Before concluding the review with a quick look at a variety of matters, the reader might wish to know more about the author of the above tract. The following information was provided by Dave Miller in his chapter, “Significant Debates,” from the 1993 Spiritual Sword lectureship book, The Restoration: The Winds of Change:
A second debate held by N. B. Hardeman which merits mention is the one held in Little Rock, Arkansas, April 19-22, 1938, with Ben M. Bogard, prominent Baptist debater. Hardeman was president of Freed-Hardeman College at the time and his moderator was E. R. Harper. Harper was preaching at the time in Little Rock and had engineered the debate. In addition to an audience of between 1,000 and 2,000 people in attendance at each session, this debate was broadcast over Little Rock radio stations. Some 200 gospel preachers and 40 Baptist ministers were present. Four propositions were discussed: the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion, the necessity of baptism, the establishment of the church, and the possibility of apostasy.
Will Slater was present and called the debate “the greatest victory for truth I have ever witnessed” (78-79).
It is unfortunate that the current publishers of Bogard’s old tract did not leave the original date on it, for then we might have known for certain whether or not he published it out of vindictiveness for having come in second in a two-man debate or whether he was just permanently angry toward those with differing views. A few examples of this attitude are found in his reasons #12 and #43.
The first of these states: “Campbellites everywhere have a contemptible grin that nobody else in the world has” (18). What kind of subjective bias is this? The liberals accuse us of being joyless legalists, but Bogard insists that members of the Lord’s church grin too much. As the philosopher Ricky Nelson once observed, “You can’t please everyone.”
Bogard accuses us of having a bad spirit: “They are contentious, nagging, strife-breeding” (34). Hey, we never said we were perfect, but at least we can deal with issues instead of resorting to name-calling and personal attacks. Christians in the first century were accused of turning “the world upside down” (Acts 17:6); they were a sect “spoken against everywhere” (Acts 28:22). We do try to refrain from ad hominem attacks on those who oppose us, however; we also do not intentionally misrepresent people, as Bogard does us.
He writes, for example, as his 29th point: “Campbellism denies that anybody was saved before the death of Christ” (28). Of course people were saved before the death of Christ–in view of the sacrifice to come–because Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8, a verse cited also by Bogard), but no one is saved apart from the blood of Christ. Perhaps the publishers of this tract would like to affirm that Abraham, Moses, and David were saved before and without the shedding of Christ’s blood. Bogard does not understand the distinction we make on this subject.
Bogard’s 35th “reason” is: “Campbellism teaches that leaving off baptism is the sin against the Holy Ghost.” He quotes no source; it is another instance of his telling us what we believe and then condemning us for it. He writes rather crudely: “But, says the Campbellite, God won’t forgive you for leaving off baptism, you must be dipped or be damned. Then it is the sin against the Holy Ghost” (31). In the first place, who has ever taught that failing to be baptized is the sin against the Holy Ghost? Failing to be baptized is to fail to take advantage of redemption. God made it the final act of obtaining salvation (initially), following one’s repentance (Acts 2:38). The Lord linked baptism with faith (as previously discussed). Although it is always a sin to disobey a command of the Lord’s (which baptism is), no one is specifically condemned for that one failure, but rather because of all his sins.
Suppose someone is bitten by a poisonous snake. A Careflight helicopter takes him to a hospital where the antidote can be administered that will save his life. But maybe he is a Pentecostal or a Christian Scientist and refuses to take the medicine, insisting that his faith in God will be sufficient to save him. He dies, but his refusal to avail himself of the remedy did not kill him; the snake’s venom killed him. Likewise, all mankind is afflicted with the poison of sin. If they refuse to avail themselves of the remedy, they die; sin condemns them–that and their foolishness in resisting the antidote for sin, which is the blood of Christ, which washes away sins in baptism. Bogard is like the man attacked by the poisonous viper; he thinks that “faith alone” will save him–apart from the application of the remedy.
