Laws Publishing
|
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO RESTORE |
|
THE LORD'S CHURCH? |
|
Jim
Laws |
|
The biblical principle of restoration is as old
as the first sin. Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, and a restoration became
necessary, that is, a return to God's way of doing things. Restoration is,
therefore, a return to the original. In the case of Adam and Eve that meant a
return to the original relationship to God that was severed due to sin.
Sometimes going backwards makes the best progress--to look back at the faith
once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3). |
|
This research studies the important matter of
restoring the Lord's church. It answers the question posed for consideration,
that being, what does it mean to restore the Lord's church? It does this by
examining, first of all, the principle of restoration itself and proves that
the principle of restoration is a biblical one. Second, it examines the
restoration principle in light of the present discussion among churches of
Christ regarding the nature of the church that one reads about in the New
Testament. |
|
The Restoration Principle Is A
Biblical Principal |
|
The restoration principle is the biblical view,
which teaches that man must return to the authority of the Bible,
specifically the New Testament, as the source and basis of authority, so as
to be acceptable and pleasing in the sight of God. Plainly put, it says,
"Let us do things as God has taught." As simple as this may seem on
the surface, there are a number of important presuppositions that lie behind
such a view. It is important to understand them correctly. First, such a view
as going back and doing things God's way, a restoration of New Testament
Christianity, presupposes that God intended for the New Testament Scriptures
to be the norm for all people for all time. Second, this restoration view
would imply that departures have taken place from the divine standard God has
given and that a return to it, that is, the New Testament, is necessary. A
third presupposition is not only that a return to the divine standard is
necessary, but, also, that a return is possible. When these important matters
are clearly distinguished and understood biblically, then one will see that
such a view of restoring the Lord's church is, indeed, God's desire and,
consequently, our obligation and privilege. |
|
God’s Intention Regarding The
New Testament Scriptures It has been said, and rightly so, that
Christianity is the religion of Bible authority. This is crucial to a proper
understanding of God's view for our lives. In short, God's view of both the
Old and New Testaments, as it is revealed by the Scriptures themselves, is
that they are verbally and plenarily inspired of
God, the Holy Spirit (II Tim. 3:16-17); as David said, "The Spirit of
the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my
tongue" (II Sam. 23:2). God has made clear that it is His word that is
the truth and not the word of some other (John 17:17), that we can know the
truth of God, and that it is truth and only the truth that makes one free
from the guilt of sin (John 8:32). We will be judged by this truth one great
day (John |
|
All authority, therefore, inherently resides
with God (Rom. 8). The father has given all authority to the Son (Matt.
28:18-20). Inspiration stresses that the Lord is the better revealer; better
than the prophets; better than angels. Hebrews 1:1-2 states, "God who at
sundry times and in divers manners spake in time
past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us
by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made
the worlds." It is clear that we must listen to what he has said, that
is, we must respect Bible authority (Heb. 2:1-3). Peter makes the point very
clearly that if we are going to be pleasing in the sight of God, we must
listen to what the Son of God has said (Acts |
|
It needs to be understood that God never
considered His word to be a temporary word to man but the final word to man.
These were not temporary matters, but, rather, they were designed to carry
mankind all the way through this life and into the next. There are many
places where the Bible refers to its everlasting quality. First Peter 1:24-25
states, "The grass withereth, the flower
thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the
gospel is preached unto you" (See Isa. 40:8).
The Bible, the word of God, is the book of the ages, "For ever, O Lord,
thy word is settled in heaven" (Psa. 119:89).
Consequently, the word of God gives knowledge of eternal life (I John 5:13);
it is the standard of faith and duty (Prov. 29:19;
Gal. 1:8; I Thess. 2:13); it is the sacred word
that is not to be altered (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6;
Rev. 22:19); and it is to be respected and kept through faithful obedience
(Ex. 20:6; Deut. 4:40; Matt. 19:17; I John 5:3; Rev. 14:12). |
|
Departures Have Taken Place,
Making A Return Necessary Bible writers clearly foretold of departures
that would come about from God's divine way of doing things. For instance,
Acts 20:29 states, "For I know this, that after my departing shall
grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." Paul's
warning to the elders at |
|
Just as the Holy Spirit revealed, departures
from the pattern revealed in the scriptures did take place. A casual reading
of church history from the second century onward reveals this fact rather
plainly. The ancient heresy of Gnosticism may be traced to the second and
third centuries; however, its seeds go back even further into ancient
history. Many were led astray by this falsehood. Marcionism,
which came from its leading advocate (Marcion, A.D.
