In 1813 the Brush Run Church, founded by those associated with Thomas and Alexander Campbell, joined the Redstone Baptist Association of Southwestern Pennsylvania and Northwestern, what was then Virginia, now West Virginia. In 1823 Alexander Campbell commenced publishing The Christian Baptist so named in order that it would circulate among the Baptist churches. In 1825 the churches associated with the Campbells joined the Mahoning Baptist Association of the Western Reserve, basically Northeastern Ohio. In 1830 the Mahoning Baptist Association dissolved, in effect ending the formal relationship of the Campbell reformers with the Baptists. That same year Alexander Campbell closed down the Christian Baptist and commenced publishing the Millennial Harbinger. In 1832 the Campbell reformers commenced merging with the larger group of Stone Christians. The mergers consumed much of the energy of the growing movement and pulled the Stone-Campbell people farther and farther away from the Baptists.

From that time until now, approximately 170 years later, Baptists and the Stone-Campbell people have in effect been sealed off from each other in regard to face to face meetings for religious purposes. The exception has been when they have come together for religious debates. Prior to the 1960's these occasions were numerous. Since that time, with the decline in popularity of religious debates, such occasions become rare. In 1952 Batsell Barrett Baxter and M. Norvel Young published the first of five volumes of biographical sketches of Churches of Christ preachers.⁽¹⁾ In that volume many of the preachers reported having been involved in religious debates. In the fifth volume, published in 1982, very few ministers reported having held debates. At least a fourth of these debates over this 120 year period have probably been between the reformers and the Baptists, and since 1906 between champions from the Churches of Christ and Southern Baptists.

James McMillan, of computer networking at the University of Illinois, is attempting to identify all the known published debates in which preachers of the Stone-Campbell movement have been involved. In regard to those he has collected thus far he wrote:
 

I have around 450 published debates identified so far, but only 415 have been entered into my database for sorting/searching purposes. Of the 415, 92 are with Baptists, of some flavor, including Seventh Day, Primitive, Regular, etc.⁽²⁾

Jim is preparing a book to be titled: A Bibliography of Religious Debates Involving Members of the Restoration Movement and Related Religious Groups.

To understand historical face to face relationships of members of the Churches of Christ with Southern Baptists it is therefore important to know something about these debates and the manner in which the debaters on each side characterized each other's views and churches. It is my impression that we have historically formed our opinions and attitudes toward each other as much through these debates as in any other manner. In order to form a more detailed impression of these debate occasions and the resulting images of each other, I have examined three debates in which some of the major Churches of Christ debates champions have been involved. I'm not as sure of the importance in every case of the Baptist champions, and in fact, only one of the three, as it turns out, was a Southern Baptist.

The three debates, in chronological order, are first, the Benjamin Franklin (restorationist) and T. J. Fisher Baptist debate held in the Baptist Church in Ghent, Kentucky, located on the Ohio River between Cincinnati and Lousiville, in 1857.⁽³⁾ The second is the John Crawford (Baptist), John S. Sweeney (Restorationist) held in Springfield, Elgin Country, southeast of London, Ontario, 1874, perhaps in the Baptist Church, since Crawford determined the subject matter and direction of the debate.⁽⁴⁾ The third debate is that of Ben M. Bogard (Missionary Baptist) and Joe S; Warlick (Churches of Christ), a written debate published in the Gospel Guide, 1914, but an effort to replicate an oral debate held at Malone, Texas, about 70 miles south of Dallas, in December 1913.⁽⁵⁾

The debate between T. J. Fisher and Benjamin Franklin came about, according to Franklin in a letter to Fisher:
 

Dear Sir, ---A short time since I received a letter from several brethren, from Ghent, Ky., stating that you had been there, making some pretty serious assaults upon the Disciples, which drew out from them a proposition for discussion. In reply, they received from you a proposal, of which they sent me a copy, for a discussion of "the distinctive differences the Disciples and Baptists," with any of the following: A. Campbell, W. Scott, L. L. Pinkerton, or B. Franklin. My brethren in Ghent have taken your last choice, and placed the matter in my hands. I therefore, as yours to them contained no proposition returned them the following for your consideration:⁽⁶⁾

Before the debate are contained 38 pages of letters, accusations, declaration of debate propositions, and jockeying for position. These preliminaries are typical.

From the introduction to the debate itself we learn that T. J. Fisher "professed religion" in 1828 and joined the Presbyterian Church in Paris, Kentucky.⁽⁷⁾ In 1930 he was immersed into the fellowship of the Baptist Church at David's fork Fayette County, Kentucky. In 1831 he became a student at Pleasant Hill Academy. While there he attended a Disciples group meeting near Middletown, Pennsylvania. Soon afterward he went to Pittsburgh where he joined a Baptist church. He was then called to ordination by theBaptist church in Lawrenceburg, Kentucky, in 1834 just west of Lexington..⁽⁸⁾ At the time of the debate, 1857, he was pastoring a Baptist Church in Carroltown, Kentucky, on the Ohio River, about ten miles down the river toward Louisville, Kentucky, from Ghent, where the debate was held. By this time Fisher had become a "celebrated revival preacher."⁽⁹⁾

Benjamin Franklin, identified as the Disciples opponent of Fisher, was born in Belmont County in eastern Ohio in 1812.⁽¹⁰⁾ In 1832 he went to live with an uncle in Henry County, Indiana, not far from Anderson, Indiana. In 1833 the rest of the family moved to the region and came in contact with Samuel Rogers who originally came from the Barton W. Stone Christians. Rogers converted the unchurched Franklin family. Before long Benjamin Franklin had commenced preaching. He also commenced writing for various journals and ended up founding and editing the American Christian Review in 1858. In a few years this journal had more subscriptions that any other in the Stone-Campbell movement. Franklin lived in various towns in Indiana and for a time in Cincinnati where he was associated in publishing with D. S. Burnet. At the time of the debate he was living in Cincinnati. Franklin was a noted preacher and held numerous debates.