In his 40th “reason” Bogard affirms that “there is no repentance at all in the Campbellite system” (33). He contradicts himself on this one. He takes us to task for using Acts 2:38 with respect to salvation (remember his calling attention to the change in person and voice in point 50?). Peter’s answer begins with the word, “Repent”; but then he says we do not teach repentance. Which is it, Mr. Bogard? He knows well that we teach repentance; this effort can be nothing but a deliberate attempt to malign us, just as he erroneously and persistently refers to us as “Campbellites.”
Even most Baptists would be astounded to read Bogard’s 60th criticism of us: “Campbellism and Mormonism are twins” (43). He says that the two groups hold “substantially the same doctrines.” Oh, please! We do not recognize that Smith’s “plates” are legitimate or that the Mormons have “another testament of Jesus Christ.” We recognize that the New Testament is a complete and sufficient revelation (2 Peter 1:3). Thus we reject all of the Mormon writings, just as Baptists do, and Bogard knew it. Making this charge was foolish, but the reasons he cites for it only make him look worse.
1. Both believe the church so far apostatized, or died out, that it needed to be restored. One believes that Campbell restored it and the other that Joseph Smith restored it (43).
Does Bogard not think that the church apostatized? Does he not believe Acts 20:30, 2 Thessalonians 2, and 2 Timothy 3:1-5, which foretold that it would? If he does not believe it apostatized, then why is he not a Catholic? Why does he not proclaim allegiance to the pope, for the papacy was established by the corrupt and apostate church, which Jesus established?
Bogard makes the mistake of believing his own propaganda. He has insisted so often that Alexander Campbell is our founder that he actually believes that we think so, too– that we claim that Campbell restored the church. Certainly, that was Campbell’s goal, but others long before him possessed the same aim. Besides, there is a vast difference in calling people back to the truths taught in the New Testament and “discovering plates” with supposedly crucial information no one has possessed for 1800 years.
His 2nd point is that both groups “claim all outside their church will be lost” (44). Our claim is a Scriptural one. All who are outside the church for whom Jesus died will be lost, since Jesus is the Savior of the body (Eph. 5:23). We are doing are best to be certain that we are that church; we also call everyone else to do that which the New Testament teaches. But since, he has brought up the subject, we turn the question back to Bogard and the publishers of his tract: Does one need to be a member of the Baptist Church in order to be saved? If the answer is yes, he stands condemned by his own logic; if it is no, the next question will be, “Then why be a Baptist?” If Jesus has died for the Baptist Church, it would be essential that we all be Baptists. Apparently, then, Jesus did not die for the Baptist Church; so no one needs to be a part of it.
His 3rd point is that both the Mormons and we “claim that nobody receives the Holy Spirit until after baptism” (44). Is there a valid point here? We and the Baptists believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that we must all have faith in God, that baptism must be by immersion, and that without submitting ourselves to Jesus, we will die in our sins (John 8:24). Does that make us twins? Then we must be triplets, since it is the case that, if A = C and B = C, then of necessity A = B. Bogard’s own “logic” has made Baptists equal to both us and the Mormons, but his argumentation is full of fallacies.
The reader has been shown the ridicule and the attempts to purposely misrepresent us. It was a shame for Bogard to have written these things; it is even more shameful that Bogard Press continues to publish the jaundiced views of Mr. Bogard. Not only do they publish them, but they put this tract right by the checkout counter in their Baptist bookstore with a sign saying (if not verbatim, at least to this effect): “Things That All Baptists Should Know.” The honorable thing to do would be to bury this tract–with all of its misinformation.
In the space remaining, we will look briefly at a few other points. “86. Campbellism teaches that the doctrine preached by Baptists, that it is impossible to fall from grace, encourages licentiousness” (54). “Campbellism” does not teach that idea; reality does. What else can be expected? Tell someone that the feeling he had was evidence of personal salvation and that he cannot henceforth be lost no matter what he does, and some people will figure out that they can be “as nasty as they wanna be” and still be saved. If there is any teaching that could be described as a damnable doctrine, “once saved, always saved” is it. Furthermore, there is no false doctrine more widely refuted in the New Testament than this one (Heb. 2:1-4; James 5:19-20; and a host of other passages).
