The Biblical and Historic Context for the Stone-Campbell View of Baptism

Introduction

Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins is one of the most controversial doctrines of the modern Stone-Campbell Movement. It is one of the first doctrine’s potential members come in contact with and is held in very high esteem by the leaders of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Unfortunately, the doctrine appears to clash with most other church movements and is seen as a divisive and anomalous by other churches. A proper understanding of the Stone-Campbell baptism doctrine revels it is not a radical view but a view that has many similarities to historical Protestantism and is a biblical view. The Stone-Campbell Movement’s understanding of the mode of baptism, the meaning of baptism, and the necessity of baptism is supported biblical and historically.

The Mode of Baptism

Baptism by immersion is the common practice throughout the entire New Testament and the proper mode of baptism in the modern church. . Support for baptism by immersion comes from the biblical narratives, the meaning of the word baptism, the practice of the early church, and the symbolism of baptism.

Before Jesus’ ministry John was baptizing in the Jordan River[1], during Jesus’ ministry[2] the apostles were baptizing in similar bodies of water[3], after Jesus’ resurrection the apostles continued to use the same mode of baptism. In the biblical narrative’s John the Baptist always preformed baptisms by immersion in the Jordan River. This is made clear in the narrative story of John’s baptism of Jesus in Mark 1:9-10, which reads, “at that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like dove” (italics added). The use of in and up out of in Mark’s narrative shows that Jesus’ baptism was physically done in the river not at the side of the river. It is not significant that the baptism occurred in the Jordan River specifically, the significance is from the mode of baptism not the specific location. The New York Times published an article on August 17, 2004 which noted “Archeologists say they think they have found a cave where john the Baptist immersed many of his followers[4].” This article shows there is no significance to the Jordan River being used for baptism but the significance is attached to the mode.

Further support for baptism by immersion comes from Acts 8:38 where the eunuch requests baptism from Philip. John writes, “and he [the eunuch] gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him” (italics added). The language describes both Philip and the eunuch going into the water. Acts 8:38 and Mark 1:9 & 10 support the idea of baptism by immersion. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia sums up the significance of these two passages saying, “the use of the river Jordan as the place for baptizing by John the Baptist makes inevitable the notion of immersion[5].” Since the testimony of the narratives is not strong enough to stand on it’s own it is important to further examine the doctrine of baptism by studying the meaning of the word baptizo[6]. Baptize in the Greek New Testament appears as baptizo[7] and baptisma[8]. Both baptizo and baptisma are derived from the primary verb bapto[9]. Bapto literally means to overwhelm and is used to mean to cover wholly with a fluid[10]. Baptisma and baptizo then mean to overwhelm or to immerse and are translated into baptism, baptize or baptized[11]. In his Illustrated Bible Dictionary Thomas Nelson gives closure to the meaning of baptize by writing, “the predominant meaning [of baptize] is ‘to immerse’ or ‘to dip,’ implying that the candidate was plunged beneath the water[12].” In his work Christian Baptism Alexander Campbell strongly defends the meaning of bapto and baptizo saying, “Greek lexicographers, with one consent, in their definitions, as well as Greek philosophers, historians, orators, and poets, in their use of this term render it dip, plunge, immerse: never as indicating sprinkling, pouring, or scattering any thing[13].”

A further defense form language comes from the Greek word for sprinkle. Sprinkle in the English is translated from rhantizo[14]. Rhantizo is translated sprinkle in Hebrews 9:13 which reads, “for if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh (KJV).” If sprinkling were to be an acceptable form of baptism the word’s rhantizo and baptizo would be used interchangeable or rhantizo would have been used in conjunction with baptism. As it is the word translated baptism means to dip or immerse but not to sprinkle.