The person responsible for arranging this debate was Edward Sheppard, a well known Disciples preacher of the region. Sheppard was born at Newark, England of Baptist backgrounds. He arrived in Ontario in 1843. In 1846 he attended Bethany College in West Virginia founded by Alexader Campbell in 1841.⁽¹¹⁾ In 1853 he was set apart as a preacher among the Baptist Churches in this region of Canada. Known as Scotch Baptists, these churches retained the name Baptist until at least 1860, but they were overtly associated with the Campbell reformers. Sheppard arranged for the printing of the debate from among the Disciples churches after the Baptists declined to print it because of the expenses.

I have been able to learn little about John Crawford who in the debates is identified as Professor.⁽¹²⁾ He apparently taught in some Baptist institution in Woodstock, Ontario, but whether it was primarily concerned with training preachers or more a college I could not determine. Woodstock is about 30 miles east of London, Ontario, Canada. Springfield, where the debate was held, was 20 miles southwest of Woodstock.

John S. Sweeney (1832-1908) was a well known Disciples preacher and controversialist. He was born in Liberal, Kansas, and died in Paris, Kentucky.⁽¹³⁾ In 1854 Sweeney moved to Greenfield, Illinois, about fifty miles north of St. Louis, in order to practice law but he soon turned to preaching in order to defend the Disciples against attacks on "Campbellism". After several years in Illinois, he moved to Kentucky and at the time of the debate (1874) he lived in Paris, Kentucky, about twenty miles northeast of Lexington, and not far from Cane Ridge. He participated in about seventy-five public debates in his life time, generally, so he declared,. against his inclination.

It was rather common for debaters to express the reluctance with which they went into debate and to attempt to place the onus on the opponent. John Crawford in this debate declared:
 

I would say that when requested to enter upon this debate, I yielded, from an urgent sense of duty, and not because I have any delight in controversy for its own sake. I honestly believe that the doctrines maintained by my opponent are both dishonoring to God and ruinous to the souls of men. I opposed them, therefore, with all my ability; but it is far from my intention to entertain any hostile feelings either towards him or towards those who hold his views. If my language, in any part of the debate, may appear strong, I wish the reader to set it down to my hostility to the doctrines which I opposed, and not to those who hold them.⁽¹⁴⁾

John S. Sweeney, replied,
 

We were informed that this discussion was originated by a challenge given by my Brother Sheppard to the Baptist Pastor at Aylmer. Well, as I understand the matter, Brother Sheppard did (after some antecedent correspondence or other communication between them, that need not be now recited,) formally challenge the Aylmer Pastor to discuss a proposition relating to Spiritual influence in conversion, and the challenge was accepted…⁽¹⁵⁾

The letter of Mr. Holmes shows that he and Prof. Crawford took the whole matter of preliminaries and propositions into their own hands, rather arbitrarily, not to say arrogantly, extending but the courtesy of ten days previous notice to my brethren. They are, therefore, responsible for the somewhat novel character of our debate; which, it seems, is to be a discussion without a distinct logical proposition.⁽¹⁶⁾

Since Sweeney himself wrote at length on religious debates it seems appropriate to present some of his views. These were contained in a letter he wrote to the author of the sketch of his life wrote.⁽¹⁷⁾ Even though he had participated in several debates he distinguished between right and wrong reasons for debating.
 

There are kinds of debate or contention. One kind is wrong and the other is right. It may be said that debating is wrong, and it may also be said with equal truth that debating is altogether right and proper. Debating simply for its own sake, for the sake of contention, for the sake of strife or variance, and about matters of indifference or of little or no practical importance,--debate simplyfor the sake of asserting one's self or one's opinions, or to gratify one's morbid desire for controversy--is certainly reprehensible. And this is the kind of debate the Bible condemns. This is
the kind I have tried not to do much of. I frankly confess, however, that I have not always succeeded in entirely satisfying myself with my effort to avoid debates in this wrong and reprehensible sense.

Further, he believed that debating was more explicitly for the purpose of obtaining a hearing when such was denied. When a community was willing to hear, he argued, preaching was preferable to debate.
 

When I was a boy our preachers could not get the ears of the people. The preachers misrepresented us and kept the people away from our meetings. Our preachers resorted to joint discussions to get the people to hear. That necessity is not upon us now. While I have had a good many discussions in my life, I have of late years declined a good many. Where our people have access to the people of a community it is better generally to have preaching than to have debates, and I make it a rule to so advise them whenever and wherever I feel free to give my opinion.

Sweeney believed that differences should be debated and when there were no differences debate should be avoided. He believed that it was proper to debate with atheists, pedobaptists and Roman Catholics. He also believed it was proper to debate over the influence of the Holy Spirit in conversion, but he did not, in this particular statement single out Baptists.
 

