samaritans were, in fact, baptized, then the rationale for that omission (especially in light of the above two verses) is best known to the Lord. We do know, however, that AFTER the cross “Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them…. But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized” (Acts 8:5, 12).
9. The Campbellites put faith before repentance in their doctrine, when the Bible always puts repentance before faith (15).
Really? If one considers only the two words: faith and repentance, Bogard is correct, but if one considers the concepts and the context of each verse (which he should have done), he is wrong. It is of small consolation to be technically correct while being Biblically wrong. Let us consider the context of the three verses Bogard cites. In Mark 1:15 Jesus did indeed say, “Repent, and believe in the gospel.” Is this an indication that believers must repent of their sins before they believe? The very notion is silly. Why would anyone repent–unless faith brought it about? The fact is that Jesus was preaching to people who already believed in God. Few of them, however, were living as they should. It would only be natural to call believers to repentance. Can anyone honestly think that Jesus would have walked up to an atheist and commanded him to repent so that he could then believe?
Paul recounts that in his preaching he taught “repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 21:20). Nowhere, however, does he indicate that the latter depended upon the former. He is not stating the order in which things are preached or must be done; he is just reminding the elders at Ephesus what he had done while among them.
The third verse cited is similar to Mark 1:15. Jesus is showing the hard-heartedness of the chief priests. He points out that they did not believe John. Even when the tax collectors and the harlots did believe John, and they saw these people obey and change their lives, they still “repented not afterward, that” they “might believe” (Matt. 21:32). They need to repent of their uncircumcised hearts so that they might believe. This passage does not refer to general salvation.
What about, then, passages that do provide an order of the way salvation occurs? In Acts 2:37 the people have become convinced of the resurrection of Christ by means of the preaching of Peter; they ask what they should do. Peter does not answer, “Repent and believe”; he answers, “Repent and be baptized…” (Acts 2:38). Faith is not mentioned (because his whole sermon had been designed to produce faith in them). Clearly, faith comes first, repentance second, and baptism third. Consider the conversion of Saul. He believed when the light shone around him and Jesus spoke to him (Acts 9:3-6). He expressed repentance by praying and fasting for three days (Acts 9:9, 11). Finally, he was baptized (Acts 9:18; Acts 22:16). In similar fashion, the Philippian jailer was told to believe by Paul and Silas; he washed their stripes (an indication of repentance); then he was baptized immediately (Acts 16:31-34).
What we have looked at in these three instances is the actual process of conversion; we have not merely located verses that have the words repent and believe in them. But there is a reason that Bogard so highly prizes those three verses he cites: he wants faith to come after repentance so that when he says people are saved by faith alone (a doctrine not found in the Bible), he can always say that repentance precedes faith and for that reason people can be saved at the point of faith. The reader will need to determine which three Scriptures prove the case–Bogard’s or the ones from the book of Acts cited above. The Scriptures do not contradict themselves; Bogard’s are taken out of context.
“10. According to Campbellite doctrine, they always baptize infidels” (16). Bogard’s reasoning on this point is so convoluted that it is scarcely intelligible. “Now since, according to Campbellites, a man believes first, then repents, he necessarily becomes an infidel…and then he is baptized. If their doctrine is true, the whole bunch are baptized infidels” (16). If the reader does not find his attempt at humor all that funny, Bogard is infinitely more funny than logical.
First of all, let us recall that there are no Campbellites to teach such a doctrine; in mathematical terms we are dealing with an empty set. Campbellites only exist in Bogard’s imagination. Members of the churches of Christ do teach that people must believe first and then repent. But the Bible does not teach that we repent of believing, but of sins. Understanding and believing the Word of God causes people to see that their lives are full of sin and that they need to repent–of sin. To act as if we teach people to repent of believing is so absurd on the face of it that it must be regarded as a joke, albeit a poor one. If Bogard is serious, he is to be pitied even more, for why would an infidel be baptized?
“11. Campbellites deny heartfelt salvation, and thus flatly contradict the Bible” (17). Bogard charges us with scorning “feeling,” but once again he has deliberately misrepresented us. He does not cite a single source for making this charge, although many were available to him. Most Christians have not scorned anyone for their feelings, but we have said that proving salvation by one’s feelings alone is not New Testament teaching.
Frequently, people will say, “I know I’m saved because I feel it right here in my heart.” An unscriptural song that echoes this same sentiment is found in many of our songbooks: “He Lives.” If someone asks how we know that Jesus lives today, we should know better than to say, “He lives within my heart.” Such does not constitute valid proof when Baptists preach it or we sing it. It is not the approach the Bible takes.
Peter did not say to those on Pentecost, “Jesus is raised from the dead. I just feel it.” No, Peter saw Him. Paul never preached to anyone, “I was saved on the road to Damascus. I just felt it.” Subjective proof is no proof at all. The Muslim can make the same claim: “I know Allah exists because of this feeling in my heart.” Mormons will say they asked God to tell them if the Book of Mormon was from God, and He told them it was. Such are just the beginning of problems when people sing, “He walks with me, and He talks with me.” Truth is objective in nature, not subjective. God speaks to us through His Word, not personally. If He speaks to us personally, then there is no need for the Word; if He speaks to us through the Word, then there is no need for personal “messages.”
Do we therefore teach that Christians should have no feelings, as Bogard charges? There is a difference between experiencing feelings and using them as evidence of salvation. We react to things based on what we believe to be true. If a Baptist preacher says, “You’re saved,” then people (if they believe him) will experience elation just as much as the eunuch did, who was actually saved as a result of being baptized and went on his way rejoicing (Acts 8:36-39). Feelings can be prompted by either truth or error; for that reason they are unreliable as evidence.
Bogard says that the phrase times of refreshing refers to feelings, but where is the proof? Does his feeling about the passage make it so? He says that the Holy Ghost is given to us and therefore feelings result (Rom. 5:5), but Paul did not take that position; it is Bogard’s assumption. His third “prooftext” is 1 John 5:10, which states that we have “the witness” in ourselves. Again, he assumes that the witness refers to our feelings, but John does not make such an identification. It can be argued that the word of God which produced faith is the witness of those who continue to believe. Bogard can only offer a hypothesis; he cannot prove it.