The Early Church main mode of baptism was immersion. According to Dr. Edward T. Hiscox’s New Directory for Baptist Churches the “first authenticated instance of such a departure [from baptism by immersion] was about the middle of the third century, or A. D. 250. This was in the case of Novatian[15].” The account of this baptism was recorded by Eusebius and commented on by Alexander Campbell in his work Christian Baptism, with Its Antecedents and Consequents where Alexander Campbell also credits Novation as being the first recorded sprinkling[16]. Novation was the first recorded sprinkling which occurred 220 ears after Christ’s death. This means for 220 years sprinkling was not practiced by the Christian church. Sprinkling may have been considered a viable option for baptism according to The Didache. The Didache deals with early church worship. It was written around A.D. 80, the section on baptism reads;

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit[17].

The Didache shows that the early church was willing to perform baptism by other modes besides immersion. This endorsement by the church did not influence the mode of baptism until the twelfth century when the practices of infusion and aspersion were growing[18]. The evidence from early church writings including the story of Novation which show that alternative forms of baptism were done less for theological reasons and more for health reasons. For example Novation was ill and bed ridden at the time of his immersion. His illness made going to be immersed difficult and submersion in water life threatening for these reasons he was baptized by affusion (pouring). Many other Christians were baptized while critically ill, by the time they were dying immersion was not a safe practice, often the candidate was to weak to go be immersed or the act of immersion would kill the candidate so less risky forms were practiced. Not all early church theologians accepted these views as theologically sound. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica writes, “therefore it seems that there can be no Baptism without immersion[19].” Within the early church alternative modes of baptism never were placed at the same status as immersion. This is partially do to their lack of biblical support and the hesitancy by the leading theologians to support them. Over time these forms crept their way into common practice and became acceptable because the church did not deny their validity. Martin Luther supported the practice of baptism by alternative means in his Small Catechism when he answered the question, “what is the meaning of the word baptize?” He wrote, “baptize means to apply water by washing, pouring, sprinkling, or immersing[20].” Regardless of the middle church testimony the cries for sola scriptura[21] and ad fontes[22] drown out the testimony of an apathetic church and can only lead to a doctrine of baptism by immersion only.

The common historical consensus defines the mode of baptism as being by immersion. Alexander Campbell believes that even though historically factions of the church have sprinkled ‘that sprinkling and pouring mere water on any person or thing for any moral, ceremonial, or religious use, was never done by the authority of God since the world began[23].”

Not only do the biblical narratives, the Greek language, and the historical account support baptism by immersion but the symbolism of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection is best persevered in baptism by immersion. Paul’s writings in Romans 6:3-4 support this idea, he writes, “don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life (italics added).” The language of this passage strongly suggests that Paul desired baptism to be associated with and a symbol for Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. Adam Clarke suggests this passage means, “the man is drowned, is dead; and, when he came up out of the water, he seemed to have a resurrection to life; the man is risen again; he is alive![24]” The Life Application Commentary comes to a similar conclusion saying, “they [early Christians] understood this form of baptism [immersion] to symbolize being buried with Christ, thus the death and burial of the old way of life. Coming up out of the water symbolized resurrection to new life with Christ, as well as the promise of a future bodily resurrection[25].” Wayne Grudem best summarizes this idea in his saying, “when the candidate for baptism goes down into the water it is a picture of going down into the grace and being buried. Coming up out of the water is then a picture of being raised with Christ to walk in newness of life[26].” In Colossians 2:12 Paul conveys the equivalent symbol of baptism when he writes, “having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.”

In defense of the symbolic importance of immersion Alexander Campbell sites Neander's History of the Christian Religion as supporting this idea by saying;

baptism was originally administered by immersion; and many of the comparisons of St. Paul allude to this form of its administration: the immersion is a symbol of death, of being buried with Christ; the coming forth from the water is a symbol of a resurrection with Christ.[27]

Campbell also cites Chrysostom, who writes, “to be baptized and plunged, and then to emerge or rise again, is a symbol of our descent into the grave, and our ascent out of it; and therefore, Paul calls baptism a burial[28]." Neander and Chyrsostom show Paul used specific language to convey the concept that Baptism is a sign of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

