Restorationist Churches?

[Arandur]

In my opinion, one of the things that makes a “restorationist” message so attractive is that people have observed that Protestantism is lacking. The Christianity of Protestantism is simply deficient, and thus needs to be “restored.”

Of course, most of those people have been so propagandized against the Catholic Church that they won’t even consider it, but what I think most “restorationists” really want is to see a restoration of the Christianity of Protestantism, to see restored to it much that was lost–lost when Protestants left the Catholic Church.

For instance, Unity. Obviously lost. And correspondingly, Authority.
Many restorationists propose some form of priesthood because they recognize a lack of authority.

Many also imagined that spiritual gifts or miracles had been lost–persuaded by Protestant cries of superstition and such, and not knowing about the long and abundant history of the Saints of the Catholic Church, which would prove definitively that this for which they so yearn is still strong.

Many also want to feel like the peoples of the OT and NT, imagining obvious, regular, and direct revelation and dictation and miracles by prophets and apostles and such. Again, they miss the Saints–but they also miss that, through the Holy Spirit guiding the Catholic Church into all truth, the Bishops and Councils still manifest that “revelatory” guidance.

All of these are things that Smith’s successor sects keyed off of–themselves drawing explictly from the Stone-Campbell movement, Millerites, and other mishmashes of early American New England revivalism.

What I hope and pray that restorationists can be open to, and find, is that yes, there is a restoration needed–Protestant Christianity needs to be restored to the fullness of the Gospel in the Universal Church of Christ–the Catholic Chuch.

All other Christianity has indeed lost its unity, its authority, its sure guidance by the Holy Spirit (only granted in certainty to the One Church). Most have indeed lost their sense of the spiritual gifts and miracles. But there is much more that was lost, too:

• The ministry of Reconciliation referred to so many times in the NT, given explicitly in Christ’s first appearance to the apostles after the Resurrection, and which hardly any other Church claims
• Celibacy for the Kingdom of God
• Communities holding all things in common (such as monasteries and convents)
• 7 books of the OT (deuterocanonicals) and pastoral documents guided by the HS (authoritative encyclicals, conciliar documents, writings of the saints and ECFs)
• The Sign of the Cross–the very sign of our family, our covenant, our victory, and our allegiance
• A full understanding of many doctrines, such as regenerative baptism, the communion of saints, Mary our mother and queen of heaven, etc.

And, of course, and most importantly, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ Himself in all the fulness of his Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, given to us continually and intimately in the Blessed Sacrament, the Sacrifice to complete all sacrifices, our nuptial banquet and family meal.

So much missing, deficient, or lost. So much that needs to be restored to other Christians. The restoration is in return to the Catholic Church.

 

[SteveVH]

Note that I am not speaking for or against either view. What I am speaking to is the fact that restorationists such as LDS simply don’t share the same view as Catholics/Orthodox on the perpetuity of the ancient Church, because they don’t share the same interpretation of the pertinent Biblical verses as Catholics/Orthodox do, and have a completely different understanding of ecclesiology (for example, LDS believe that the Gospel was originally revealed to Adam, and there have been various dispensations, with similar cycles of apostasy and restoration, based on the sins of men, unauthorized changes to doctrines and ordinances, etc). So, when a Catholic points out Matthew 16:18 and says “look, see it’s clear that Christ’s Church would never fail. If it did, Christ is a liar here!” A LDS would look at the same verse and have a different interpretation/perspective on it, such that, in their worldview, Christ isn’t a “liar”.

So, the whole point of my response is addressing why it isn’t that restorationist churches are based on the premise that God failed (as another poster stated), at least from their own perspective, within their own theology (since it’s clear that from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, a restoration would mean that God did indeed fail), but are based on the premise that man failed and God restored what was lost.

Naturally, one who choses to believe in an apostasy is forced to place a different meaning on the words of Christ. And anyone trying to start a church would not get very far by claiming that Christ had failed. But your conclusions do not support the evidence on which they are purportedly based.

As I have pointed out, Christ said “upon this rock I will build my church”. It is his HIS church, not man’s church. It is Christ’s Church that failed after he promised that it would never fail. I’m sorry but you cannot get around this. You are trying to make the text fit your preconceived notions and it just doesn’t.