We are all agreed that the Spirit does influence the sinner in his conversion. We agree as to the FACT. But as to how that influence is exerted we differ from the denominations generally. That the Spirit influences the sinner through and by means of the truth of the gospel we all agree. But the denominations generally go further, and affirm that the Spirit also operates IMMEDIATELY upon the sinner's mind and heart. This we deny. To the extent that we affirm the denominations agree with us. But they affirm further than we can agree with them. When it is affirmed that the Spirit operates IMMEDIATELY upon the sinner's heart in conversion, we deny it; and that is the issue. To it, manifestly, the denominations sustain an affirmative relation, while we as manifestly sustain a negative one. Anybody can see, that whatever the proposition may be, the DEBATE will always be about an influence that others affirm and that we deny. We should, therefore, always insist upon our right to be in the negative in the discussion of this point of difference.

Sweeney further argued that Disciples didn't need to debate that much because they taught and practiced little that is really disputed.
 

He who has most disputed teachings and practices has logically most affirmatives. He who teaches and practices little that is questionable has little to affirm. And there is where our people stand to-day. What are our questioned practices? What are our disputed teachings? The fact is, that practically we occupy undisputed ground. Our debates with our religious neighbors are generally about THEIR practices, not about ours. The single doctrinal point that baptism is for remission of sins, is about the only disputed position we hold.
 

The Bogard/Warlick Debate differed from the other two in that it was a written debate published serially in a Journal, The Gospel Guide, January 20 to May 5, 1914. Ben M. Bogard and Joe S. Warlick debated several time in face to face context. They had debated at Malone, Texas, in December 1914, and the written debate was an effort to reproduce that debate.

Ben M. Bogart (1868-1951) engaged in likely above three hundred debates, since he held more than two hundred debates with polemicists from the Churches of Christ.⁽¹⁸⁾ One of his more famous ones was with N. B. Hardeman, a leading preacher and debater among Churches of Christ and long time president of Freed-Hardeman College (now University) April 19-22, 1938 in Memphis, Tennessee. Bogard also published at least sixteen books.⁽¹⁹⁾ Bogard was amenable to older Landmark Baptist views and was a leader in the effort in 1902 to rally against the Arkansas Southern Baptist Convention. He was particularly interested in preserving the Landmarkian views on missions and therefore the churches of his affiliation were known as Missionary Baptist Churches.⁽²⁰⁾ They considered the local church primary and refused to associate with other Baptist churches in cooperative efforts, including mission societies. They at first were known as the General Association of Arkansas Baptists, but later changed their name to the American Baptist Association with headquarters on Texarkana, Arkansas, because many Texas churches were also part of the association and now lists above a million members.

I myself heard part of debate in which Bogard engaged W. Curtis Porter at Damascus, Arkansas, in 1948. At that time Bogard was eighty years old and likely had been debating for almost sixty years. As I recall, that debate was alternately held in Baptist and Churches of Christ buildings in Damascus. To some degree the Baptists sat in one part of the building and Churches of Christ people in another. These were friends, neighbors, relatives and acquaintances. This debate occasion was one of the few times they ever met together for religious purposes. In those debates they learned of differences, but also similarities, the latter being, for the most part incidental, but none the less real.

Joe S. Warlick (1866-1941) was born in St. Louis, Missouri. He received the education available to someone in that time, though he did not attend college and was known as an aggressive student. He began preaching in 1885 at the age of 19. He was involved in 399 debates, and of these the most important were said to be with J. N. Hall, a Baptist, and Jacob Ditzler, a Methodist.⁽²¹⁾ He later lived in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas, but spent most of his later years in Dallas where he died. Warlick and Bogard debated so often they became friends. According to Will M. Thompson,
 

Once in North Arkansas they were to have a debate in horse and buggy days. They arrived at Rail Road Station of same train. None of Bogard's brethren were present to meet him. Brother Warlick asked Bogard to go spend the night with him. He accepted the invitation, and the place where they stayed the sister arranged for Warlick and Bogard to sleep together.⁽²²⁾

They both mentioned this arrangement the next day during the debate with repartee.

We turn now to the substance of the debates. The titles assigned to the three printed debates all make it clear that the focus will be on the differences. As John S. Sweeney pointed out, debates aren't staged over items on which people agree, but those with which they disagree. The three titles are: Franklin/Fisher, Debate on Some of the Distinctive Differences between the Reformers and Baptists; Crawford/Sweeney, Debate on the Points of Difference in Faith and Practice Between the Two Religious Bodies Known as the Disciples of Christ and The Regular Baptists Embracing the Subject of Calvinism and the Design of Baptism; Bogard/Warlick Debate Involving Issues Between Baptists and Christians. The outcome it seems to me has had a profound influence on the manner in which our two groups have understood each other. We have not so much paid attention to our similarities, but our differences;. In 1967 I spent two weeks in Copenhagen teaching Churches of Christ ministers from all the Scandinavian countries. My host was Robert Eubank who prior to moving to Copenhagen had preached for a Church of Christ in Plainview, Texas, located between Lubbock and Amarillo. He said, "You know Tom, in Plainview, a Southern Baptist seemed like the strangest of all creatures on God's earth, but here they seem like a brother in the Lord." In Copenhagen, Bob began to notice how much what he taught and did was like that of the Southern Baptists, as compared with Denmarkian Lutherans and secularists. In Plainview it was always the differences that stood out in bold relief. The Baptist, Churches of Christ debates perpetuated the highlighting of these differences, to the neglect of similarities, for almost two centuries.

