ALEXANDER CAMPBELL & “DISPENSATIONS

[Reformer]

REFORMATION RUMBLINGS
BUFF SCOTT, JR.
___________________
  Alexander Campbell & “Dispensations

[Reformer]

   In the late 50s and early 60s, Leroy Garrett & Carl Ketcherside abandoned their sectarian stance, which both had pursued for years, in favor of freedom in Jesus. As the same time, they surrendered their exclusivist demeanor and began to recognize that God's coral is broader, wider, higher and deeper than the sect of which they once parroted. From that day onward, they proclaimed that wherever God has a child, they have a brother or a sister.

   Our dear brother Carl passed away a few years ago, but Leroy is still with us and continues to proclaim reformation and unity. In simpler terms, Leroy is not the sectarian he once was. Carl died a non-sectarian. I, too, was once a member of their partisan pack, wrote articles in their publications, and dared anyone to defy the Church of Christ sect of which I promoted.

Buff    

[johntwayne]

Instead, his main thrusts were reformation and unity within the Christian community.  It is especially striking that in his Living Oracles not once does he translate the Greek ekklesia “church.

[Johnb]

Buff

I have read Leroy and Carl extensively.  I had the good fortune to meet and attend services with Carl.  He became a dear fried that I admired greatly; I often use his name as my pen name on some other forums.  

[Reformer]

Buff
I have read Leroy and Carl extensively.  I had the good fortune to meet and attend services with Carl.  He became a dear fried that I admired greatly; I often use his name as my pen name on some other forums.  Blit is seldom right about anything.  He is wrong about Leroy and Carl.  He is wrong about Campbell's beliefs and about everything else that has to do with the bible.  He does not assemble with any one  but wants to lecture us on how to be a proper Christian, 

   Yes, John, I, too, knew Carl personally. His mind was the sharpest of any human I've ever known. I have often said that he will go down in history as one of our greatest reformers.

Buff

[Reformer]

Buff
I have read Leroy and Carl extensively.  I had the good fortune to meet and attend services with Carl.  He became a dear fried that I admired greatly; I often use his name as my pen name on some other forums.  Blit is seldom right about anything.  He is wrong about Leroy and Carl.  He is wrong about Campbell's beliefs and about everything else that has to do with the bible.  He does not assemble with any one  but wants to lecture us on how to be a proper Christian, 

   John, by the way, Carl spent a few years in Nevada, Missouri and with the congregation there.  When I was pulpiteering, I worked with the Nevada congregation as the elite minister on two different occasions during the 60s. I wonder if you were ever in in that part of Missouri?

   In the late 50s and early 60, I pulpiteered for a congregation in Pt. Pleasant, W.Va. When the "Elders" found out that Dad and I attended one of Carl's meetings, I was "unfrocked" on the spot—wasn't even given a two-weeks notice. Ahhh, those experiences while enslaved by the "Pharaohs of Egypt!" It will never happen again.

Buff

[Johnb]

Buff

I spent 20 years full time in the MOARNG and did task forces all over MO including Nevada.  I met and assembled with him at Chapel Hill in St Louis.  Yes not only was he bright he was one of the kindest men I have ever known.

[marc]

REFORMATION RUMBLINGS
BUFF SCOTT, JR.
___________________
  Alexander Campbell & “Dispensations

[Johnb]

http://www.freedominchrist.net/biblical%20studies/new%20testament/second%20peter/no%20private%20interpretation.htm

One of the many places Leroy discusses scripture and it is clear he believes in inspiration.  I have always found it better to listen to ones own words rather than another mans opinion of his words.

[Lee Freeman]

Ken (Blituri) does have some rather odd views on the Campbells, and some really odd views on Stone. Garrett is one of the foremost authorities on Alexander and Thomas Campbell living. His Stone-Campbell Movement should be required reading. But of course people should also read the original texts, too.

