34 CAMPBELLISM, Doctrines of, S. A. Paine The Scriptures teach that faith, repentance, confession and baptism in water are necessary conditions to be complied with by alien (dead) sinners in order to spiritual or eternal life.
“The above is an exact duplicate of a proposition affirmed by a number of the divines of Campbellism in debate with me at different times and places. Of course then, none could complain of the statement I have made of their doctrine, when such men as J. W. Chism, C.R. Nichol, and a number of others have vehemently labored in public debate trying to prove it. Now I shall be very plain in my treatise of this subject, but in a perfectly good humor. Those with whom I have debated know that, while I pity their judgment, I admire and commend their courage and pluck, where it does not culminate in too much egotism. I think they have some pure egotists who are striving for notice and think a spute the shortest route to the station.
This class are perfectly willing to take a skinning every week for the name of de-ba-ting. Such as that I avoid, for it is no credit to them to take their flogging; neither is it any credit to me or my brethren to flog them.
Generally, the laity of these people are good citizens and neighbors, and among some of the best friends I have on earth are identified there, but it is generally conceded, and I can cheerfully subscribe to the concession, that among their ministry are some of the most conceited people in the wide world; but I am proud to find even exceptions to that rule. As a denomination, I have utmost respect for them, but their doctrine certainly does need undressing that the Lord’s people may see its nakedness and take warning. To this end my effort shall be devoted.
The statement of their doctrine on the important question of salvation, as stated and affirmed in their proposition, is a palpable contradiction and denial of every essential element of salvation. In the first place it denies flatly, the depravity of the one to be saved. About this depravity they have a great deal to say, and often present the advocates of it in a very wrong light, and for this reason I will give that subject a short treatise.
The depravity of sinner is hereditary, entire and universal. This they deny, and of course if successfully so, they could make some show in their affirmation. I do not mean now, by saying that depravity is entire, that the sinner is entire depravity, but the sinner is entirely depraved, entirely affected with depravity, which I will fully explain later.
We will now take the assertion in its order. First, depravity or sin is hereditary, i.e. we are born into this world having a sinful nature which invariably develops into sinful practice, for the reason that a tree bears fruit after its kind. We do not mean that at birth the child is as corrupt as it can be, but “sin is cast and mingled in our frame; it grows with our growth and strengthens with our strength” is a fair statement of the disease.
Take a pint cup full of water, drop into it ten drops of arsenic, the poison will so completely permeate the water until every molecule of water will be affected by the poison, hence totally or entirely poisoned; but will one dare say that because it is totally poisoned that it cannot be made more poison? Then would it not be as absurd for one to insist, that if an infant is totally affected with the poison of sin that it cannot become more sinful? That is a fudge to deceive the unguarded.
But is sin or depravity hereditary? I believe I will give them their father’s testimony for them to masticate first. You will observe, when I give it, that the boys have made a gross departure.
Hear him: “The stream of humanity, thus contaminated at the fountain, cannot in this world ever rise of itself to its primitive purity and excellence. We all inherit a frail constitution physically, intellectually, but especially morally, frail and imbecile. We have all inherited our father’s constitution and fortune; for Adam, we are told, after he fell “begat a son in his own image,” and that son was just as bad as any other son ever born into the world, for he murdered his own dear brother, because he was a better man than himself.”
Notice, near reader, humanity is here compared to a stream which is corrupted at its fountain. Could anything be plainer? But again he declares that “we inherit a constitution that is morally imbecile,” Especially so, he says.
Now remember that Campbell understood the meaning of language , and of course, used words that expressed his idea. Remember they inherited moral imbecility.
“To inherit, Webster says, is “to take by descent from an ancestor, to receive by nature from a progenitor.”
“Imbecile,” says Webster, “means impotent, destitute of strength either of body or mind.” Could an Old Baptist present hereditary depravity any stronger? By descent we inherit moral imbecility. Well, we are making good progress even our enemies being judges.
But we hear him further: “Because in him (Adam) they have all sinned, or been made mortal and consequently are born under condemnation to that death which fell upon our common progenitor because of his transgression.” Stronger still! They have all sinned in Adam. Then they must all be sinners, or else how could one sin without being a sinner? And “consequently,” i. e., for that reason; What reason? For the reason they are sinners “they are born under condemnation.” If that doesn’t affirm sin before birth I would like for some one to state it. But it is too plain to need any comment. So we try him again. “In Adam all have sinned; therefore in Adam all die.”
Your nature, gentle reader, not your person, was in Adam when he put forth his hand to break the precept of Jehovah. You did not personally sin in that act; but your nature then in the person of your father, sinned against the Author of your existence. There is therefore a sin of our nature as well as personal transgression.