The points of contention in the three debates are much the same. The Fisher/Franklin debate revolved about three discussion propositions:
 

I. Do the Scripture teach, that baptism, administered as the Lord intended, to a proper subject, is for the remission of past, or alien sins? Mr. Franklin affirms--Mr. Fisher denies.

II. Do the Scriptures teach the doctrine of total, hereditary depravity? Mr. Fisher affirms--Mr Franklin denies.

III. Do the Scriptures teach that the saints can apostatize, fall from grace, and be lost? Mr. Franklin affirms--Mr. Fisher denies.

In the Crawford/Sweeney debate, John Crawford who unilaterally set the agenda declared:
 
 

I undertake to prove, and defend, in public debate, the following positions.

1. That the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, by his actual personal agency, on the human soul; opening the heart to the cordial reception of Divine Truth, and enlightening the mind, through the instrumentality of that Truth, is indispensably necessary, in the conversion of a sinner to God. And therefore,

That the word of Truth alone, or mere moral suasion without direct spiritual agency, cannot effect the renewal or conversion of a soul, dead in trespasses and sins; and also

That the teaching of the late Mr. Alexander Campbell, President of Bethany College, Virginia, and his followers, is, upon this vital doctrine of the Christian religion, unsound, evasive, and contradictory.

2. That no person is a fit and proper subject of Christian Baptism who has not previously become the subject of converting and regenerating grace, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of Divine Truth; and that, therefore, baptism is not conversion, nor regeneration, although this ordinance represents this spiritual change in a figure; nor do we receive the remission of sins in and through baptism, only in a figure.

3. That the teaching of Mr. Campbell and his followers, on the import and use of Christian baptism, is unsound, evasive, and contradictory.

4. That the basis of Christian faith and hope, as set forth by Mr. Campbell and his associates, is, as such, in the highest degree defective and delusive.

5. That the tendency of the so-called "Reformation," originated by Mr. Campbell, and carried on by him and his associates, is to substitute a heartless, formal religion, for true spiritual piety; and to sow the seeds of many pernicious errors.

The four propositions of the Bogard--Warlick Debate were:
 

1. The Scriptures teach that the sinner is so depraved that in his conviction and conversion of the Holy Spirit exercises a power or influence, distinct from and in addition to the written word. Ben M. Bogard Affirms, Joe S. Warlick Denies.

2. The Scriptures teach that baptism to the believing penitent is for (in order to) the remission of past, alien sins.

3. The Scriptures teach that the sinner obtains remission of his sins in answer to prayer before baptism.)

4. The Scriptures teach that a saint or child of God may so apostatize as to be finally lost.)

The lists are much the same. They all focus on the role of the Holy Spirit and Baptism in the conversion of sinners, the depraved state of humankind, and eternal security.

Since the topics are much the same as well as the concrete arguments, it seems appropriate now to take up the debates topic by topic, rather than debate by debate. A few observations will be made along the way on the individual debates.

In the Franklin/Fisher debate Franklin gave the first speech. In it he made clear that he believed that those who enter the kingdom of God must (1) have a change of heart (2) have an essential and divine change in his character, and (3) that God and or the Holy Spirit effects these changes. After declaring these preliminaries he came to the point at which he differs with Fisher.
 

How does God, by the Holy Spirit, effect this change of the heart? I claim that the Holy Spirit of God effects it in the heart of man, by compelling that man, by expostulating with him, by reasoning with him; that the Word of God brings the divine evidence before the mind and understanding, that the Spirit of God brings the glorious truths of Christianity--reveals the will of God to man. I say the revelation of God by his spirit, changes the mind, changes the heart, changes the feelings and disposes the man to submit himself to the government of God.⁽²³⁾

Fisher interestingly talked little about the work of the Spirit in conversion though it is quite clear he assumed as much. He mostly negated Franklin's claims about the role of baptism and that was appropriate, inasmuch, as on this matter his position in the debate was the negative. He discussed various Scriptures having to do with baptism and charged that in no case did baptism have anything to do with conversion.
 

And I intend, before this discussion closes, to show you that baptism had nothing to do in Paul's conversion. Arise was the first act Paul was commanded to perform, the second was to be baptized, and the third was to wash away his sins. Now, the washing away of sins was not, in Paul's case, an act of baptism; neither was the remission of sins such an act; that was one act, the washing away of sins was another, and the calling upon the name of the Lord was the last.⁽²⁴⁾

It was not until the last speech that Fisher made his strongest case. There Fisher stated his case explicitly. "I believe that a man may be a Christian before baptism--most generally."⁽²⁵⁾ His first example was Paul. He argued that Paul was filled with the Spirit before baptism.
 