Campbell reaffirmed his stance in the Lunenburg letter both before and after writing it:

Because, mark me closely, I do admit that a person who believes the gospel, and cannot be immersed, may obtain remission. So that I cannot take the affirmative and say remission is absolutely suspended upon being baptized in water. (Alexander Campbell, "Reply to James Fishback No. I," MH, July 2, 1832) This is five years before the Lunenburg letter and his response.

We do not suppose all unimmersed persons to be absolute aliens from the family of God--nor are they absolutely excluded from any participation with us in prayer or in the Lord's supper. (Alexander Campbell, "The Christian Magazine," MH, March, 1845) This is eight years after he wrote the the Lunenburg Letter and the response.



Pax.

[Lee Freeman]

Ken, no, I'm nort dead. I'm afraid reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

And no one is looking for "legalistic loopholes." All I want is to be fair to Campbell's actual thought on the matter. I do not deny that he placed great importance on immersion-and rightly so. But I also do not deny that when push came to shove, Capbell would not deny the possibility of the "pious unimmersed" being saved. I can tell you that as a kid, the very idea was anathema. A person had to be baptized. Periopd. No exceptions. The "pious unimmersed" were in the same boat as atheists-a position Campbell would've denied.

As John B said, Campbell wasn't talking about wilfull disobedience, but about simple ignorance, people who would obey if they knew they were supposed to. As a great Campbell scholar you should remember that Campbell wrote a lot about people proceeding from the available light they possessed. Campbell's God wouldn't hold people responsible for knowledge that was honestly beyond their ken.

Pax.

Lee.

[larry2]

Dear Brother Reformer, hopefully your teaching and debate on this thread can now resume relevant to the subject. I removed many posts, deleted some, and modified others.

May God bless you in your efforts to give out the word in Jesus' name.

[Reformer]

Dear Brother Reformer, hopefully your teaching and debate on this thread can now resume relevant to the subject. I removed many posts, deleted some, and modified others.

May God bless you in your efforts to give out the word in Jesus' name.

   Thank you, Larry.  The thread now looks much better. I welcome disagreements from those who read my posts, and I enjoy replying to them, but when a whole  bundle of responses surfaces that revolve around much of nothing, it is time to do a little deleting. Thank you again.

Buff

[Johnb]

Buff
I agreed with my posts being edited and deleted where Larry saw fit to do so.  I agree with you on what you are saying about Campbell.  I have often thaought that the movement would have had a better impact if Stone had stayed out front. 

[Reformer]

Buff,
I agreed with my posts being edited and deleted where Larry saw fit to do so.  I agree with you on what you are saying about Campbell.  I have often thaought that the movement would have had a better impact if Stone had stayed out front. 

  Very possibly. However, Campbell was really the "brain" behind the movement to reform the divisive, sectarian system. This is why many of his efforts were devoted largely to uniting the Christians in all the sects—not uniting the sects, but those caught up in their web.

   P. S.  Many of my posts were either deleted or edited, too. I approved of Larry's decision in advance of his action. He did the right thing.

Buff

[Johnb]

Buff
Good point.  It is ironic how we went from trying to unite all the Christians in the sects to becoming a sect that excluded all other Christians.
I also think Campbell's dream was an impossible one.  However, Many groups have moved from a position of claiming to being the only Christians to accepting others as their brothers and sisters in Christ.   IMO it is the institutional church protecting their turf that blocks the progress.

[Reformer]

Buff
Good point.  It is ironic how we went from trying to unite all the Christians in the sects to becoming a sect that excluded all other Christians.
I also think Campbell's dream was an impossible one.  However, Many groups have moved from a position of claiming to being the only Christians to accepting others as their brothers and sisters in Christ.   IMO it is the institutional church protecting their turf that blocks the progress.

I'm in agreement.

Buff

[Lee Freeman]

Campbell intially had just as many objections to the union, if not more, than Stone did. However both men ultimately gave it their blessing and liberally endorsed it. And Stone later credited Campbell with helping become clearer in some of his thinking-though they never completely agreed on many subjects.

I don't know why Bro. Ken wants to deny Stone's enormous influence on the Movement and boot him out.