24. The Campbellite Church demands that the Lord’s Supper be observed every first day of the week when there is not a verse in the Bible that teaches such a practice.
There is one passage (Acts 20) that says the disciples met one time on the first day of the week to break bread. That is the only place where it says they met to partake of the Supper on the first day of the week and there is no hint that they did it every Lord’s day. Our Saviour instituted the Supper in the middle of the week, three days before the first day of the week… There is as much Scripture for partaking of the Supper on Thursday as on Sunday (25-26).
Perhaps it struck the reader as humorous that Bogard says “there is not a verse in the Bible” to substantiate the practice and then admits that there “is one passage.” Following are some facts that the Bible student might notice about that one passage.
First, Paul was “hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost” (Acts 20:16). Second, he nevertheless stayed in Troas seven days (Acts 20:6). Why? It might be argued that his ship did not sail until then, which could be true, but the text indicates that (third) the church did not meet until the seventh day of his stay there. If they had met earlier in the week, there would have been no reason for Luke to have omitted that information. It is obvious that it was the church’s custom to meet on the first day of the week. Historically, the church has always met on this day, as Bogard well knows. On what day of the week did he and his fellow Baptists meet?
A. T. Robertson, a Baptist, writes in Word Pictures in the New Testament: “For the first time here we have services mentioned on the first day of the week though in 1 Cor. 16:2 it is implied by the collections stored on that day” (3:338-39). So, the first time they are mentioned, brethren are meeting, not on Thursday, but on the first day of the week. Jesus did on a Thursday show His disciples the proper way to remember Him, but on what day did the church follow His instructions? Surely, the apostles taught them correctly (Acts 2:42).
The Pulpit Commentary, which is not generally regarded as a “Campbellite” work, says of the phrase, the first day of the week: “This is an important evidence of the keeping of the Lord’s day by the Church as a day for their Church assemblies (see Luke xxiv. 1, 30, 35; John xx. 19, 26; I Cor. xvi. 2).” On the phrase, to break bread, the commentators add: “This is also an important example of weekly communion as the practice of the first Christians” (18:2:143).
Although we would disagree with some of the terminology he uses, Adam Clarke (Methodist) writes that the church was “accustomed to receive the holy sacrament on each Lord’s day” (5:851). The church did not meet to observe the Lord’s Supper just on one occasion; it is obvious to most everyone else that it was a weekly act. How can anyone read about the abuses of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth and not conclude that this was a part of each Lord’s day assembly (1 Cor. 11:23-34)? Paul implies their purpose for meeting was “to eat the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20).
56. The Campbellite Church has an unscriptural eldership. In the New Testament nobody was an elder except preachers, and these elders were only servants. But with Campbellites the majority of elders are not preachers, and instead of being servants they control all the affairs of the church (42).
Bogard could not prove that only preachers can be elders if his life depended on it. In 1 Timothy 3 Paul gave the qualifications for elders: two of those are that he must be “the husband of one wife” and that his children must be “in submission with all reverence” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). If preachers and elders are identical, then a preacher must have these same qualifications. Does Bogard really want to affirm that no one can preach the gospel unless he is married and has children? Such criteria would exclude Paul! And there is no evidence that Timothy was married and had a family, either. Anyone examining the qualifications for elders will not find among the qualifications that they must also be preachers. Bogard’s comments here make no sense.
Bogard absurdly argues that John was a “Baptist preacher” (54). Even if this pronouncement had any merit, the following facts would remain: 1) John was the forerunner of Christ, and he readily acknowledged: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30); 2) Jesus also baptized His disciples (John 4:1-2), yet He was not called “a Baptist preacher”; neither the followers of John nor the followers of Jesus were called “Baptists”; 4) a new name was given to God’s people (Isa. 62:2), which the mouth of the Lord named, and it was not “Baptists,” but “Christians” (Acts 11:26); and 5) the name Baptist glorifies John while the name Christian glorifies Jesus. Now, who is sectarian?
An honest discussion of the Scriptures proves productive, but “propaganda” cannot honor our Lord.