THE DISCUSSION AT GALLATIN,
BETWEEN G. W. GRIFFIN, Baptist, AND DAVID LIPSCOMB, Disciple,
From Jan. 15th to 20th, 1872.
WHILE it is our main purpose to examine the elements of the Christian institution, and prepare the way as soon as practicable, for a historic embodiment of the same, there are quite good reasons for references to important current events. It may be presumed, that the readers of the HISTORIAN, take interest in all questions involving the spiritual status of the various prominent religious organizations of our country. It will, therefore, not be deemed out of place, for a notice to appear in our columns, in regard to the recent discussion at Gallatin, Tenn. The purpose of the disputants, was to examine some of the most important elementary principles of the church of Christ; and whether their success was complete or not, the notice we may take of the matter, we trust, will be of service to honest enquirers after truth.
We have regretted to see, in most of the public journals, stub- born opposition to religious discussions. The very general im- pression is, that it is important to possess correct knowledge, with reference to state and business questions, but touching religious matters, all is darkness, and it is vain to look for light. Hence, the papers say, “Let us live in peace.” The meaning is, that, inasmuch as there is not certainty in religious investigations, we need make no effort to seek information.
Again, it is presumed, that religion is a private matter, between each individual and his Maker, and no one has the right to dis- turb his neighbor, in adopting such a system as may best suit his taste. The differences, indeed, are of no great value, and any form of opinion, is quite sufficient to secure immortality. Consequently, debates are supposed to foster strifes and animosities in society.
If these conclusions are well founded, of course we could but doubt the beneficial results of any character of religious investigations. But we find conflicting sects, everywhere, each endeavoring to break down every other. An honest effort to show that God really has a people on the earth—one people—one house( one church, and one spiritual family, even in opposition to the conflicting sects in our day, should be considered an ample apology for religious discussions. While then strifes and debates, in the offensive application frequently made of them, may be objectionable, it is manly, noble, and Christian, “to contend very earnestly for the faith.” Honest, God-fearing, and truly pious men, ought to strive together for the unity of the spirit, and the “one faith,” amongst the children of God. There may exist many opinions, speculations and fancies, but all who believe at all, believe precisely the same great truths. Hence, the necessity of religious discussions, to elicit the truth. Let all good men strive to find a common ground, on which to unite, in battling against sin and Satan.
With reference to the debate at Gallatin, we will take the liber- ty of offering a few thoughts. It is scarcely possible to take any notice of the affair, without at least making some reference to the disputants. Each is highly respected by his brethren, and yet we doubt if two men have come together, that differ more widely in appearance, manner and character of mind. Mr. Griffin is some forty years old, of gentlemanly appearance and bearing, is a pleasant speaker—indeed, somewhat oratorical in style, possesses fair intellectual ability, and is a passable, but by no means a profound Biblical scholar. Brother Lipscomb, we suppose, is a few years younger than Mr. Griffin, not gainly in his appearance, is slow and hesitating in speech; but is blessed with a powerful brain, and is greatly superior to his opponent in scholarship.
He speaks as if he believes what he says.
In debate, Mr. Griffin may be styled a fine “trimmer” is quick in repartee, and turns all the little defects of his opponent to good account. Brother Lipscomb, on the contrary, dodges nothing, goes straight forward with the main object, possesses no hedging ability, or retaliatory power; but relies solely upon the strength of his cause and embellished truth to support him. He uses no sugar coated pills. Mr. Griffin’s failure to furnish strong food to his friends, and to make his points clear, weakened interest in all he said. The consequence was, that from the beginning to the end, he was less and less satisfactory to his friends; while Brother Lipscomb, evidently, became stronger from day to day; and it is confidently believed he won hearts to the truth.
God is entitled to. all the honor; but had we put a wiry, crafty orator into the conflict, the honor would evidently have been di- vided.
The first subject discussed was, “The kingdom of Christ was not set up, or opened on earth, till after the death of Christ.” While Mr. Griffin was really in the affirmative, he assumed to be in the negative, and attempted not to show when, or where the kingdom was established. Indeed, from his mode of arguing, we doubted whether he had made up his mind that there is a kingdom of the Savior on earth, to this good hour. The passage in Isaiah, in regard to “The mountain of the Lord,” “the house of the God of Jacob,” “the law going forth out of Zion,” and the “word of the Lord from Jerusalem;” when swords were to be beaten into plow shares, and spears into pruning hooks, he took particular pains to say, refers to the future. We were ashamed to hear a man holding a. respectable place in any religious society, advocating the idle notion, that we are still to look for a new dispensation. The house of God was reared at Jerusalem, in the first century of our era; the law of the Spirit went forth according to prophecy, from Jerusalem on Pentecost; and, from that day forward, the tendency of the Christian institution has been, to cause war to cease in the world. But Mr. Griffin contradicted his view of the matter, by relying on the passage, “The law and the prophets were until John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached; and every man presseth into it,” (Luke xvi: 16) to prove that the kingdom existed in the days of John the immerser. We also teach that, from the time of John, the kingdom of God was preached. How preached? That it had come? The Scriptures authorize no such a conclusion. It was preached as near, as coming, Mr. Griffin, however, contradicted this view—that is, the theory that the kingdom was established by John, in affirming, afterwards, that, “John was only preparing materials; and the work of erecting the kingdom was progressive.