 

[Arandur]

As I have pointed out, Christ said “upon this rock I will build my church”. It is his HIS church, not man’s church. It is Christ’s Church that failed after he promised that it would never fail. I’m sorry but you cannot get around this. You are trying to make the text fit your preconceived notions and it just doesn’t.

I think you needed to bold a little more: “I will build MY church”

It’s not just Jesus’s church (rather than man’s)–though this points out that it is a Divine Institution, not merely an institution of man, and thus could never possibly fail simply by virtue of that fact.

But it is Jesus himself who builds the Church. For the church to die out and fail, Jesus fails as builder.

This makes him the foolish man who builds on sand rather than rock. It makes him the laughing stock who builds a tower without counting the cost, and cannot finish. It makes him an adulterer who, rather than preserving his bride spotless for the wedding, divorces her and looks for another. It makes him one who abandons a foundation once laid and starts another.

And not just once, but twice (in the new world, too).

It is this that fundamentally makes the restorationist position most untenable, for it does ultimately constitute heinous blasphemy before the Lord to accuse him of such things. I know most restorationists don’t see it that way, but that doesn’t change the objective face of it, just the subjective circumstances.

If God can’t be trusted in His works, what have we left?

Moreover, when we look at the rest of Salvation History, we see not a story of God failing or ending or suspending His covenants with man when man proves faithless.

1. After disobeying God and obeying Satan (the ultimate apostasy), Adam is not destroyed, but merely allowed to suffer the consequences of his action. His offspring, and the continuance of God’s command to him (be fruitful and multiply, subdue the earth, etc) continue.
2. When mankind falls into deeper corruption, God does not destroy them all, but preserves, through Noah, the human race and maintains an authoritative line of chosen faithful followers, granting greater covenant promises to him.
3. When the Hebrew people repeatedly apostatize (following other gods, not just disobeying God), they do not lose their Abrahamic heritage, they never lose their covenant, they are not destroyed; they are preserved all throughout history, even to today, after they have rejected their Messiah.

Indeed, the Israelites are the greatest sign of this.Multiple times they worshipped other gods. God removed their protection, even punished them, but never ended or suspended their covenant, and always preserved them. He even always maintained their authoritative priesthood.
When the 10 tribes rebelled against unjust kings (with good earthly reason), it was THEY who were condemned. The remnant in Judah maintained authority despite the unjust kings.

When subjugated by foreign powers, enslaved or in exile, the covenant remained, and so did the authority.

Thus, it is truly absurd to suggest that, especially after Jesus comes and redeems mankind and then even gives his people his own Holy Spirit for the first time, his covenant people should fail so completely–twice.

 

[Arandur]

Note that I am not speaking for or against either view. What I am speaking to is the fact that restorationists such as LDS simply don’t share the same view as Catholics/Orthodox on the perpetuity of the ancient Church, because they don’t share the same interpretation of the pertinent Biblical verses as Catholics/Orthodox do, and have a completely different understanding of ecclesiology (for example, LDS believe that the Gospel was originally revealed to Adam, and there have been various dispensations, with similar cycles of apostasy and restoration, based on the sins of men, unauthorized changes to doctrines and ordinances, etc). So, when a Catholic points out Matthew 16:18 and says “look, see it’s clear that Christ’s Church would never fail. If it did, Christ is a liar here!” A LDS would look at the same verse and have a different interpretation/perspective on it, such that, in their worldview, Christ isn’t a “liar”.

So, the whole point of my response is addressing why it isn’t that restorationist churches are based on the premise that God failed (as another poster stated), at least from their own perspective, within their own theology (since it’s clear that from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, a restoration would mean that God did indeed fail), but are based on the premise that man failed and God restored what was lost.

Differing interpretations–weaseling out–are exactly how and why we know that God MUST have preserved His own authoritative covenant line. For otherwise, anyone can claim anything.

Ultimately, alternative interpretations don’t matter. That’s why God Himself is the author of history. Salvation history is objective. It shows how God has worked–and never abandoned His covenants nor let even His unfaithful children die out.

A covenant is a family bond. A family dies out if there are no descendants. To claim a total apostasy is to claim a death of the family, an end to the covenant. That would nullify God’s covenants, by definition, and we have the proof of the Jewish people that it is not true. All alternative explanations are defiance of God, objectively (or necessarily accept that God breaks promises and lies).

