Restorationist Churches?

[mackbrislawn]

What do you mean by this?

I’ve heard this a lot. And not to say it is not true, but do you have original source material for this claim? By original source, I mean the published paper by a person who did the research and counted them, not an apologist whom you are referencing.

Thanks.

Saying there are 33,000 denominations is unnecessary, so shouldn’t be done. Suffice it to say there are hundreds! Or just thousands. How many there are isn’t important, because it is enough to say there are many more than there should be. They can’t all be the true restored church!

Man-made churches get a lot of mileage out of the restorationist idea, which is founded on the idea of apostasy of the original church. They all seem to agree that there was an apostasy, but there is no agreement on when it was! This fact makes the idea of apostasy awfully suspicious. It seems like a convenient invented idea in order to justify creating new, man-made churches to “restore” the original church. (Of course, always restored in the image of the man or woman making the new church.)

Assuming there was an apostasy, and God restored His church, how do we know that there will not be a second apostasy? If God was unable to keep his original church from straying, why should He will be able to keep his second, restored church from straying also? Maybe it already has. Churches which claim to be restored, such as Mormonism and the Watchtower, have strayed quite a bit from their beginnings. Both have undergone splitting, so which of the branches of either represent the true restoration? If any?

 

[SteveVH]

But if you believe that the “RC Church” was founded by Christ Himself, shouldn’t you take the scripture where Jesus talks to Peter and says that “even the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”, It meaning the “RC Church”, that not even man could mess it up? Since it had Jesus protection and all.

Precisely. We have had some, shall we say “characters” as Popes. Yet not one of those who could be called a “bad pope” ever changed one iota of Catholic doctrine. The Church is protected from error, even error from a bad pope or other bishop.

It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church has outlived all human institutions, which have come and gone throughout the centuries. This includes even governments. It is a divine institution, with Christ as its head, made up of miserable sinners in need of God’s grace. Neither human nor angel can bring down the Church that Christ founded.

 

[mackbrislawn]

What Christian Soul is a good explanation of it. I’m a former member of the churches of Christ, Stone-Campbell Movement, Restoration Movement, etc. They came about in the early 1800s in Kentucky as “restoring” the New Testament church. They viewed all the division within Christianity as stemming from following the traditions of men. Their solution was to simply follow the Bible. The Churches of Christ is sometimes used to refer to the more Southern and conservative branch of the Restoration Movement. The split between them and the Christian Churches mostly occurred over instrumental music. The Churches of Christ tend to believe if it’s not in the Bible than it’s not authorized. Christian Churches tend to lean towards if it’s not condemned in the Bible then it’s legitimate. The Disciples of Christ are more of a true denomination with governance outside of the local congregation although I’m not as familiar with that group.

I’ve listened to a Church of Christ evangelist and their soteriology, doctrine of salvation and the efficacy of baptism turned out to be very similar to the Catholic church’s. This is interesting to the Catholic because Stone and Campbells’ solution was to simply go back afresh to what the Bible said, forgetting about the different creeds and confessions, forgetting about Luther, about Calvin, et al. And in doing so they came back to the biblical doctrines of Catholicism!

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Thats one man. Of course Satan can have power to persuade one man to do evil but not the entire church. Lets say for instance, one of your priest or (ministers or pastors or what-have you, sorry i don’t know the proper term for your leader) ends up being a criminal. Does that make your entire church falls then and apostate? Seems pretty unfair to me to put one mans sins on an entire Church.

And I’m not implying anything. **Quite frankly you implied that Jesus lied when He said he would never leave his church. **You stated that men messed up the Catholic Church and by doing so, Jesus Christ must have allowed this. Meaning Christ must have given up hope and decided that staying with the church was too hard.

Well, there was Peter denying Christ too… but my point isn’t to somehow deny the value of the church because it has imperfect humans in it. To do so would lend credence to the argument that the churches truth and salvation message is somehow diminished by the Priest scandal (which of course it is not).