The blinding clause, “Ever man presseth into it,” Mr, Griffin and the Baptists generally, ought to know, is not genuine Scripture. It is not in Teschendorf, and it is not necessary to give all the Savior intended.
But really, we do not desire to look along our Brother Griffin’s crooked path. No man can travel it, satisfactorily to himself or to others. We only wonder that the Baptist people do not out- strip their preachers. Many have done so, and all the intelligent we confidently believe, will rid themselves of the conceit that the kingdom was set up in the days of John. Our Baptist brethren will bear with us while we remind them that friend Griffin failed to show when Jesus of Nazareth was crowned King, made Priest by an oath, or offered his sacrifice to God. Head 2nd, 24th and 110th Psalms of David. We wondered that Mr. Graves sat by and heard friend Griffin repeat, again and again, that Jesus made the sacrifice on the cross, without correcting him. Did neither know the truth? Under the law, the victim suffered, not in the Holy place, or in the outer court, but died without; and the sacrifice was brought, by the Priest, into the tabernacle to be offer- ed; and while Our Lord died on the cross, he “offered up him- self” not on earth, but “when he entered in once, into the holy place.” Heb. 7, 27, and 9th chapter.
Brother Lipscomb read the Scriptures, to show beyond doubt that the kingdom, though “Among the Jews” in its elements, was not fully set up till the good spirit descended to lead the Apostles into all the truth regarding it, on the day of Pentecost.
The second, and only other question we heard discussed, was, “That baptism, to the penitent believer, is in order to the remission of sins.”
Mr. Griffin quoted, with considerable dexterity, all the Scriptures he could find, in reference to men being “saved by grace, through faith” “by the blood of Christ;” “that God saves” and “Christ saves,” “faith justifies” etc., etc., all of which our brethren most cordially believe and teach. His purpose, however, was to show that aliens are pardoned, and really made Christians, be- fore they are baptized into Christ; and we were deeply impress- ed, all the time, with the conviction that our Baptist brethren do not really believe the doctrine they preach. Dr. Jeter was read, to show that he made baptism “the gate into the kingdom,” and other Baptist authority was read, to prove that the most intelligent Baptists do really teach that “Baptism is the line between the church and the world,” between “The kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God!’ No Baptist can believe Baptist teaching of this character, and at the same time believe that, anterior to baptism, believing penitents are pardoned, saved, filled with the Holy Spirit, and are really children of the heavenly family.
Brother Lipscomb showed that God has given positive ordinances to accomplish his purposes, that faith was ordained to turn the sinner to God; repentance was required in order to a change of the life; and that, the Father of our spirits had given baptism, in order to “put on Christ,” as the sole act, by which we are “Buried with our Savior, and rise to walk in newness of life.” The following are some of the Scriptures on which he relied, viz: “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins.” Mark 1-4. He contended that, all this, at least, was required, in order that the Jews might be pardoned. Mr. Griffin, of course, affected to argue that they were previously pardoned, but neither did he, or any body else believe what he said. This was, at least, my candid view of the matter. Next, Brother L. quoted, “For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins;” to show that the Savior shed his blood, not because the people were pardoned, but in order that they might be forgiven.
Finally, he read, “Repent and be each of you baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ, (eis) in order to the remission of sins;’’ to show that although the pierced to the heart were believers, they were still required to perform other obligations in order that their sins might be blotted out.
These scriptures, were simply unanswerable, either by Mr. Griffin, or others. No one who has confidence in God’s word can resist the evidence, if he would properly weigh it, and do himself justice in the sight of God. Towards the Baptists, who are constantly stumbling at the contradictory theories of their leaders, we entertain not the least unkindness, and we do most humbly pray God, that all sincere persons may be led to examine by the light of the Spirit, the manner of entering into the Kingdom of the Savior.
From all that we have been able to learn, since the conclusion of the discussion, we are disposed to believe that the cause of Christ gained on the enemy. We can but believe, that our Baptist brethren, as well as the disciples, who attended, will be mutually benefited.
If discussions could always be conducted in the spirit of the Master, all good men could heartily rejoice at the results.