Alexander Campbell Saved?

A few thoughts on the article linked above...

First, pace my brother Hafley, A. Campbell's view of baptism did evolve. Richardson's Memoirs (I.396-397) indicates that both Thomas and Alexander Campbell had spent a great deal of time studying and developing their views on the subject of baptism at the time of their baptism in June 1812:

"In a very long address, he [Thomas] accordingly reviewed the entire ground which he had occupied, and the struggles that he had undergone in reference to the particular subject of baptism, which he had earnestly desired to dispose of, in such a manner, that it might be no hindrance in the attainment of that Christian unity which he had labored to establish upon the Bible alone....but having at length attained a clearer view of duty, he felt it incumbent upon him to submit to what he now plainly saw was an important Divine institution."

Richardson goes on to say that they (Thomas and Alexander) understood baptism to be a command of God and were thus immersed. It was only later, at the time of the Walker and McCalla debates (in the mid-1820s) that Campbell formulated his understanding of baptism "for the remission of sins."

The fundamental question, which Hafley doesn't quite address head on, is this: "Was Alexander Campbell saved?" This is an uncomfortable question for him, though, because of its implications. According to brother Hafley's baptismal theology, Campbell cannot have been saved because he was not baptized specifically "for the remission of sins." On the other hand, however, it is embarrassing to state outright that the man who initiated the Restoration Movement is currently burning in hell. So, brother Hafley is left with a conundrum.

It is not a new conundrum though. In a 1901 written debate carried in the Gospel Advocate, J.D. Tant and James A. Harding discussed the following proposition: "The Scriptures teach that a man must believe and understand that baptism is 'for,' in the sense of 'in order to,' to the remission of sins at the time of his baptism to make said baptism valid." Tant affirmed and Harding denied.

In the course of the debate, the subject of A. Campbell's baptism came up. Tant is caught on the horns of the same dilemma that our brother Hafley is caught upon: from his rigid insistence that baptism is only "for the remission of sins" it follows that Campbell was not scripturally baptized. But Tant can't bring himself to say that outright. Harding catches him in this. A statement in Harding's "Fourth Reply" to Tant brings this dilemma into sharp relief:

"He [Tant] likes Campbell and Scott, hence he appears to be satisfied with their baptism, though they did not then understand eis remission; he has no such partiality for Baptists in general, so he repudiates their baptisms, though they understood eis remission just as well as Campbell and Scott. If to understand eis remission is necessary, it is certain they were not baptized."

So it is with brother Hafley.