85), asserted that the God of the Old Testament was not the same God of the
New Testament. The God of the Old was a god of justice while the God of the
New was one of love and mercy. The Marcionite
church was thus formed and survived into the fifth century. Monetarism, which
advocated the idea that Christ would come back and reign for 1,000 years,
began to grow. They had actually set a date for the return of Christ. Further
departures came about. One of the most notables would have to be the shift
from having a plurality of elders over the local congregation to that of one
bishop and several elders by the last quarter of the second century. Ignatius
speaks of "one bishop." 1 Panegyric
to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre,
said, "Friends, and priests of God, and ye who are clad in the sacred
gown, adorned with the celestial crown of glory, the inspired unction and the
sacredotal garment of the Holy spirit." 2
A further development through time was the synods, which became a means
of maintaining and promoting ecclesiastical unity and deciding questions of
faith and discipline. Synods begin to arise by the middle of the second
century (A.D. 50-170). At first they consisted of the bishops, presbyters,
and deacons with the people assisting; then by the council of |
|
By the time Luther and the sixteenth century
arrive, a crisis is seen in the Roman church. Generally speaking, historians
will pinpoint the reformation movement in |
|
It is not within the scope of this research,
however, to present a complete and exhaustive approach to church history. It
is important for the present consideration to understand that departures have
taken place from the divine standard: the New Testament. As has been stated
before, church history bears this out. Serious departures over time have
taken place, bringing about both apostasy and division. The end result of the
reformation is seen today with Protestant denominationalism on every hand,
with the various tenets of denominationalism being taught in various degrees. |
|
A Return Is Possible Church history proves what the apostles said
would come about. Departures resulted in apostasy and the development of the
Roman church. Roman Catholicism is not interested in restoration. Its
attitude toward the scriptures is that they are not the final word or
authority for our lives. With the fact of such departures from the scriptures
having been established, it is, also, important to understand that a return
to the divine standard is possible. Please notice a few illustrations of this
principle of restoration in application. |
|
Hezekiah came to the throne after the
idolatrous reign of his father, Ahaz. However,
Hezekiah broke down the idols the people had been worshipping; he cleansed
the temple, and restored the services of Jehovah. The children of |
|
In the 7th century B.C., during the reign of
Josiah, the principle of restoration is again at work in the lives of the
people. In the 18th year of his reign, during the course of repairing the breaches
of the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found
a copy of the Law. Shaphan, the scribe, then read
the book to the young king, and when Josiah heard it, he rent his clothes (II
Kings 22). Josiah took such action, because he knew something of the wrath of
God regarding the departures that had taken place in the worship and service
of the children of |
|
The prophets teach this same plea. Jeremiah
prophesied to |
|
From this one can see the significance of the
restoration plea, the plea which states that man must return to the authority
of the Bible, specifically the new Testament, as the source and basis of
authority, so as to be acceptable and pleasing in the sight of God. This is
the case, because God has given His divine standard that is to be followed by
all men everywhere, and through time serious departures have taken place. By
this one sees that a return to that divine standard is necessary and, also,
that such a return is possible. |
|
The Present Discussion Among Us |
|
God's covenant has been made with a chosen
people. Sometimes the relationship described by the scriptures has reference
to the church as "the people of God" or "the family of God."
There are times, when the church is referred to as having a special
relationship to Christ as being the "body of Christ", or the vine
and the branches, or the sheep and their shepherd. There are times in the
scriptures, where the church is referred to as the temple in which God
dwells. All of these various ways in which the Bible describes the church has
Christ being Lord over His church. Therefore, it is appropriate to say that
the church of the New Testament is the |
|
It is important to clearly understand what is
meant by "the church", when discussing this matter of restoration.