The biblical narratives, biblical language, early church history, and baptismal imagery support the view of the Stone-Campbell movement that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism. It is as The New Directory for Baptist Churches states, “the baptism which John administered, which Jesus received and enjoined, and which the Apostles practiced, was an immersion , a dipping, an entire submergence of the person baptized, in water, on a profession of repentance and faith in Christ[29].” Alexander Campbell stated this concept more clearly in his book entitled Christian Baptism; he writes, “immersion in water into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is the one only Christian Baptism[30].” More recently James Baird professor of Biblical Studies at Oklahoma Christian University writes the Campbell’s believed, “baptism in the New Testament was the immersion of believers[31].” It is not only the Stone-Campbell movement that supports baptism by immersion only. Wayne Grudem writes, “the practice of baptism in the New Testament was carried out in one way: the person being baptized was immersed or put completely under the water and then brought back up again[32].” Grudem’s contemporary and fellow systematic theologian Millard Erickson writes, “there is no doubt that the procedure followed in New Testament times was immersion.[33]” These theologians are in agreement with the Stone-Campbell church on the mode of baptism, its practice in the New Testament, and how it should be carried out in the modern church.

The Meaning of Baptism

The Stone-Campbell tradition holds that baptism is the “Christian institution for the remission of sins[34].” Though baptism for the remission of sins appears to be in contrast to protestant and evangelical teachings it is both a biblical and historical meaning of baptism. To understand how baptism is for the remission of sins it is necessary to define remission. Remission of sins can be defined as an “exemption from the consequences of an offence[35],” that is to say forgiveness[36].

The biblical account of baptism for the remission of sins is supported from Jewish practices. John Weatherly draws a parallel between ablution, Jewish ceremonial washing, and John’s baptism in his essay The Role of Baptism in Conversion; Israel’s Promises Fulfilled for the Believer in Jesus. Ablution was performed as an act of cleaning Easton’s Bible Dictionary states certain washing occurred, “by which a person purified or absolved himself from the guilt of some particular act[37].” Nelson’s Bible Dictionary explains ablution in a simpler manner saying it is “the ceremonial washing of one's body, vessels, and clothing for the purpose of religious purification[38].” Weatherly argues that the Jewish people who were baptized by John would have recognized the parallels between ablution and John’s Baptism. These parallels lend support to the concept of baptism for the remission of sins.

The New Testament also supports baptism for the remission of sins. The concept of baptism for the remission of sins is recognized in Peter’s admonition from Acts 2:48 to, “repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit [39].” Peter clearly connects repentance and baptism to the forgiveness of sins making both baptism and repentance necessary for the remission or forgiveness of sins. Weatherly comments on Acts 2:38 saying, “‘for the forgiveness of sins’ indicates the purpose or result of the action not its cause[40].” Further support is found in Acts 22:16 where John writes, “and now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” This verse draws on the image of ablution from Jewish practice by drawing upon the concept of the washing away of sins. Weatherly draws this connection saying, “John’s baptism probably evoked the prophetic promise of God’s cleansing his people in the last days. Hence, it is connected to the forgiveness of sins[41].” He goes on to comment, “baptism serves as an act of cleansing insofar as it is the baptizand’s submission to the Lord for cleansing[42].” By pointing out that the Jews recalled ablution Weatherly is demonstrating that in Christian baptism forgiveness of sins would have been expected.

Finally, Church history supports the concept of baptism for the remission of sins. In his Small Catechism Martin Luther writes, baptism “works forgiveness of sins, rescues from the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.[43]” Luther goes on to write, “Christ has indeed won full forgiveness and salvation from the whole human race with his perfect life, suffering, death and resurrection. He distributes this same forgiveness in Baptism[44].” The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads, “our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism[45],” and goes on to say, “we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us[46].” Origin supports the idea by saying “The baptism of the church is given for the forgiveness of sins[47].” Justin the Martyr similarly states, “then we bring them to some place where there is water, and they are regenerated by the same way of regeneration by which we were regenerated: for they are washed in water[48].” The historical church clearly backs the idea of baptism for the remission of sins. William R. Baker summarizes this idea in his essay the Role of Faith in Conversion when he writes, “for fifteen hundred years, up through and including Martin Luther, the church wide consensus considered baptism the time when the sinner receives forgiveness of sins and regeneration or new birth[49].” The Old and New Testament scriptures both support the belief that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. The Jews at the time would be more likely to call it purification from sin, after the model of ceremonial washing the concept of baptism for remission of sins is still present. Church Tradition and history also support baptism for the remission of sins; from the time of the apostles up through the rise of the Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformation the Christian Church has held that baptism is for the remission or forgiveness of sins. The modern Evangelical church has largely abandoned this idea, one exception being for the Stone-Campbell churches.

