Baptist History, Heritage & Distinctives – Graves Challenges the False Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration – PART TWO

Thomas E Kresal Admin · 3 hrs June 21, 2020

Baptist History, Heritage & Distinctives – Graves Challenges the False Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration – PART TWO

J. R. Graves / Alexander Campbell Dispute
By Samuel H. Ford, 1900To this sweeping and, we may say, criminating denial of Mr. Campbell’s repeated assertions, and also to the challenge to give the names of “distinguished Baptists and Baptists ministers condemning the course of J. R. Graves,” he made no reply.Those who knew Alexander Campbell, or were familiar with his writings and general course as an incessant controversialist, did not question the correctness of his statements. He was a man whose veracity was above suspicion, and at the time these statements appeared in the Harbinger it was pretty well known that there were influential men in the Baptist ranks who desired and planned a union of the Reformers and Baptist based upon or growing out of the co-operation and fraternity of the two peoples in the Bible Revision Movement. This fact gave boldness and credibility to Campbell’s averments. But he prudently let Graves alone, and was silent in regard to the implied challenge to discuss the questions at issue with Graves either orally or through the respective periodicals.Graves pursued his fearless course of argument, and, at times, of denunciation of the dogmas of “baptismal remission;” insisting ever on the Scriptural truth of justification by faith only, and salvation independently of any ordinance, or church connection. This finally culminated in a challenge, through one Elder Hall, to hold public debate with Elder Fanning, a scholarly and able man of “the Reformation.”It was accepted. P. S. Fall of Nashville, who had been pastor of the 1st Baptist Church there, and who led pretty much that whole Church in the ranks of the “Reformation” was selected by Fanning, S. H. Ford (the writer) by Graves, to arrange propositions and preliminaries. A voluminous correspondence ensued. The correspondents could not agree upon the wording of the propositions. On the part of Dr. Graves, Ford insisted on this proposition:The Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity by the application of the truth as it is in Jesus, convinces the sinner of his guilt and loss, quickens him into spiritual life, and leads him to trust in Christ.1The reason for stating the question at such length was to avoid all misunderstanding or evasion of the true issue viz., does the Holy Spirit convert? is the truth, the instrument, not the cause of that spiritual life?Elder Fall on the part of Fanning, declined to discuss that proposition indeed admitted the affirmative and accepted the doctrine of the direct operation of the Spirit through the truth. But it was, in fact, a repudiation of “original Campbellism.” That system with many of its most distinguished “proclaimers” had undergone or was undergoing a change in regard to the Spirit’s work. It’s early teaching was (and to some extent is still) that there is no personal work of the Holy Spirit until after the “consummating act” immersion.1 I write from memory as the correspondence is not in my possession. SHF

Thomas E. Kresal – From Ford’s Christian Repository and Home Circle, August, 1900, pp. 487-493.