Now, if Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost, tell me where were his sins? If this glass is full of water, it is not full of dirt. Can this glass be full of water and full of dirt at the same time? Could Paul be filled with sin before baptism, and likewise with the Holy Spirit? Is it not strange that the Holy Spirit would consent to dwell in such a filthy temple as he was?⁽²⁶⁾

A second case cited by Fisher was the falling of the Holy Spirit on the household of Cornelius. He summed up the sequence,
 

In the first place, that Cornelius was a praying man, a benevolent man. In the second place, I prove that he had received remission of sin by repentance toward God, and faith in Jesus Christ; and in the third place, I prove that upon him was poured out the Holy Spirit before baptism.⁽²⁷⁾

The Crawford/Seeney debate was more explicit on the role of the Spirit in conversion since Crawford took the affirmative role in this regard.
 

First, then as to the doctrine of the Spirit's influence. We hold that God by His powerful influence, acting directly upon the soul, and using the Truth as His instrument, converts the sinner. Their view is that God works in man's conversion, simply through the Truth: that is, that the Truth is the power; that there is no influence of the Spirit to make the sinner's soul willing to receive the Truth. I will first establish that this is Campbellite doctrine, and then endeavour to show from God's Holy word that it is unsound.⁽²⁸⁾

He quoted Campbell to that effect from Christianity Restored, "We plead that all the converting power of the Holy Spirit is exhibited in the divine record."⁽²⁹⁾ And again, "Hence it follows that to be filled with the Spirit, and to have the word of Christ dwelling richly in one, are the same import in Paul's mind."⁽³⁰⁾

For Crawford the work of the Spirit on the heart was needed in order to open believers to the teaching of the Scriptures, the latter to which he refers as "the Truth."
 

The point at issue between us is surely very plain now. With regard to the irresistible power of the Holy Spirit, I would say that there is a sense in which the Spirit of God may truly be said to be irresistible. For instance, we often find men stubbornly oppose to the Truth, unwilling to receive it, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, making them willing in the day of His power, their stubborn wills are subdued, and an entire change of heart takes place.⁽³¹⁾

He further argued that Satan acted immediately upon the human mind. "And if Satan acts directly and immediately upon the human soul for evil purposes, shall we deny Almighty God, a similar power for good?"⁽³²⁾ Sweeney summed up the dispute at this point.
 

I think the point of difference between us is quite clearly made out. We teach, affirmatively, that in conversion the Spirit operates through the truth; my friend agrees to this. But he goes further, and says it also operates without the truth; that is, by it own immediate personal presence in the sinner's heart; and this immediate and unconditional action of the Spirit, he holds to be necessary to "open the heart" and "make the sinner willing to receive the truth." This I deny.⁽³³⁾

In the Bogard/Warlick debate, Bogard first argued that the condition of man is such that he will never open his heart to God apart from a special work of the Spirit. "The condition of man by nature is so bad that in his conviction and conversion there must be divine power or energy exerted or he can never be saved." He had and continued to quote various Scriptures which he affirmed suggested as much, for example, Ephesians 2:3, Romans 8:7, 8, Jeremiah 13:22, 23. Then he summed up the difference between his understanding of the work of the Spirit in conversion and that of Joe S. Warlick.
 

I believe that the written word is used to convince the sinner that he needs salvation and then when he is convinced he must come in contact with the Holy Spirit to be saved. There is no dispute between Mr. Warlick and myself about the need of preaching. All that he may say in favor of preaching the word I shall endorse. Both of us believe the Written Word is used in the conviction and conversion of the sinner. But we differ on what the Spirit does in the conviction of the sinner. I maintain that the Spirit does a work in addition to the word. I maintain that the Spirit comes into actual contact with the sinner in his conversion. I believe the Holy Spirit is actually present, as much present as I am present in this room, when the sinner is converts. Mr. Warlick believes that the spirit is not Himself present, but his influence is altogether confined to the written word. I maintain that he does have an influence in and through His word, but that He also exercises a personal influence in addition to that which is exerted in the word.⁽³⁴⁾

Warlick himself made this explicit,
 

When Mr. Bogard says that I believe the Spirit is not in the word, but only His influence is there, he misstates me again. The Spirit is always present in the word, but he exerts his influence upon the heart always and only through the word to convert sinners.⁽³⁵⁾

Here I will not offer a conclusion as to which of the sides had the best position in regard to Scripture. I will say, however, that I think in taking the various Scriptures brought to bear, that the situation is more complex than either side was able to conclude given the positions they set out to defend. The Scripture witness does not lend itself to such a clear delineation in regard to the Spirit's work as each side seemed to presume. The debate context makes it difficult to cope with these varying reports in the text. It is not that it would be impossible in debate to admit this less than a clearly delineated scenario in the text. The real problem, if it is a problem, is that the prospect for clear delineation is presumed by leaders in our churches whether in the debate mode or not.

It is now clear that Restoration debaters argued that baptism was for the forgiveness of sins and at least in most cases, in order to become a Christian. The Baptists all held that sins were forgiven prior to baptism and that therefore it was not necessary to be baptized in order to become a Christian.

Franklin's clearest declaration on baptism included several references to Scripture. His basic argument was that conversion in Scripture results from hearing the Gospel, believing, repenting and being baptized. All of these steps are important.
 