Necessity of Baptism

The Biblical view and historical church view hold that baptism is necessary for salvation. At first it can seem there is a great disparity between baptism being necessary for salvation and salvation by grace alone. However, by examining the biblical and historical nature of baptism the disparity is removed.

To hold that baptism is for the remission of sins sets up a theology where baptism is integral and necessary to salvation. Baptism becomes linked to salvation in the same manner in which repentance is part of salvation. It is a piece of the process that is involved in salvation. It is important now to answer two obvious questions; first, how is the conflict between salvation by grace not works resolved if baptism is necessary for salvation? Second, is it possible for an unbaptized person to be saved[50]?

Most Protestants and evangelicals recoil at the thought of baptism being necessary for salvation. Jack Cottrell explains the reason “evangelicals do not accept baptism as a condition for salvation is that they regard it as a human work, thus contrary to grace[51].” Evangelicals tend to see baptism as a work. Evangelical theology runs into an inconsistence at this point by requiring repentance for faith, yet not baptism. The necessity of repentance is confirmed by Millard Erickson when he writes “we might conclude that both faith and repentance are necessary to salvation[52].” Cottrell is critical of Erickson and others out on this point saying “Millard Erickson should be challenged to apply the same hermeneutical reasoning to the issue of baptism that he applies to repentance[53].” Cottrell is requesting that if repentance is viewed as a necessary for salvation then on the same hermeneutical grounds baptism should be viewed as necessary to salvation. Cottrell could have just as easily applied his criticism of Erickson to John Wesley who writes “therefore both repentance and fruits meet for repentance, are, in some sense, necessary to justification[54].” Wesley also says “they are not necessary in the same sense with faith nor in the same degree[55].” Wesley explains repentance and faith are not necessary in the “same sense; for repentance and its fruits are remotely necessary; necessary in order to faith; whereas faith is immediately necessary to justification[56].” Cottrell would be comfortable applying the argument John Wesley used for repentance to Christian baptism. It would be plausible to argue in similarly John Wesley that baptism is remotely necessary to salvation. Wesley would say this means “if there be time and opportunity for them[57],” then they are necessary.

Cottrell and others in the Stone-Campbell movement do not view baptism as a human work. Cottrell argues, “justification by faith and salvation in baptism is not a problem because, even though baptism is truly a work, it is not our work but God’s work[58].” This is an echo of the argument Martin Luther used in his Larger Catechism saying, “to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own work[59].” Alexander Campbell agreed with the view of Martin Luther stating, “we do not place baptism among good works.” Campbell goes on to say, “in baptism we are passive in every thing but in giving our consent. We are buried and we are raised by another. Hence, in no view of baptism can it be called a good work[60].” Since baptism is not a good work but a work of God it does not conflict with the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. Baptism and salvation are as harmonious as salvation and repentance.

Further, baptism is not what saves but as Cottrell states, “baptism is not the means of receiving salvation but simply the time or occasion for receiving it.”[61] Alexander Campbell explained this by saying baptism is “the knowledge of remission of sins[62].” Both men are arguing that salvation is by grace and baptism is the occasion of our salvation. Baptism does not save but is a point when we can know of our salvation. Cottrell clearly explains this plan of salvation saying, “a sinner is saved by grace (as the basis), through faith (as the means), in baptism (as the occasion), for good works (as the result)[63] (italics original).” Campbell and Cottrell attached the idea of assurance of forgiveness to baptism. To them it was ultimately God who forgave; baptism became a symbol of the redemptive action or the occasion for forgiveness to take place. The Stone-Campbell movement retains the idea of salvation by faith yet stresses the importance of baptism within the process, just as other churches stress the importance of repentance.