I should specify that an authoritative line is necessary–not just some nebulous “remnant.” For at least 2 primary reasons:

1. A kingdom or family without a line of succession, without authority, is dead and gone.
2. The sacraments of God–whether OT sacrifices and ministrations or NT sacraments–are explicitly required parts of the covenant, required to be valid for the people to continue in the life of that covenant. “Baptism now saves you.” “If you do not eat my body and drink my blood, you have no life in you.”

To lose authoritative sacraments, and the very means by which the covenant (and joining the family of God) is established and maintained (through Baptism and Communion), would be to lose the normative means by which the covenant is administered. It would mean the end of people entering the covenant by the means proscribed by the covenant. It would mean that the salvation of any would be uncertain (if “Baptism now saves you,” but there is no valid baptism, how can there be salvation? If there is “no life in you” without consuming the Eucharist, but there is no valid Eucharist, then how is there life among the covenant people?).

I will admit that the LDS (and the LDS alone, to my knowledge) have imagined a workaround to the Baptism part. I think it is erroneous on many levels, but at least they have tried to address the problem of a lack of baptism for 1700+ years. But other restorationist branches miss that entirely, and none have addressed the lack of valid communion.

And so all must confess that, contrary to the evidence of God’s faithfulness to His covenants despite the faithlessness of His covenanted people, despite the continual line of authoritative covenant people through the OT and even the preservation of apostate Jews today, God has abandoned His family and let it die out. He has discarded His “everlasting” covenants and promises. And all who lived before whatever “restoration” is posited lived in darkness outside the covenant, without a normal means of salvation here on this earth, without the opportunity to follow God in truth, without a beacon, without a shepherd, for the Good Shepherd abandoned them.

 

[SteveVH]

I think you needed to bold a little more: “I will build MY church”

It’s not just Jesus’s church (rather than man’s)–though this points out that it is a Divine Institution, not merely an institution of man, and thus could never possibly fail simply by virtue of that fact.

But it is Jesus himself who builds the Church. For the church to die out and fail, Jesus fails as builder.

Great point and two great posts.

This point seems to be entirely lost, or ignored by the Restorationists. The idea that man could destroy what God is building is ludicrous.

 

[Arandur]

What I’ve found is that “restorationists”, such as Latter-day Saints (Mormons), don’t view God/Jesus Christ as having “lied” or “failed”. Instead, these are terms applied to them by many of their traditional/orthodox Christian critics that view a “great apostasy” as violating various Biblical statements about the supposed indefectibility of the Church established by Christ (trying to be objective here), such as Matt 16:18. This is why many LDS posters may not respond to such accusations or being told that that’s what they “really” believe (I know that when I was active LDS, I didn’t appreciate that, and even now, I certainly wouldn’t tell a Mormon such things, at least not using those charged words). Instead, they interpret such verses differently, and frequently state that the failure was not God’s, but man’s. So what I’ve noticed is that while from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, a belief in an apostasy of the ancient Church, requiring a restoration, would mean that Christ/God “failed” or was a “liar”, due to their understanding of indefectibility, supported by their interpretation of various scriptures (among other things), from the restorationist perspective, it doesn’t make God/Christ into a liar or a failure, because they are coming from a different ecclesiological perspective, one not shared by Catholics/Orthodox.

I’d like to explore this some more, LivingWaters.

In reading over the earlier pages of this thread, though, I wanted to come back to the restorationist attempt to dodge blaspheming God as a liar, oathbreaker, and failure. I realize that those are “charged words,” but I think sometimes it’s important to call something out bluntly in order to show the seriousness of the situation and to try to provoke a serious consideration of the problem and a serious response.

1. Objective measures
I’ve already said quite a bit about this, and about how interpretation doesn’t matter, and that even if we’re going to argue interpretation, we have objective measures to appeal to (such as Salvation History, definitions, logical consequences). I’ve never heard an explanation that even attempts to reconcile the consistency of God’s promises for His chosen people prior to Christ with the failure of the covenant peoples after Christ’s greater redeeming work.

2. Parables
I’ve already talked about how, very directly, Jesus’s own parables accuse him if he failed in his statement “I will build my church.” So I’d like to see how that dilemma can be avoided logically.