Is baptism for the remission of sins, or is it not for the remission of sins? The apostle Peter says it is--"Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins;" and, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God;" and, "Whereunto baptism doth also now save us," &c. The Lord said, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." The apostle says, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." When the Ethiopian nobleman said to Philip, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Peter (sic!) then baptized him, but he did not rejoice until after he was baptized. I want you to keep all the good feelings, all the change of heart, and all the piety that you are now possessed of, and also to keep on praying; but remember, at the same time, that you must not omit one syllable--let every thing stand in precisely the same order in which God has placed it, and you will be save in this world and the world to come.⁽³⁶⁾

Franklin clearly connected remission of sins with baptism. He charged that Fisher did not take into account the order presented in the text in regard to the conversion of Paul.
 

He asked the Lord what he would have him do? Say he, "Go to Damascus, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do to be saved." He goes, waits, and prays to the Lord to know what he was to do. Ananias tells him: "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Come, brother Fisher, I want to preach just as the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ did, and not try to prove they were pardoned before they were. Come. Let us preach as the apostles did, and let that come first which stands first in the holy record, and not try to reverse the existing order, and put pardon first, and get it all disjointed in this kind of style.⁽³⁷⁾

Fisher, of course, took an opposing view.
 

The first point I shall prove is, that believers are dead to, and freed from, sin; second, that baptism is not for the remission of the sins of a believer in Christ who has a good conscience. "No man without a pardon of sin has a good conscience." Baptism does not make the conscience good, but is the act resulting from a good conscience; therefore, baptism is not for the remission of sins.⁽³⁸⁾

Baptism is important since by it one becomes a member of the church and is able to commune with the rest of the saints.

So I say the believer is made a Christian in heart--his heart is changed by divine grace, and he is now in the possession of a good conscience. Now, there are certain rights and privileges to be obtained in the Church, viz., the fellowship of his brethren, and the communion of the Lord's body and blood. He is not a member of the Church formally and declaratively, yet he is a Christian in heart.⁽³⁹⁾

One of the incidents discussed by all the debater had to do with the thief on the cross. The Baptists presented him as one who was assured of salvation by Jesus yet was not baptized. Sweeney was willing to grant that an exception to the baptismal requirement might on occasion occur, but still the general requirement was baptism for the remission of sins.
 

What bearing has the case upon the question? In the first place, the thief lived and died before the Christian Dispensation began. Nothing is clearer than this. And in the second place, if he had lived and died in the Christian Dispensation his case would not have fallen under the rule, but under the head of exceptions.⁽⁴⁰⁾

One item of major concern in the Bogard/Warlick debate had to do with the textual status of Mark 16:16 which Warlick cited as of major importance, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Bogard charged that the verse did not belong in the original text and was a later Roman Catholic interpolation. To this Warlick replied,
 

He says a part of the Bible is not Divine, not true. He denies that Mark 16:16 is authentic, and says the scholars say so. In this he is incorrect as usual. Not one scholar in all the world denies the inspiration of the passage. Some of them say that Mark may not have written it, but all admit that it is the Word of God. Not one translation has left it out, and while the Revised version places it to itself, they leave it in, just the same, and they explain why they did this, denying all the time that it was questioned for a moment.⁽⁴¹⁾

Another common point of contention was in regard to Acts 2:38 whether Peter proposed baptism for the remission of sins, or because sins had already been forgiven. Warlick argued the former, Bogard the latter. Warlick summed it up:
 

It is amusing to read my friend on Acts 2:38. Here Peter said to believers: "Repent and be baptize, for the remission of sins." Mr. Bogard say, "for" here, means because of, and is like "laughing for joy, weeping for sorrow." Well, since the people were not only commanded to be baptized for remission, but were also commanded to repent for the same things, then they repented I suppose because of salvation, or because they had been saved. Eh! Such nonsense. Why not take the passage as it reads. "Repent and be baptize for the remission of sins. If Peter told the truth, and he did tell the truth, baptism is necessary to remission. If the doctrine be denied, the words of Peter are disputed.⁽⁴²⁾
 

In the case of baptism certain aspects of the question are not as clear cut as the debaters supposed. But some of the items over which disputes raged can in fact be settled.

One of the reasons for the necessary of the immediate work of the Spirit according to the Baptist debaters was the depraved condition of humanity. The argument was that a significant reason for believing that the work of the Spirit on the potential believer apart from the word was necessary since because of human depravity, it was not possible to believe what is read or proclaimed without this special work of God in his spirit. In these debates total depravity was not discussed for its own merit but rather for the manner in which it impinged upon the question of conversion.

The matter of total depravity was one of the topics discussed in the Franklin/Fisher debate. Fisher defined what he meant by total depravity.
 

We do not mean by total depravity that man is one unvaried mass of corruption and putrefaction, neither do we mean that he is not capable of adding sin to sin--but we mean by the term total hereditary depravity, that man's heart, by nature, is destitute of the image of the living God, of love to God, and of all truth and virtue….I grant that the word total, in reference to depravity, is not found therein [in scripture]…I want him to keep his eye upon the definition which I have read from Walker, that total means whole, that it means complete, that it means not divided; consequently, the term whole is synonymous with total: the total quantity of any thing is the whole quantity, and vice versa.⁽⁴³⁾

Franklin responded in what may be called a typical fashion.
 

"Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.: This reminds me of what a man said of his child, who was running on the floor to-day. "Mr. Fisher may preach till doomsday, but he can never persuade me that my child is corrupt, because Christ says, 'of such is the kingdom of heaven.' A man may talk about their being sinful, wicked, and depraved, and about the necessity of their being regenerated, from this to the last day of eternity: the little infant stands free from all charges such as doctrine as this would heap upon it."⁽⁴⁴⁾

Fisher set out to establish from Scripture that depravity was not only total, but by nature.
 