Finally, since baptism is necessary for salvation the question arises is it possible for an unbaptized person to be saved[64]? Both the Stone-Campbell movement and Martin Luther would answer, yes. It, however, is better to ask is the forgiveness of sins necessary for salvation? Again, the answer is yes. It is also possible to ask why one wouldn’t want to be baptized or forgiven of sins. To this Martin Luther would comment “it is only unbelief that condemns. Faith cannot exist in the heart of a person who despises and rejects baptism against better knowledge[65].” The better knowledge Luther speaks of comes from a proper understanding of scripture. The Holy Scripture speaks clearly about the connections of salvation and baptism; however, against such knowledge some Christians still reject baptism. Jon Weatherly approaches this idea from a different angle writing, “the act of baptism becomes definitive for their [the baptized] identity as people under the authority of Jesus[66].” Luther would also answer his question by saying “Christ has indeed won full forgiveness and salvation from the whole human race with his perfect life, suffering, death and resurrection. He distributes this same forgiveness in Baptism[67].” John Mark Hicks answers his own questions saying, “is it possible for an unbaptized believer to be saved? Yes, definitely. Should every believer be baptized? Yes, definitely[68].”

The tricky view of the Stone-Campbell Movement relies on the importance of baptism to the Gospel message. The Stone-Campbell Movement argues that baptism is part of the Gospel therefore Christians should be baptized. They would also say that baptism doesn’t cause salvation that faith does. Baptism is necessary because it is the submission of an obedient heart to the instructions of God. To not be baptized is to actively rebel against a God and to not love him as a Christian should. In the presence of rebellion salvation is incomplete so the Stone- Campbell movement sees baptism as the solution to specific rebellion that can keep seekers from salvation.

Testimony of Alexander and Thomas Campbell

The prior arguments beg the question what if I was sprinkled; do I need to be immersed? The testimonies of Alexander and Thomas Campbell illustrate the importance of baptism by immersion even for those who have been sprinkled. James B. North author of Union in Truth; an Interpretive History of the Restoration Movement, writes the Campbell’s “Presbyterian background made infant sprinkling seem a normal and legitimate form of baptism[69].” Both Thomas and Alexander Campbell had been sprinkled as infants. Eventually Thomas Campbell confessed that sprinkling was a human invention[70]. Even after Thomas Campbell accepted immersion as the only form of baptism he held the view;

for those who are already members of the Church and participants of the Lord's Supper, I can see no propriety, even if the scriptural evidence for infant baptism be found deficient, in their unchurching or paganizing themselves, or in putting off Christ, merely for the sake of making a new profession; thus going out of the Church merely for the sake of coming in again.[71]

Thomas Campbell meant the sprinkled do not need to be immersed to take communion or be members of the church. He tried to make this statement consistent his Declaration Address when he wrote there should be no church membership requirements “but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament Church[72].” During a discussion with Alexander, Thomas conceded that allowing the sprinkled to join the church and partake in communion was “merely inferential[73].” Thomas had essentially conceded that sprinkling was not biblically supported and that it did was not “expressly enjoined” in scripture. James North points out that the Alexander Campbell realized “it was not just a matter of rejecting infant baptism as a human invention, but of omitting believers’ baptism, that was divinely commanded[74].” Thomas Campbell came to a similar conclusion saying, “infant sprinkling was wholly unauthorized in scripture and that he therefore was an unbaptized person[75].”On June 12, 1812 both Alexander and Thomas were immersed putting to rest the feud over sprinkling and immersion. From that moment forward the restoration church has rallied around the idea of immersion as the only valid mode of baptism.