I don't agree with everything Stone wrote-nor with Campbell (Campbell could be wrong, too, and much more intractable at times, than Stone), either, truth be told-but I will honor him and give him his due as one of our founders.

Pax.

Lee.

[Johnb]

Lee
A voice of reason.  Thanks!

[Lee Freeman]

Ken, in October 1827 Campbell replied to an earlier letter Stone had written to him in the CB:

BROTHER STONE,--I WILL call you brother because you once told me that you could conscientiously and devoutly pray to the Lord Jesus Christ as though there was no other God in the universe than he. I then asked you of what import and consequence was all the long controversy you had waged with the Calvinists on the trinitarian questions. They did practically no more than pray to Jesus; and you could consistently and conscientiously do no less. Theoretically you differed, but practically you agreed. I think you told me that you were forced into this controversy, and that you regretted it. Some weak heads amongst my Baptist brethren have been scandalized at me because I called you brother Stone. (Emphasis mine)

And its waaay too easy, not to mention naive and simplistic, to blame the 1906 split solely or primarily on the Disciples, as if the Churches of Christ had nothing to do with it.  There were many contributing causes to the split, not solely or even primarily the "liberalism" of the Stone churches-which had ceased to exist for all practical purposes by 1906 anyway. But guess who those "liberal" Disciples in 1906 most closely identified with? Campbell! Stone by that time had been mostly ignored or forgotten by Disciples historians, and would continue to be for the most part. I attended our local Great Communion last year and the local Christian Church minister gave the opening address, and while mentionining Campbell several times,  never once referred to Stone. It was a Church of Christ minister who referred to Stone! It was Prof. Garrett who with his The Stone-Campbell Movement restored Stone to his rightful place as one of our founders.

Revisionist history would be to ignore or remove Stone from our history. Like him or not, he's a part of us. You can trace strains of his theology up through Lipscomb, Harding, Brewer, etc. For example, the CoC's largely counter-cultural, pacifist stance up through WWI can be traced primarily back to Stone.

Pax.

Lee.

[larry2]

Dear Brother Buff, once again I have cleaned posts seemingly determined to be just an attempt to hijack the thread if indeed that is their reason. There was possibly some content I didn't read that was applicable in the posts I removed, and there may have even been complete posts OK, but I determined to remove all the posts of the member determined to continue just pasting lhe way he was. I will not remove your thread at this time, and I will take action if needed to keep from it happening again. Thanks.

[Reformer]

Dear Brother Buff, once again I have cleaned posts seemingly determined to be just an attempt to hijack the thread if indeed that is their reason. There was possibly some content I didn't read that was applicable in the posts I removed, and there may have even been complete posts OK, but I determined to remove all the posts of the member determined to continue just pasting lhe way he was. I will not remove your thread at this time, and I will take action if needed to keep from it happening again. Thanks.

    Thank you, Larry. I don't want this brother's stuff on my threads any longer. Should he write something rational and sensible, I will not object. But he apparemtly posts just for the sake of posting and to be heard. And most of what he writes doesn't connect to the average mind.

   Should he post non-sensibly again, I will let you know. I dislike taking this position, but he has left me no choice.

Buff

[Reformer]

Buff
Good point.  It is ironic how we went from trying to unite all the Christians in the sects to becoming a sect that excluded all other Christians.
I also think Campbell's dream was an impossible one.  However, Many groups have moved from a position of claiming to being the only Christians to accepting others as their brothers and sisters in Christ.   IMO it is the institutional church protecting their turf that blocks the progress.

Right on, brother, right on.

Buff

[stevehut]

Please forgive me if this sounds provocative, but...

It seems to me that (sometimes) RM folks can be every bit as personality-oriented as the Catholics who claim their own prophets are superior to those of the Protestants.  In the present case it seems to be Campbell vs. Stone and who was more right or more important than the other.

I'm less concerned with who said what, than discovering the truth.

[stevehut]

1- I also think Campbell's dream was an impossible one. 

2- IMO it is the institutional church protecting their turf that blocks the progress.