Secondly, I wasn’t implying anything. Others had mentioned “lying / failed”. I didn’t understand what they meant and so was just asking for clarification. I’d never heard the point of view that non-RC’s somehow are saying Christ lied so I just wanted to see where it came from.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

It was Jesus Christ himself who promised to never leave the Church orphaned; to remain with it, in fact, until the end of time. He promised the Holy Spirit to guide his Church into all truth. Now if Christ remains with his Church and the Holy Spirit is guiding it into all truth how in the world do you have a total apostasy, which would be the only reason for a restoration. So either there was no apostasy or there was and therefore Christ did not keep his word. That is what seems to escape most restorationists. This is Christ’s Church (“and upon this rock I build my church”), not man’s Church. If the Church failed then Christ failed.

Thanks for clarifying. That’s the sort of explanation I was looking for.

 

[TheIrishman]

Well, there was Peter denying Christ too… but my point isn’t to somehow deny the value of the church because it has imperfect humans in it. To do so would lend credence to the arguement that somehow the churches truth and salvation message is somehow dimished by the Priest scandal.

Secondly, I wasn’t implying anything. Others had mentioned “lying / failed”. I didn’t understand what they meant and so was just asking for clarification. I’d never heard the point of view that non-RC’s somehow are saying Christ lied so I just wanted to see where it came from.

And Christ gave Peter the chance to repent of that sin by telling Jesus that he loved Him three times…but thats enough of that

Also, i believe what the OP and some others on here are referring to when they say God “lied/failed” is mostly geared to LDS folks. The LDS believe that after the death of Christ and the Apostles (except for John), Christ church became corrupt and eventually apostatized. Meaning, that Christ must have “lied” when He said that He would never leave the church or abondon it to corruption. On a side note, not sure if this is true for all LDS but I was taught that the “rock” that Christ talked to Peter about was the rock of revelation, not directly Peter. So by saying this, the LDS feel they can justify saying that the church Christ built was destroyed by man but that the rock of revelation still was upon the earth.

just my 2 cents. Not saying I believe this, just stating what I was taught growing up.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I’ve listened to a Church of Christ evangelist and their soteriology, doctrine of salvation and the efficacy of baptism turned out to be very similar to the Catholic church’s. This is interesting to the Catholic because Stone and Campbells’ solution was to simply go back afresh to what the Bible said, forgetting about the different creeds and confessions, forgetting about Luther, about Calvin, et al. And in doing so they came back to the biblical doctrines of Catholicism!

I like to say a lot of Protestants begin their theology where the (Roman) Catholic Church ends. Meaning they begin their Biblical Interpretation of Scripture and Systematic Theology with the belief that the RC Church is wrong and so they have to create a theology / practice which doesn’t resemble Catholicism in any way. The problem with that of course is it’s a poor way to create a Christian Theology. Secondly, as you stated they come up with a lot of theology the RC Church has already worked out, they just don’t know it because they’ve never read any of the RC theology…Could have saved themselves a lot of trouble.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

And Christ gave Peter the chance to repent of that sin by telling Jesus that he loved Him three times…but thats enough of that

Also, i believe what the OP and some others on here are referring to when they say God “lied/failed” is mostly geared to LDS folks. The LDS believe that after the death of Christ and the Apostles (except for John), Christ church became corrupt and eventually apostatized. Meaning, that Christ must have “lied” when He said that He would never leave the church or abondon it to corruption. On a side note, not sure if this is true for all LDS but I was taught that the “rock” that Christ talked to Peter about was the rock of revelation, not directly Peter. So by saying this, the LDS feel they can justify saying that the church Christ built was destroyed by man but that the rock of revelation still was upon the earth.

just my 2 cents. Not saying I believe this, just stating what I was taught growing up.

Thanks. That’s interesting and I’d never heard it before.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Secondly, I wasn’t implying anything. Others had mentioned “lying / failed”. I didn’t understand what they meant and so was just asking for clarification. I’d never heard the point of view that non-RC’s somehow are saying Christ lied so I just wanted to see where it came from.

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.

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks for clarifying. That’s the sort of explanation I was looking for.