The testimony of Alexander and Thomas Campbell illustrates the struggle that many Christians have. It is hard for anyone to give up the ideals of personal theological beliefs, but in light of the witness of scripture and the witness of the historic church it can become necessary. The Campbell’s were able to listen to scripture so they could speak where scripture spoke. Their actions show the importance of seeking baptism by immersion and not settling for sprinkling and remaining unbaptized.

Conclusion

The biblical narratives, Greek language, baptismal imagery, and church history support the Stone Campbell teaching of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. The Scriptures, church history, and logic also support the necessity of baptism for salvation. The Stone-Campbell Movement’s views on baptism are often misunderstood and misinterpreted by the wider church body. The misunderstanding creates tension between Protestants and the Stone-Campbell Movement. This misunderstanding can be eliminated through proper understanding of scripture and church history. The Protestant Church should take time to understand the Stone-Campbell view on baptism and Stone-Campbell churches should take time to share their view on baptism. This would help ease the tension and disunity caused by the misunderstanding of history, scripture, and church doctrine.

[1] Matthew 3:4-6.

[2] It is not clear whether Jesus’ himself ever baptized converts.

[3] The Bible is not clear where the apostles baptized, whether it was in the Jordan River or a similar body of water.

[4] On August 17th the New York Times published an article entitled “Scholars say John the Baptist used this cave for Immersions.” Some scholars are saying that a cave where John the Baptist may have immersed believers was found in Kibbutz Tzuba, west of Jerusalem. Biblical Archeology Review from November/December 2004 Vol 30 NO 6 "John the Baptists Cave? The evidence is thin" contests this view saying “Few, if any scholars in Israel think this cave has anything to do with John the Baptist." Regardless of the use of the cave the significance of the baptism was by immersion is upheld.

[5] International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1996 by Biblesoft article on Baptism.

[6] Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc. Strongs Number 907

[7] Mark 3:11

[8] Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc. Strongs Number 907

[9] Ibid 911

[10] Ibid 911

[11] Ibid 907, 908

[12] Electronically retrieved Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c)1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers article on baptism

[13] Electronically retrieved http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/cbac/CBAC202.HTM on 11/3/04

[14] Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc. Number 4472

[15] Electronically retrieved http://www.fbinstitute.com/hiscox/hiscoxindex.htm on 11/1/04

[16] Electronically retrieved http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/cbac/CBAC213.HTM#Page191 on 11/1/04

[17] Electronically retrieved http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html on 11/1/04

[18] Electronically retrieved http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VI on 11/1/04

[19] Question 66: Of The Sacrament Of Baptism Article 7 - Whether immersion in water is necessary for Baptism? Electronically retrieved (from Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.) It is realized that Thomas Aquinas’ shares a different view on the meaning of baptism than evangelicals and Protestants do yet his argument on the mode is still relevant.

[20] Luther’s Small Catechism.

[21] Sola scriptura is Latin for scripture only or alone. Which was one of the rallying cries of the reformation. The cry for scripture alone makes it surprising that Martin Luther and other reformation theologians allowed and practiced alternative modes of baptism.

[22] Ad fontes is Latin for back to the sources, a common concept of reformers, including those of the Stone-Campbell movement.

[23] Electronically retrieved http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/cbac/CBAC211.HTM on 11/3/04

[24] Electronically retrieved from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Biblesoft

[25] Electronically retrieved from The Life Application Commentary Series copyright (C) 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 by the Livingstone Corporation. Produced with permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved.

[26] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2000.

[27] Electronically retrieved http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/cbac/CBAC213.HTM on 11/3/04

[28] Ibid

[29] Formerly published by Judson Press. Copyright 1894 by Edward T. Hiscox. Originally published in 1859. electronically retrieved at http://www.fbinstitute.com/hiscox/hiscoxindex.htm on 10/14/04

[30] Christian baptism: with its antecedents and consequents. By Alexander Campbell. Electronically retrieved from http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/cbac/CBAC00.HTM on 10/15/04

[31] In an essay entitled “the Role of Baptism in Conversion; baptism and its substitutes as rituals of initiation in American Protestantism.” The essay is part of Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement. Edited by William R. Baker. Pg 116

[32] Wayne Grudem gives three reasons for immersion being the only way of baptism in his Systematic theology pg 967. 1. The word baptizo means “to plunge, dip, immerse, something in the water,” 2. The use of the Greek word en, translated in is used. 3. Immersion best symbolizes Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

[33] Millard Erickson in the Second edition of Christian Theology pg 1114.