In Isaiah, xlvii. 8, he says, "Man is a transgressor from the womb," using highly figurative language, to show that the very first acts that he performs, when he arrives to years of accountability, are those of transgression. "The wicked are estranged from the womb." It is not a mournful truth that as soon as a child begins to talk, it begins to equivocate? Does it not prove the mournful fact that man is depraved by nature?⁽⁴⁵⁾

John Crawford was strong on the claim that the Holy Spirit must open the heart of believers since they cannot respond to the teaching in Scripture because of their depravity. "We say that believers must have their hearts opened by Divine influence before they can receive the truth. The Scripture says that "whose heart the Lord opened, so that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul."⁽⁴⁶⁾ In responding to Sweeney, he stated,
 

My opponent endeavoured to show that, according to Calvinism, the sinner is entirely exonerated from blame, if he does not become a converted man. He brings forward a number of illustrations in his attempts to show this; but you will please observe that every one of these illustrations bears on physical and not on moral inability. For instance, when he speaks of a number of persons being in a fire, they are told to escape but cannot. Anyone can see that that is a case of physical, not of moral, inability.⁽⁴⁷⁾
 

Another topic of difference had to do with Christians falling from grace. At stake for the Baptists was the claim that the work of the Spirit in the believer is irresistible. That being the case, then since God wills that believers be eternally secure, they cannot thereby fall from grace.

Benjamin Franklin charged that believers are reported to have fallen from grace in the New Testament. His two prime examples were Simon the Sorcerer and Judas. He raised the question, "Did not Judas, one of the apostolic ministry, fall, and was lost?"⁽⁴⁸⁾

In regard to the Sorcerer, Fisher responded that he appeared to have become a Christian, but actually in his heart he was never one.
 

I will prove, by an inspired witness, that he was in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity; that he was a consummate sorcerer; that his heart had never been changed, and that he was a baptized hypocrite. From my opponent's remarks during this discussion, we would infer that there was no such being as a hypocrite, or a self-righteous person; that all who believed and were baptized for the remission of their sins, were thoroughly converted….⁽⁴⁹⁾

Now, I have shown you, beyond successful contradiction that Simon was not a Christian. From what has he fallen? From the grace of sorcery? Has sorcery any grace in it? Did he obtain grace in the very act of baptism? Did he receive the gift of the Holy Ghost after he was baptize? No. Let Peter show you that the man was a hypocrite.⁽⁵⁰⁾

In regard to Judas, Fisher declared,
 

Judas was numbered, it is true, with the apostles whom the Father had given his Son for a specific purpose, that the scriptures might be fulfilled. Judas never was a Christian--never was a believer in Jesus Christ. And here my opponent will have persons Christians who are devoid of belief. I know it will puzzle him to produce a change of state in relation to Judas Iscariot, for there is no evidence that he was ever baptized, there is no record of the fact, or that any of the apostles were baptized, save Saul of Tarsus.⁽⁵¹⁾

To which Franklin replied,
 

He tries to prove that Judas never was a disciple of Christ, in direct opposition to the clear statements of the gospel. God entrusted to him the power to perform miracles, and said he kept him through his name; and the holy writer tells us when Satan entered into his heart, but my friend tries to make it out that this man never was a saint.⁽⁵²⁾

Debate forced the debaters to exercise great ingenuity in regard to observations upon the text in order to make the account come out according to the position maintained.
 

Bogard in the Bogard/Warwick debate sets out the contention,
 

Why does not Mr. Warlick acknowledge, like a good fellow that the issue is not whether a Christian has eternal life in this world, but whether a Christian can cease to be a Christian, no matter what he has. Everybody knows that this is the issue.

Mr. Warlick says he and his people do not have everlasting life in the world; that he and his people are not saved in this world; that they hope to have life in the world to come and, if no bad luck happens, to be saved in the world to come. I am sorry for them. Hear the word of the Lord:

1 John 5:3:14 "We know that we have passed form death unto life because we love the brethren." Mr. Warlick says he has no evidence that he and his people have that life in this world. Alas.⁽⁵³⁾

In a response to Bogard, Warlick replied,
 

Mr. Bogard thinks that no Christian can cause himself to perish. I have shown him up here, but suppose I shall have to again. Christ said, in Matt. 5: "If a disciple call his brother a fool, he is in danger of hell fire." Mr. Bogard says "not so, Christ. He is in no danger, for he can't cause himself to perish." David says, in Psalms 37 that the good man, whose steps are ordered by the Lord, must depart from evil and do good to dwell forever more. This statement is in verse 27. Mr. Bogard says this is nonsense. Let all the Baptist readers get the Bible, turn to the passage and read it: only they will need to do so, for Bible readers know it is there.⁽⁵⁴⁾
 

Baptists and members of Churches of Christ have perhaps spent more time in face to face meetings over the past century and a half, at least prior to World War II, than any other two confessional groups in Christendom. Even the debaters at times called each other brothers, at least in the nineteenth century. Through these meetings, that is, debates, persons changed rather frequently from one of the two groups to the other. But these meetings did little to encourage cooperation in any manner. In fact, since differences were highlighted, the debates tended to widen the gulfs between the two. Now we no longer debate each other except the more conservative among us, and in small towns or the countryside. Memories of our differences, however, still persist among most of our members. We therefore, know each other less and more remotely than in the past.
 