**3. Covenant **
I’ve also discussed “covenant” as “family bond,” and not just a contract whose obligations are terminated if either party violates it. Family bonds cannot be broken. I can’t change the fact that I have blood relation to another person, no matter how vastly he wrongs me. Unless a “covenant” is not linked with family, then, and is made just into a mundane contract (which turns either us or Christ into prostitutes or “johns” instead of husband and wife, and slaves instead of children), how could an “everlasting covenant” with God end in apostasy that terminates it on earth? (when, again, more egregious apostasy among the Jews never ended their covenant or their earthly continuity)

 

[Arandur]

5. Responsibility in a relationship
What I haven’t yet mentioned, and would like a response for, is how God can be involved at all in this relationship and have it fail. Saying that it is “man’s failure, not God’s” implies that man is wholly responsible for this relationship. God has no responsibility. If that’s the case, it’s an entirely one-sided relationship. It’s just man, not God. It’s saying it doesn’t take two to have a relationship, but just one. In which case it’s not a relationship at all–which nullifies all of Scripture and the Incarnation itself, the whole points of which are God’s desire for two-way, loving relationship with man.

It becomes, instead, a master-slave relationship at best–the Islam approach. Which is very interesting, considering that Islam is perhaps the first major “restoration” movement (it is, in many ways, a Christian heresy/apostasy in and of itself), and it bears tremendous similarities in reasoning, doctrine, methods, and spirit to several restoration movements, most notably LDS.

So, if you’re going to say that the New and Everlasting Covenant in Christ’s Blood has failed (fallen into a total apostasy/loss of authority) because of man’s failure, but somehow not God’s, how can you attribute all the results to one party of the relationship as if the other had no part?

Perhaps an analogy (based on the clear Biblical analogies of husband/wife and parent/child relationships that God has with us) will help:

If one spouse commits adultery, a marriage is not ended automatically. Even in most legal systems which allow divorce, a divorce cannot occur without the consent of both parties–and neither can familial relationship or custody of children be determined without similar consent. In exceptions to this rule, you either have one party (usually the husband where this occurs) who has total or near-total authority and exercises this over the spouse or children as property. In this case, though, note that the husband has, effectively, sole responsibility for the decision.

Subpoint–Public, definite, legal notice required
Moreover, a divorce or a separation of family does not take effect unless the other child or spouse is informed. They could theoretically claim after the fact that it didn’t happen, but there has to have been a notification of the severance and definite legal evidence of it. Otherwise, with no notification, the separating party is deceiving. And since a marriage and a family is a public entity, this must be public notice. If there is no definite legal evidence (like there was so much definite legal evidence of the creation of the covenants, and exactly what point in time and what parties are subject to the covenant!), there is no proof of the separation and it must be assumed to remain in force. This is true even of contracts and much more true of covenants.

So either place you put God in–a more equal, two-way, loving spousal/parental relationship, or a husband/father master/property relationship–God has equal or full responsibility for the results.

If a total apostasy and loss of authority on earth occurred, then the covenant family died, the spouse was divorced, the children disowned and cut off. Who removed the authority? The assertion is that man failed. But man can’t remove his own authority. God had to do it. God bears responsibility. He has a part in this relationship.

In other words, no matter what, it’s God’s “fault.” He bears responsibility for what happens in this relationship just as we do–or it’s not a relationship at all. He doesn’t bear responsibility for the sin, but what happens after the sin does depend on His response.

If you want to be in a relationship with God, how can you claim that a severance in that relationship is not just an act of faithlessness or rejection by man, but also an act of faithlessness and rejection by God?

This is why restorationist claims constitute a failture in the relationship on God’s part, and worse, make God into a liar, oathbreaker, divorcer (or adulterer or serial polygamist, depending on how you look at it), abandoning father, bad shepherd, fool, etc.

It’s a serious thing to admit to relationship with God and then say that that relationship was broken or severed completely at some point, for it implies things about God’s part of the relationship, too, not just the other party.

 

[Arandur]

(I timed out on my edit to the previous post–I was trying to inject a number 4):
4. God cannot deny Himself
Haven’t mentioned this one either, and it fits with the concept of the spousal covenant, which makes Christ the Church. This is Paul’s great revelation.