Just what is it that we are being called upon to restore? It is the
restoration of New Testament Christianity; it is a return to the Bible; it is
a call for an abandonment of denominational names and creeds (departures from
the divine standard), and a return to the authority of Christ. When men and
women heard the gospel (Acts 2), they obeyed it with all of their heart and
were added to the church by means of their repentance and baptism into Christ
(Acts 2:38). They were added to the church, but not to a denomination. They
did not affiliate themselves with any organization of human origin; in fact,
such did not exist at the time. The restoration plea simply calls for men and
women to return to God's original plan found for us in the New Testament. |
|
As one reads the literature that is being
published today, he will find that this simple plea that has come to be
called the Restoration Plea has its critics. 6 For
instance, one critical view holds that the restoration of New Testament
Christianity is simply impossible--that the best one can do is work toward
it. This view, of course, says that the work of restoration is an ongoing
process; one never really finishes the work of restoring. According to this
view, one can never come to say, "We have restored the New Testament
church in our day." However, it is false to hold to such a view. It was
clear that a restoration took place in the days of Josiah, Ezra, and
Nehemiah, as well as Hezekiah. These Old Testament men realized that the old
Mosaic system with its laws and commandments could be restored, even though
this old law was hundreds of years removed from their own time. True,
restoration is an ongoing process in the sense that it will always be needed
so long as there are those who continue to add to or take away from God's
word. We must measure ourselves by God's word, the perfect standard,
observing the composite picture of the church, which includes the good that
God approved and the bad that God commanded them to change. It is in this
sense that restoration is ongoing. |
|
Closely related to this is the objection that a
restoration is not complete, nor can it be, because we have not grown in our
love for the Lord or for each other as we should. We have not restored those
attitudes that we should have. However, one should keep in mind that the
restoration plea does not include personal Christian growth and maturity, as
that is the task of every child of God individually. Did the restoration of
Josiah's day in ancient Israel include the personal growth of every one of
the Old Testament Israelites? Hardly so. If such were the case, Israel would
never have been restored to faithfulness to God. The fact is, however, that
Israel was restored, as the Bible describes the results of Josiah's
restoration by saying that there had not been such a Passover unto the Lord
(II Kings 23:21-23). He did so that he might "perform" the words of
the law (v. 24), and there was no king like him, either before or after, who
turned to the Lord by following the Law of Moses (v. 25). Restoration
includes structural, organizational, and doctrinal details. The matter of
personal Christian growth upon the part of each member is another matter. |
|
A further misconception during our day is the
idea that the restoration movement as such was responsible for the church. We
are what we are as a people, they say, because of the writing which came out
of the restoration movement or the emphasis that was being made at the time.
The end result of this line of reasoning is to make the church that has been
patterned after the church of the New Testament into a denomination itself.
The emphasis is, "We ought to go ahead and admit it," they say.
"We are a religious denomination like everyone else." However, one
can easily see the difference between what the Bible teaches and what
religious denominations are doing. It has already been shown that the Lord
does not want His disciples divided into denominations, sects, and parties
(John 17:20-22; Eph. 2:11-18; 4:4; I Cor. 12:20; John 10:16). Paul denied
that the church of the Lord was a "sect" (Acts 24:5, 14).
Congregations in New Testament times were simply "churches of
Christ" and were not a part of a denomination, as denominationalism is
completely unknown in New Testament scriptures. Therefore, the church which
is pleasing to the Lord, is the one which wears the Lord's name, honors the
Lord's will, believes His word, the Bible, worships Him in spirit and
according to truth, and is identical to the pattern found for churches in the
New Testament in organization, worship, and evangelism. A restoration is not
the beginning of some new religious body, but rather the restoring of an old
one, in this case, one as old as the New Testament itself. When a group of
people faithfully follow the pattern set out for them in the New Testament,
how could they be anything else but New Testament Christians? Perhaps a
specific case in point will help clarify what is being said critically of the
restoration plea. |
|
In an effort to recognize the church as a
denomination, attempts have been made to redefine the terms that have been
used regarding this entire discussion. For instance, Hughes, in his book Reviving
The Ancient Faith, wants to redefine the terms "sect,"
"church," and "denomination" from a theological to a
sociological perspective. He states, "To unravel this knotty situation,
we need to explore these terms from a sociological perspective. When used in
their classic, sociological sense, the terms: church, denomination, and sect
signify social realities, not theological ideals. Sociologically speaking, the
term church refers to a legally established, ecclesiastical institution. In
that sense, there is no ‘church’ in the United States at all: the First
Amendment to the Constitution places all religious communities on an equal
footing before the law and leaves them with only two options--to exist either
as sect or as denomination." 7 He
continues, "The point, again, is that in sociological terms every
Christian tradition in America must exist as either sect or denomination.