1- Perhaps naive, but a noble goal.  The group that started out as tradition-busters, went on to invent a host of new sacred-cow traditions.

2- I'm inclined to think it more a matter of personal pride.  People don't want to think their old traditions might be wrong.

[DaveW]

As a member of a different restoration movement, and with ties into the CoC, I would like to offer the following:

Quote from: Johnb on June 03, 2010, 10:22:16 PM

1- I also think Campbell's dream was an impossible one. 

2- IMO it is the institutional church protecting their turf that blocks the progress.

I do not believe it is impossible to get the various sects and factions back together. as to turf protecting, I agree that it is a huge impedement.

As a member of a Messianic Jewish organization, we are in the process of restoring back to the Jerusalem congregation under James in Acts 15-21.

What was left out of the restoration dream is how to fix the first schism (which led to all the others) and that is the exclusion of Messianic Jews in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. When the EOC and RCC deal with that, true restoration will happen in the rest of christendom.

[Norton]

 



As a member of a Messianic Jewish organization, we are in the process of restoring back to the Jerusalem congregation under James in Acts 15-21.

[/quote]

Interesting. Perhaps we are seeing the fulfillment of Paul's prediction in Romans 11 beginning to take shape in the Messianic Jewish Movement.

[DaveW]

As a member of a Messianic Jewish organization, we are in the process of restoring back to the Jerusalem congregation under James in Acts 15-21.

Interesting. Perhaps we are seeing the fulfillment of Paul's prediction in Romans 11 beginning to take shape in the Messianic Jewish Movement.

Exactly.

Without a critical mass of identifiably Jewish believers in Yeshua/Jesus to welcome Him back to Jerusalem, we do not see the Lord returning to earth:

Matt 23.37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!
39 For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!’

[Reformer]

Dave and Norton:

   Of interest to you might be my Web site feature on Israel and Jerusalem. Please go to www.mindspring.com/~renewal/Israel.html . Thanks.

Buff

[DaveW]

Reformer - that article is chock full of Replacement theology - a doctrinal stance I totally reject.

[Reformer]

Reformer - that article is chock full of Replacement theology - a doctrinal stance I totally reject.

  "Replacement" or "Displacement," I've never been a part of either. But I have done a lot of biblical research on the matter. That "places" me in God's department (hopefully)!

Buff

[Norton]

I am not a follower of John Hagee's doctrine of helping the Jews restore the Temple in Jerusalem so that the Lord can return. I do interpret Romans 11 as saying that a very sizable number of identifiable Jews will flock onto the Kingdom before the Lord returns.

[Reformer]

I am not a follower of John Hagee's doctrine of helping the Jews restore the Temple in Jerusalem so that the Lord can return. I do interpret Romans 11 as saying that a very sizable number of identifiable Jews will flock onto the Kingdom before the Lord returns.

   Norton, something to think about is that Romans 11 might have been fulfilled during the first century.

Buff

[Jimmy]

I am not a follower of John Hagee's doctrine of helping the Jews restore the Temple in Jerusalem so that the Lord can return. I do interpret Romans 11 as saying that a very sizable number of identifiable Jews will flock onto the Kingdom before the Lord returns.

   Norton, something to think about is that Romans 11 might have been fulfilled during the first century.

Buff

For what it is worth, I agree with you Buff. There is very little reason not to think that Romans 11 was fulfilled by then.

[Reformer]

I am not a follower of John Hagee's doctrine of helping the Jews restore the Temple in Jerusalem so that the Lord can return. I do interpret Romans 11 as saying that a very sizable number of identifiable Jews will flock onto the Kingdom before the Lord returns.

   Norton, something to think about is that Romans 11 might have been fulfilled during the first century.

Buff

For what it is worth, I agree with you Buff. There is very little reason not to think that Romans 11 was fulfilled by then.

   Yes, considering the many thousands of Jews who responded to the Good News during the first 100 years. In any case, many other Jews were converted long after Paul wrote Romans 11.

Buff