Glad I could help.

 

[kimg901]

It was Jesus Christ himself who promised to never leave the Church orphaned; to remain with it, in fact, until the end of time. He promised the Holy Spirit to guide his Church into all truth. Now if Christ remains with his Church and the Holy Spirit is guiding it into all truth how in the world do you have a total apostasy, which would be the only reason for a restoration. So either there was no apostasy or there was and therefore Christ did not keep his word. That is what seems to escape most restorationists. This is Christ’s Church (“and upon this rock I build my church”), not man’s Church. If the Church failed then Christ failed.

Thanks for clarifying. That’s the sort of explanation I was looking for.

Sorry CS for not getting back sooner. I was online but out of the house. SteveVH, thanks for your reply.And CS, as for Judas, the Church was not founded at that time

 

[SteveVH]

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.

But it isn’t just a matter of perspective. Jesus promised to remain with his Church until the end of time. If there was a total apostasy with which Church did he remain and which Church was being guided by the Holy Spirit? At the time the LDS claim the apostasy happened there was only one Church. It is a matter of believing the words of Christ himself as well as just being intellectually honest about history and the complete lack of evidence that such a momentous event ever occurred.

 

[LivingWaters7]

But it isn’t just a matter of perspective. Jesus promised to remain with his Church until the end of time. If there was a total apostasy with which Church did he remain and which Church was being guided by the Holy Spirit? At the time the LDS claim the apostasy happened there was only one Church. It is a matter of believing the words of Christ himself as well as just being intellectually honest about history and the complete lack of evidence that such a momentous event ever occurred.

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.

 

[mackbrislawn]

And Christ gave Peter the chance to repent of that sin by telling Jesus that he loved Him three times…but thats enough of that

Also, i believe what the OP and some others on here are referring to when they say God “lied/failed” is mostly geared to LDS folks. The LDS believe that after the death of Christ and the Apostles (except for John), Christ church became corrupt and eventually apostatized. Meaning, that Christ must have “lied” when He said that He would never leave the church or abondon it to corruption. On a side note, not sure if this is true for all LDS but I was taught that the “rock” that Christ talked to Peter about was the rock of revelation, not directly Peter. So by saying this, the LDS feel they can justify saying that the church Christ built was destroyed by man but that the rock of revelation still was upon the earth.

just my 2 cents. Not saying I believe this, just stating what I was taught growing up.

I hadn’t heard of the rock of revelation. But my trouble with that idea is that revelation hasn’t been much of a rock. Because there is so much controversy as to what that revelation is! Is revelation found in tradition? Only in scripture? But if only in scripture, what is scripture? We really don’t have any way of knowing what of the different ancient scrolls should belong to scripture. In church history we learn that the process of winnowing out scrolls took centuries and a lot of debate. So until the canon of scripture was settled, how could a poor Christian know what was revelation or not?

The LDS believe in the Bible (especially the KJV). But if the apostasy happened right after the apostles were gone, and only apostates were left, then the canon of the Bible was determined by apostates! In which case how can we have any confidence in the holy book of false religionists?

 

[kimg901]

I hadn’t heard of the rock of revelation. But my trouble with that idea is that revelation hasn’t been much of a rock. Because there is so much controversy as to what that revelation is! Is revelation found in tradition? Only in scripture? But if only in scripture, what is scripture? We really don’t have any way of knowing what of the different ancient scrolls should belong to scripture. In church history we learn that the process of winnowing out scrolls took centuries and a lot of debate. So until the canon of scripture was settled, how could a poor Christian know what was revelation or not?

The LDS believe in the Bible (especially the KJV). But if the apostasy happened right after the apostles were gone, and only apostates were left, then the canon of the Bible was determined by apostates! In which case how can we have any confidence in the holy book of false religionists?