That is social reality, and Churches of Christ were--and are--no
exception." 8 Notice the attempt to shift the
discussion away from what the Bible says, as well as, the attempt to redefine
such terms as "church," "sect," and
"denomination" to fit a sociological perspective. To do this one may,
he thinks, consistently refer to the church today, which is patterned after
the New Testament, as a religious denomination. An interesting consideration
here is that, though the author tries to redefine the terms sociologically,
still, he continues to use them in the discussion theologically, committing
the fallacy of ambiguity. When one assigns his own definition to terms, he
soon gets into trouble. Take note of his discussion when he says that
throughout history there have been some who, though few in number, have
understood this fact, and they viewed the notion of nondenominational
Christianity "not as something Churches of Christ could actually achieve
but rather as a biblical ideal to which they might aspire. These people
argued that the New Testament knows one church only, which implies that the
denominational arrangement is wrong, but they refused to argue that they
themselves did not partake of this sin. Among these people one finds the
highest and noblest conception of the 'nondenominational' ideal as it was
understood by Churches of Christ." 9 Please take
note of the fact that (1) the writer refers to some who saw the
denominational arrangement as being sinful, that is, without biblical
support, (2) though sinful, they themselves were involved in that sinful
arrangement, and (3) though they might aspire to do otherwise, it is implied
that they cannot. Thus, Hughes labels both the Campbell and Stone Movements,
along with the product of their merging together, as sectarian. The very
concept of nondenominational Christianity is a "myth," he
says. 10 Consequently, the basic thrust of the
position is, since Campbell developed the restoration plea out of the culture
in which he lived, the church must develop a new reference point in the
culture in which it now exists. Therefore, the restoration plea of the
nineteenth century, which was a plea to return to first century Christianity,
is now out of date and unworkable as the church moves into the twenty-first
century. |
|
This research has already dealt with the truth
that God's word is the standard and that it was meant to be viewed as God's
standard for doing things His way for all men everywhere. It is described as
the living word of God, because of its power to transform lives and save them
by the grace of God, regardless of the culture in which one finds himself. As
has been proven in this research, the restoration plea is a return to God's
way of doing things. It is not a culturally inspired methodology, but,
rather, a divine principle to be followed. The research has established the
fact that departures have taken place and that a return to that divine
standard is necessary and possible. The plea of the restorers, as well as,
that of faithful churches of Christ today is the same. If one will return to
the authority of the New Testament pattern in teaching and practice, then the
New Testament church will emerge. Ancient Israel was deeply involved in the
evil influence of Baalism, yet God's prophet called
for a return to the worship of Jehovah God (I Kings 18). |
|
Summation |
|
Congregations in New Testament times were
simply "churches of Christ" and were not a part of a denomination,
as denominationalism is completely unknown in New Testament scriptures.
Therefore, the church which is pleasing to the Lord is the one which wears
the Lord's name, honors the Lord's will, believes His word, the Bible;
worships Him in spirit and according to truth, and is identical to the
pattern found for churches in the New Testament in organization, worship, and
evangelism. Such a church is not a denomination: it is a church which belongs
to Christ. It is Christ's church--nothing more and nothing less. |
|
Endnotes |
|
1 J. B. Lightfoot, The
Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1970), p. 80. |
|
2 Christian Frederick Cruse,
trans., Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1969), p. 406. |
|
3 Philip Schaff,
History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, (Grand Rapids: Will B. Eerdman's
Publishing Co., 1950) pp. 176-178. |
|
4 Charles M. Jacobs, The
Story of the Church (Philadelphia: The Muhlenberg Press, 1947), pp.
32-41. |
|
5 Philip Schaff, Vol. IV, p. 36. |
|
6 Notice recent
discussions in Wineskins, Rubel Shelly,
"A Passion for Nonsectarian Faith," p. 4; also Russ Dudrey's "Restoration Hermeneutics Among Churches of
Christ: Why Are We At An Impasse?" Restoration Quarterly 30/1
(1988), pp. 17-42; C. Leonard Allen, Richard T. Hughes and Michael R. Weed, The
Worldly Church (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1988); Richard T. Hughes, Reviving
The Ancient Faith (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s
Publishing company, 1996). As a response to the criticism the restoration
plea has been receiving of late, the reader should carefully consider the
matter of undenominational Christianity in Jim Laws' article, "The
Meaning of Undenominational Christianity," in The Church: The Sect
Everywhere Spoken Against, Jim Laws, ed. (Memphis, TN: Getwell Church of Christ, 1997), and Flavil
Nichols, "The Jerusalem Church: A Model For All Ages," The
Church: The Sect Everywhere Spoken Against, Jim Laws, ed. (Memphis, TN: Getwell Church of Christ, 1997). See also Alan Highers, "The Church at the Crossroads," The
Spiritual Sword (October 1996), pp. 1-5. |
|
7 Richard T. Hughes, pp. 4-5. |
|
8 Richard T. Hughes, p. 5 |
|
9 Richard T. Hughes, p.
5 |
|
10 Richard T. Hughes, p. 9. |
|
|