Some inappositely call the sin of our nature our original sin as if the sin of Adam was the personal offence of all his children.
“True, indeed, it is; our nature was corrupted by the fall of Adam before it was transmitted to us.”
Well, well, boys, what now? Our nature was in Adam and sinned against God, and corrupted, and then transmitted to us! What does that lack proving that “we are by nature (inheritance) the children of wrath even as others?”
This is all any informed Baptist has ever claimed, that we get our depravity as a result of our corrupt nature which was in Adam being entailed upon or transmitted to his offspring in their natural conception and birth.
Be careful, boys, how you open your mouth against this, for your founder said: “Let no man open his mouth against the transmission of a moral distemper, until he satisfactorily explains the fact, that the special characteristic vices of parents appear in their children as much as the color of their skin, their hair or the contour of their faces.” You will find these quotations in A. Campbell’s Christian System, ppg. 27,28.
This is one time that Campbell told the truth and his admirers must subscribe to all we claim on depravity or denounce him as an heretic on this point. Come, friends, what will you do? But now we appeal to better and more unerring testimony than Campbell or any other uninspired man—the Bible.
Paul declares that sinners before quickening are “by nature the children of wrath even as others (the rest)” Eph. 2:3. This has been fully explained by the quotation from Campbell. David, on inherent sin, says, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me,” Psa. 51:5.
But they say, that only proves that David’s parents were sinners. If so, then you tell us, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” Job 14:4.
I have had them try to impeach Job as a witness. They say if that be true, then Jesus Christ was depraved, because he was born of a woman, hence came from the unclean. They forget or rather ignore the fact that God was his Father, and that his mother, Mary, was divinely prepared and made a clean source from which the babe sprang. When the angel told Mary that she should “conceive and bring forth a son,” she replied and said: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”
“And the angel answered and said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore (notice, therefore, because of the power of the Highest) also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God,” Luke 1:35.
Any one, who wants to, can see how the conception and birth of Jesus differs from the common or regular process of generation. The power of the Highest is able to reverse any law of nature at his option.
Having moved the trash from over the text we pass to another on hereditary sin. David says again, Psa. 58:3, “The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent; they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear.”
The text is very conclusive in the establishment of hereditary sin. It will bear the closest scrutiny and the most skillful criticism falters when confronted by it. They will always avoid answering until pressed to it, and then ‘tis simply amusing to see the repulse and their humiliation over the defeat.
The thought I wish to emphasize first is that David has for a subject, the wicked, not the innocent that afterwards become wicked. He says, “The wicked are estranged from the womb.”
This shows that the wicked are at first directly associated with the womb, and are estranged, withdrawn from the womb and hence alienated, held at a distance from the original possessor (the womb).
Webster defines estrange, thus, “to withdraw, to keep at a distance, to alienate, to divert from its original possessor,” etc. How then could the wicked be estranged from the womb, if the wicked were never in the womb?
If the womb was always a stranger to the wicked, and the wicked always a stranger to the womb, then tell me how the wicked are estranged from the womb? Of course, there is impudence enough somewhere to deny this fact if they have to deny the text to do it. But be still and hearken further: “They go astray.” Who goes astray? The text says the wicked. Wicked is the antecedent of the pronoun they.
What wicked is it that goes astray? They that are “estranged from the womb,” of course. But one says, “I thought they came from the womb innocent and holy, and at the age of accountability went astray and became wicked as a result.” Yes, we knew you thought that, but the proof is what we
want. What does David say? Did he tell the truth? If so, can you find a Bible witness that will contradict him.
Of course, they were not wicked by practice in the womb; only a wicked nature, “by nature a child of wrath;” this is the sinful nature that Campbell says is transmitted to us before we are born. They go astray because of the wicked nature or tendency which we sometimes call depravity, and which Campbell calls “moral imbecility.” If it is “moral imbecility” then they go astray, do wrong because they have no power to do that which is morally right; and if they have not the power to do the moral right, it is because of “moral imbecility,” and that hereditarily.
Right here Campbellism is bottled and I propose to drive the cork so tight the thing will smother to death, if indeed, it has any life to begin with.
But notice the next clause: “As soon as they be born speaking lies.” What is the antecedent of the pronoun they this time? I know an answer to this is a death knell to Campbellism, but it should not be in the path of divine truth, so let it come. Wicked of course, is the antecedent and is equivalent to “As soon as the wicked be born.”
“If the wicked be born, have not I proven my position?”