1. Batsell Barrett Baxter and M. Norvel Young, Preachers of Today (Nashville: The Christian Press, 1952) Volume 2, 1959, Volume 3, 1964, Volume 4, 1970 (all published by Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company), Volume 5, 1982 (Nashville: Peachers of Today). In 1952 many preachers reported having held religious debates. By 1982 few reported having held debates. One reason for the decline was that television replaced debates as an occasion for diversion from the routines of work.

2. E-mail post from Jim McMillan to Tom Olbricht, January 19, 1998.

3. Debate on Some of the Distinctive Differences between the Reformers and Baptists. Conducted by Rev. Benjamin Franklin and Elder T. J. Fisher, Reported by George C. Stedman, Phonographer (Louisville: G. W. Robertson & CO., 1858).

4. Debate on the Points of Difference in Faith and Practice Between the Two Religious Bodies Known as the Disciples of Christ and The Regular Baptists Embracing the Subject of Calvinism and the Design of Baptism. Held in the Village of Springfield, in the County of Elgin, Ontario, from the 10^th to the 12^th September 1874, between Prof. Crawford, Woodstock, Ont., and Elder John S. Sweeny (sic.), Paris, Kentucky, U. S. W. E. Murray, Esq.; Aylmer, President, Reported by Mr. Geo. Eyvel, of the "Journal" St/. Thomas (Toronto: Edmund Sheppard, 1875.

5. Bogard--Warlick Debate Involving Issues Between Baptists and Christians, Ben M. Bogard, Baptist; Joe S. Warlick (Dallas: B. C. Warlick, 1915).

6. Franklin/Fisher, 25. I will identify the citation by the debaters rather than the title since the title of the three debates are somewhat similar

7. Franklin/Fisher xxi.

8. Franklin/Fisher, xxiii.

9. Franklin/Fisher, vi. Alexander Campbell had published in the Millennial Harbinger that Fisher had been dismissed from the Disciples meeting on the grounds "disorderly and unchristian behavior." Fisher adamantly denied the charge, claiming that though he met with the group, he was not a member. vii--ix.

10. Joseph Franklin and J. A. Headington, The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin, (St. Louis: John Burns Publisher, 1879)

11. The Campbell-Stone Movement in Ontario Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, ed. Claude E. Cox (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellon Press, 1995) 159-169.

12. I have not been able to consult Baptist encyclopedias or biographical lists, however, the library catalogs at Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville, and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, list only this debate under the name of John Crawford either as author or subject.

13. Nathaniel S. Haynes, History of the Disciples of Christ in Illinois 1819-1914, Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1915) Pages 618 - 620.

14. Crawford/Sweeney, viii.

15. Crawford/Sweeney, 23.

16. Crawford/Sweeney, 26.

17. John S. Sweeney, Sweeney's Sermons, With a Sketch of the Author's Life, by an Intimate Friend (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Publishing Co., 1892, 1897) 50-59.

18. Lawton Durant Foreman and Alta Payne, The Life and Works of Benjamin Marcus Bogard (Little Rock, Bogard Publications, 1965).

19. I found these listed in the electronic catalog of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Library, Fort Worth.

20. Marty G. Bell, "Landmark Movement," Dictionary of Christianity in America, eds. Daniel G. Reid, Robert D. Linder, Bruce L. Shelley, Harry S. Stout (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990) 629, 630.

21. James L. Neal, "The 1953 Special Life Sketches of Joe S. Warlick," The Gospel Age, January 1, 1953, 1. On above two hundred debates, see "A Bit of Warlick's Life," in The Gospel Age, 27.

22. Will M. Thompson, "Joe S. Warlick as I knew Him," The Gospel Age, 34.

23. Franklin/Fisher, 43, 44.

24. Franklin/Fisher, 64.

25. Franklin/Fisher, 151.

26. Franklin/Fisher, 152.

27. Franklin/Fisher, 155.

28. Crawford/Sweeney, 12, 13.

29. Crawford's reference is to: Alexander Campbell, Christianity Restored (Bethany, Va.: McVay & Ewing, 1835) 351.

30. Alexander Campbell, Christianity Restored, 360.

31. Crawford/Sweeney, 40.

32. Crawford/Sweeney, 41.

33. Crawford/Sweeney, 53.

34. Crawford/Sweeney, 4, 5.

35. Crawford/Sweeney, 24.

36. Franklin/Fisher, 147, 148.

37. Franklin/Fisher, 99.

38. Franklin/Fisher, 90. 91.

39. Franklin/Fisher, 105, 106.

40. Franklin/Fisher, 180.

41. Bogard/Warlick, 47.

42. Bogard/Warlick, 48.

43. Franklin/Fisher, 172.

44. Franklin/Fisher, 219.

45. Franklin/Fisher, 226.

46. Crawford/Sweeney, 137.

47. Crawford/Sweeney, 135.

48. Franklin/Fisher, 279.

49. Franklin/Fisher, 292.

50. Franklin/Fisher, 297.

51. Franklin/Fisher, 302, 303.

52. Franklin/Fisher, 358.

53. Bogard/Warlick, 130.

54. Bogard/Warlick, 138.