[34] John Mark Hicks in his essay “The Role of Faith in Conversion” quoting Alexander Campbell. Pg 103

[35] Electronically retrieved from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1996 by Biblesoft

[36] Both forgiveness and remission are translated from aphesis and paresis according to the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia

[37] Electronically retrieved from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved. Article on ablution

[38] Electronically retrieved from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c)1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers

[39] Acts 2:48

[40] Weatherly In his essay “The Role of Baptism in Conversion” essay is part of Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement. Edited by William R. Baker. Pg 165

[41] Ibid. 171

[42] Ibid 172

[43] Luther’s Small Catechism with explanation p 204.

[44] Ibid. p 205

[45] Electronically retrieved http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a10.htm on 11/03/04

[46] Ibid

[47] Electronically retrieved http://www.piney.com/AcCSPropXI.html on 11/3/04

[48] Ibid

[49] The essay is part of Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement. Edited by William R. Baker.

[50] This is the question Martin Luther asks in his Small Catechism. 206

[51] Cottrell, Jack Role of Faith in Conversion 84

[52] Erickson Christian Theology 9355

[53] Cottrell, Jack In his essay “The Role of Faith in Conversion” essay is part of Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement. Edited by William R. Baker. 89

[54] Wesley, John. Sermon Forty-three, “the Scripture Say of Salvation.” Part of Rel 424: the Doctrine of Salvation/Holiness, text book compiled by Dr. Christ Bounds. Pg 107

[55] Ibid. 107

[56] Ibid 107

[57] Ibid. 107

[58] Cottrell, Jack In his essay “The Role of Faith in Conversion” essay is part of Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement. Edited by William R. Baker. 83

[59] Electronically retrieved Luther's Large Catechism, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.

[60] From Christian baptism electronically retrieved from http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/cbac/CBAC401.HTM on 10/18/04

[61] Cottrell In his essay “The Role of Faith in Conversion” essay is part of Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement. Edited by William R. Baker. Pg 89.

[62] John Mark Hicks in his essay “The Role of Faith in Conversion” quoting Alexander Campbell. Pg 103.

[63] Cottrell In his essay “The Role of Faith in Conversion” essay is part of Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement. Edited by William R. Baker. (italics original). Pg 89.

[64] This is the question Martin Luther asks in his Small Catechism. 206

[65] Luther’s Small Catechism 207

[66] Jon Weatherly In his essay “The Role of Baptism in Conversion” essay is part of Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement. Edited by William R. Baker. Pg 166.

[67] Ibid. p 205

[68] Hicks, John “Balancing, Faith, Christian Experience and Baptism” essay is part of Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement. Edited by William R. Baker. Pg 124. Hicks is quoting the Oak Hill’s Teaching Position on Baptism.

[69] Since infant sprinkling is done by immersion this was the same issue. The Campbell’s at times refer to the idea of infant baptism merely as sprinkling. James B. North author of Union in Truth; an Interpretive history of the Restoration Movement. Pg 111

[70] Ibid 111

[71] Electronically retrieved from http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/rrichardson/mac/MAC114.HTM on 10/15/04 from Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Volume I. (1868) by Robert Richardson. Richardson attributes this quote to Thomas in a conversation with Alexander.

[72] Declaration and address of the Christian association of Washington, Penn. Alexander Campbell. Electronically retrieved from http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/metc/METC02.HTM on 10/15/04

[73] James B. North author of Union in Truth; an Interpretive history of the Restoration Movement. Pg 111. North is citing A. Campbell’s, Memoirs of Thomas Campbell pp. 23-24.

[74] Ibid. p 112

[75] Ibid p 112