The Bible says the “wicked are born,” therefore every claim of infantile purity is subverted forever. Campbellism says: “The holy are estranged from the womb, they (the holy) go astray as soon as they reach the line of accountability, and as a result become wicked.”
Friendly reader, which will you have, the Bible or Campbellism? I speak of Campbellism in its latter day dress, as it is today. Tradition may tell you to choose the latter, but which is true? Remember “If the truth make you free, you shall be free indeed.”
The only turn our friends endeavor to make here is to charge infant damnation upon the advocates of depravity, not because we believe or advocate it, but to prejudice the minds of others against us. Is it conclusive that because an infant is by nature a sinner, that those of them that die, die in their sin, and go to torment? By no means.
While we believe in original sin, we also believe there is a reigning, all-prevailing remedy for sin, which is sent to the heart of every infant that dies in infancy, preparing it for glory. This is sovereign grace. Grace saves every infant that is taken from us. The child is saved like the adult, and the adult is saved like the child
Proof: “Verily (truly) I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom as a little child, shall in no wise enter therein,” Luke 18:17.
If the child receives it upon its original purity, so does the adult. And if the adult receives it conditionally on their part, so does the little child. The Bible declares they must receive it alike. As the adult cannot receive the Kingdom upon inherent purity, and the child can not receive it conditionally, we conclude that neither plan is correct, as neither can save both classes.
But God’s plan can and will save both classes, which plan is grace. Grace is so well adapted to the needs of sinners that it is like a mighty river, flows to the hearts of all for whom it was prepared, regardless of their conditions, stations, or environments of life. It saves heathens, idiots, infants, yea, all the Son received in the gift of the Father. “All the Father giveth me shall come to me,” says Jesus.
But back to our subject. Is sin hereditary? “What is man that he should be clean? And he which is born of woman that he should be righteous?” Job 15:14. On the same subject, Job asks, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” Job 14:4. Again, “Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward.” Job 5:7.
Again, “How can he be clean that is born of a woman?” Job 25:4.
“For he knoweth vain man; he seeth wickedness also. Will he not then consider it? For vain man would be wise though man be born like a wild ass’s colt,” Job 11:12.
Do these texts seem to lend any sympathy to the thought of infantile purity? The man who would vehemently in the face of all this testimony, contend for infantile purity has
made but little, if any, advancement beyond the wild ass’s colt, which was his original condition at birth.
The wild ass’s colt is very noisy, and very reckless. Think of his stubborn, reckless disposition! He wouldn’t know an ear of corn if he were to see it. A stable or a stall would be prison to him. He wouldn’t know a man from a beast. The woods is his home and he delights in it.
So sin is the home of all born in the world, and they love their home until God shines in their heart to give them a nobler life and higher conception of the things of his Kingdom. They are just as unconscious of the blessings of the Kingdom as the wild ass’s colt is of the good, shelter, and comfort of the barnyard. As it is unreasonable to think of the wild ass’s colt of his own volition, coming to the barnyard and taking his place there; even more unreasonable is it to think of the depraved sinner, of his own volition, taking a place quietly and humbly in the assembly of God. The colt must be tamed and domesticated before he will love his master and his Kingdom. And like the Gadarene, “Whom no man could tame,” the poor sinner, who is the Gadarene, must have a visitation of Jesus, in his love and power, to clothe him and put him in his right mind, to love and serve the Lord. Then you find him so tame that he falls at the feet of his Master, full of praise and adoration.
We now conclude this chapter by giving a quotation from the New Testament.
“For as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” Rom. 5:12.
Notice, “all have sinned,” then all are sinners until sin is removed and that is done by the “Reigning grace of God through Jesus Christ, our Lord,” Rom. 5:21.
In Rom. 3:12, it is said: “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable.” But the objector says, I believe they are gone out of the way and become unprofitable, but they are not born thus, but go and become thus, at a certain age after birth. But, I ask, had you noticed it says are gone? The present tense copulative and past participle represent the act of going as complete. Your position is that some have gone, others are going, and others will yet go. But the text says, “All are gone.” If “all are gone,” who is it that yet remains to go? Come, boys, let us reason together. Don’t you see your dodge smacks of ignorance?
Notice the other: “They are (all) together become unprofitable.” The same form of the verb again which shows the act of becoming “unprofitable” as complete. And besides, it says they became unprofitable together. You say they do this one at a time. They became such in Adam; hence together. Right where Campbell said “our nature was,” and when he says, “our nature sinned against the author of our existence.”
Where do waters mingle together except at the fountain head? (Writings of S.A. Paine ppg 1-8)