If the Church is Christ’s Body, God cannot deny the Church, for He would be denying Himself.

If Christ is the Head of the Church, He is its authority. God cannot deny His own authority over the Church. Therefore, He cannot have removed authority from the Church.

 

[Nicea325]

So what are the claims of these churches and why do they feel Jesus needed to restore His Church in the first place?

But here is the irony of these so-called restoration movements:

Who is “the” restoration church and why is it many have ever-chaning teachings (i.e.,Mormons,JW’s)?

Seems like Jesus “true” church (restoration) is a tad bit confused-eh?

 

[ufamtobie]

So what are the claims of these churches and why do they feel Jesus needed to restore His Church in the first place?

Simple, they believe that Jesus Christ could not keep his promise that " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".

Shame On them.

Ufam Tobie

 

[SteveVH]

I’d like to explore this some more, LivingWaters.

In reading over the earlier pages of this thread, though, I wanted to come back to the restorationist attempt to dodge blaspheming God as a liar, oathbreaker, and failure. I realize that those are “charged words,” but I think sometimes it’s important to call something out bluntly in order to show the seriousness of the situation and to try to provoke a serious consideration of the problem and a serious response,.

Excellent. I hope LW will seriously consider these points. The Restorationists in essence must deny salvation history and the promises of God himself in order to hold to their position. And we see the results; it goes beyond the level of heresy to the point that they are completely different religions altogether and not a denomination of Christianity. That is why we deny as valid the baptisms of LDS and JW’s. They believe in a different god(s) altogether.

 

[kimg901]

(I timed out on my edit to the previous post–I was trying to inject a number 4):
4. God cannot deny Himself
Haven’t mentioned this one either, and it fits with the concept of the spousal covenant, which makes Christ the Church. This is Paul’s great revelation.

If the Church is Christ’s Body, God cannot deny the Church, for He would be denying Himself.

If Christ is the Head of the Church, He is its authority. God cannot deny His own authority over the Church. Therefore, He cannot have removed authority from the Church.

You make a great point But the believe that God, Jesus & the Holy Spirit are 3 different beings, not 1. (mormonism) This thread was intended for a now banned member that didnt even reply to this thread that he said we should start But for mormons, their god was once a man that gained his godliness so to them, he can be wrong (im assuming) where we believe that the One True God cannot be wrong nor can Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

 

[Arandur]

Excellent. I hope LW will seriously consider these points. The Restorationists in essence must deny salvation history and the promises of God himself in order to hold to their position. And we see the results; it goes beyond the level of heresy to the point that they are completely different religions altogether and not a denomination of Christianity. That is why we deny as valid the baptisms of LDS and JW’s. They believe in a different god(s) altogether.

More precisely, we don’t accept the baptisms of JWs and LDS because baptism requires the invocation of the Trinity and a belief in the identity and power thereof.

Since neither JWs nor the LDS believe in the Trinity, even saying “I baptize you ‘in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’” carries a much different meaning. They’re either invoking three separate gods, by their own understanding, or something else. And because they don’t believe in a full, singular unity of that God, then yes, they do not have a true belief in Christ nor understanding of who He is–and thus baptizing in His name is invalid, for it fails to invoke Him, the true power behind baptism and the source and cause of it.

However, they may believe in the same God, just with a severely faulty understanding. Just as the Muslims believe in Allah alone (God as master, not the Son or Spirit) and the Jews believe in Yahweh alone (God as Creator and Father, but not the Son or Spirit), we can say that though they may believe in the same God, their belief is incomplete and flawed in significant areas.

So none of those religions are true Christians because they don’t assent to belief in who Christ really is.

However, this does not mean that all restorationists are not Christians. The Stone-Campbell movement recognized the Holy Trinity. The RLDS/CoC and Restoration Branches worship the Holy Trinity and reject the separate gods of LDS belief. So they, like all our other separated brethren, have valid baptisms because they believe in Jesus as He is and they call upon Him to effect the regeneration of Baptism.

That makes them Christians. Out of communion with Christ’s true Church, to be sure, and laboring under many false or incomplete teachings (as are most Protestants), but let us acknowledge them as Christian brothers and sisters.