What Does It Mean To Restore The Lord's Church?
by 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 12:48). God expects each one to obey the truth. Peter states, "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren" (I Peter 1:22). We are to have our loins girded with God's truth (I Peter 1:22). We, as Christians, are born by the word of God: the truth (Jas. 1:18); we worship God in truth (John 4:24), and we serve Him in truth (I Sam. 12:24).

    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 3:32-33). Hebrews 12:25 states, "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven." The Scriptures further teach that if one is to be pleasing in the sight of God and enjoy the blessings that God has in store for him, he must respond to God out of an obedient faith (Rom. 10:17; II Cor. 5:7). Therefore, one may properly conclude: (1) that God speaks to man today through His Son; (2) that the Son speaks to man through the Word; (3) that matters of faith, that is, that which pertains to life and godliness, are revealed by God through His word; (4) and that all who please God will walk by faith and not by sight, that is, live their lives in faithful obedience to the faith that has been revealed, the word of God. This naturally means that each one is to act out of an obedient faith to be pleasing to God (Heb. 11:6). Col. 3:17 states, "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."

    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 Ephesus had to do with false teachers, who would come to lead many of the flock away to be destroyed. To warn them of this peril he uses the vivid imagery of the people of God as being sheep and refers to them as a flock. Paul warns of a great falling away from the truth that was to take place, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (II Thess. 2:3). Timothy was warned of departures from the faith in the latter day, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (I Tim. 4:1). There would come a time when men would not endure sound doctrine (II Tim. 4:3-4).

    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 Nicaea (325) bishops alone had the seat and voice. Synods began to claim the right of being the successors of the inspired apostles.³ By the middle of the second century, each congregation had its bishop who was the official head of the congregation. Serving under him were the presbyters or elders. By the middle of the third century he was generally accepted as the ruler. By 325 Constantine held a synod of the empire: the Church had become his church. By 381 the church had bishops of Rome, and Rome, through time, held an unchallenged place in the west. In 381 the bishop was given a position after the Pope, and in time, little by little, papal power overcame the church.⁴ The Roman church claimed human and divine right for the papacy trying to trace its institution directly back to Christ and Peter. However, biblically, Peter never made any such claim; in fact, one reads of Paul rebuking Peter over the matter of the gospel and the Gentiles (Gal. 2:11). The first example of any sort, regarding papal authority, is found toward the close of the first century in the letter of the Roman bishop Clement, an uninspired writer. Issues such as the Ebionites, Judaizing Christians, who denied the divinity of Jesus and the virgin birth, Novation of Rome who started the Donatists, as well as, Millennialism, original sin, and infant baptism were by this time being taught. Departures regarding the worship of the church came about as well. Issues regarding baptism arose as infant baptism was introduced (100-140); the reading of the Scriptures now included the post-apostolic writings, such as the Epistle of Clement of Rome, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, and the Acts of Martyrs. The sermons of the church were changed from those who had the ability to speak to the assembly to later being confined to the clergy, and especially the bishop. Schools of theology arose such as the Alexandrian School, the Antiochian School from which arose Nestorianism, and the African School, which was associated with Tertullian.

    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 Europe, as a process which began with the formal publication of the Ninety-Five Theses by Martin Luther in 1517 and ending with the last session of the Council of Trent in 1563. It refers to the series of events in different parts of Europe which led to the fragmentation of the Roman church. The threat had been present for the past hundred years or so; however, it was Luther's searching and questions into Catholic tradition, practice, and claims, which made a permanent breach in the church. Luther declared, "To reform the church by the fathers is impossible; it can only be done by the word of God."⁵ Even though Luther recognized the authority of the Scriptures and saw in them to some degree the biblical view of returning to God's way of doing things, still, he failed to carry this biblical principle out and, in reality, became a leading contributor to the religious division that we see on every hand today: Protestant denominationalism. Part of his failure is seen in his allowing of that which is not distinctly forbidden by scripture. In doing this he gives up the biblical position of espousing only that which is authorized by the Scriptures. Other important names come to consideration as Huldreich Zwingli and John Calvin. Protestantism spread through Europe and found its way into America.

    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 Israel kept the Passover, as it had not been kept since the day of Solomon (II Kings 18:3-6). How was this possible? Hezekiah led the people to return to God's way of doing things. He brought about a restoration.

    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 Israel. He said, "Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us" (II Kings 22:13). By leaving the commands of the Word they had forsaken God (v. 17); however, this matter could and would be reversed by returning to what God had said: a restoration (II Kings 23). A restoration or return to God's way of doing things is possible, if one will choose to return to God, God's way.

    The prophets teach this same plea. Jeremiah prophesied to Judah from Jerusalem over a period of 40 years (60 years after the death of Isaiah), which would be during the last period of Judah's apostasy. He was continually warning them of the fall and the destruction of the city, as well as, the captivity of the nation. Jeremiah pleaded for a restoration, "Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, "We will not walk therein" (Jer. 6:16). Jeremiah was teaching that there is a good way, the choice of righteousness. There are ways that are false, and then there is the good way, which is the way of God. It is identifiable, it is possible to find it, and it is possible for the individual to accept it, just as it is possible for one to refuse to walk in it. Ezekiel had reference to the restored temple and the worship of the Hebrew people, which would come about after the return of the exiles to the land (Ez. 40-48).

    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 church of God in Christ. When described as the body, Jesus is the head; when described as a family, Jesus is the elder brother; he is the Son, who is over God's household, the church. He is the husband, as the church is described as the bride. He is the shepherd, and the church the sheep. He is the cornerstone of this new spiritual temple. The word church brings with it the idea of an assembling body of people, who come together to engage in acts of worship and praise to God. The word ekklesia is used in reference to an assembly. There are times when the word is used in reference to a local assembly. There are times, when the word may be used in a universal sense to refer to all obedient believers (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18). The assembly of God's people takes place in the name of Christ, that is, its very being is due to the redemptive work of God through Christ, and it recognizes the divine authority of Christ for its existence. It functions according to that divine authority. Those who freely choose to accept the gospel of Christ through an obedient faith are added to the church and are members of it (Acts 2:47).

    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

¹J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970), p. 80.

²Christian Frederick Cruse, trans., Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969), p. 406.

³Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, (Grand Rapids: Will B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1950) pp. 176-178.

⁴Charles M. Jacobs, The Story of the Church (Philadelphia: The Muhlenberg Press, 1947), pp. 32-41.

⁵Philip Schaff, Vol. IV, p. 36.

⁶Notice 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.

⁷Richard T. Hughes, pp. 4-5.

⁸Richard T. Hughes, p. 5

⁹Richard T. Hughes

This item originally appeared at LawsPublishing.com