They also have their own KJB, Mormon Edition. And according to lds belief, John is still walking the earth with 3 nephites so a claimed apostacy is in contradiction to what is believed and taught if one occured after the last apostle died.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

Up to the Time of the Reformation the Christian World for 1200 years was Catholic, then the likes of Calvin/Luther/ etc, etc, decided they knew better, every Church is made up of human beings so of course the Catholic Church would have followers who might cause scandal, but the Church is a Hospital for Sinners, not a Hotel for Saints, this is no excuse for someone to go off and start there own Church which has no Mandate from God.

The Lord said I will be with you until the end of time and that is why in spite of the 33,000 denominations, all knowing better than one another, and being individual Popes in there own denomination, the Catholic Church is growing and growing, but once again not without its sinners as we all are. The individual person is doing there best to love and keep the commandments of the Lord, but once again all are doing there own thing, some get baptized, some don’t, and the differences go on and on and on, and as far as I am concerned its a scandal to the World, JESUS ENTRUSTED Peter with being the first Pope
(Petros) do you honestly think that Jesus waited for 1200 years for all these other denominations to start up- HE DID NOT.

 

[RebeccaJ]

True, it is the Protestant temptation, the one that says Christ has left His Church and so we must wander, hoping to figure out where He went.

Catholics have the view that Jesus has never orphaned us. Quite the contrary, the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ indicates to us that all sin, all are in need of redemption, and the answer is not that Jesus left, but that we return to Him. Most notably experienced in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

To say there was no means to Salvation for 1500 or 1800 years, is to Catholic ears, very unbelievable. Not because of our belief in ourselves, but because of our belief in Jesus Christ. He is our sure hope.

 

[Miriam1947]

True, it is the Protestant temptation, the one that says Christ has left His Church and so we must wander, hoping to figure out where He went.

Catholics have the view that Jesus has never orphaned us. Quite the contrary, the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ indicates to us that all sin, all are in need of redemption, and the answer is not that Jesus left, but that we return to Him. Most notably experienced in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

To say there was no means to Salvation for 1500 or 1800 years, is to Catholic ears, very unbelievable. Not because of our belief in ourselves, but because of our belief in Jesus Christ. He is our sure hope.

This.

 

[WD615]

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.

I agree with your characterization but I would also say that a lot of churches in the Restoration Movement don’t believe in a time of apostasy. Of course, I’m talking about Restoration Movement in terms of Stone-Campbell, Churches of Christ, Christian Church, etc.

Most just don’t think about these large historical questions anyways. So I’m sure there’s plenty who just think the Restoration Movement was normative throughout history. Then there’s some who would probably think that there were a lot of superstitions and false beliefs and traditions of men that accumulated and that the Stone-Campbell Movement got “us” back on track but no complete apostasy. I once would have been in this camp. Then there are some who adopt a view that the Restoration Movement type churches were underground for so many years sort of like the views of the Landmark Bapists.

None of those are historically accurate, of course, but I would say that’s where a lot of people’s beliefs are. Also, since they vest complete authority in the Bible, for them, since the Bible continued with us it would be impossible to have a general apostasy. Just apostasy in the sense of many people ceasing to follow the Bible or the Bible alone. Once again, inaccurate since the Bible did change (in their view) because at one point it had 7 more books, but once again they wouldn’t be aware of that fact normally.

 

[andrewstx]

I have some familiarity with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) denomination, one of the denominations which grew out of the Restoration movement. To my understanding there was a break in the movement when another denomination growing from the movement, the more conservative Churches of Christ opposed for instance, instrumental worship music. But the movement appears to have been a backlash to excessive dogmatic rigidness as tests of fellowship which for instance kept believers from even partaking in the Lord’s supper at His table. Disciples favor inclusiveness, openness, recognize the diversity among Christians, favor the breaking down of barriers and the shedding of labels beyond being called Christians and disciples. Holding to the belief that Jesus Christ was the only basis for His Church’s existence. They do practice weekly Communion and immersion. However converts to the Disciples who have been baptized as infants are not re-baptized and can join by a simple profession of Christ Lord and Savior. I’ve heard it said by Disciples, “no creed but Christ”. With Christ being the One who breaks down walls and in turn Christians being united in Him as Lord and Savior. To my knowledge they have engaged with the Catholic Church in ecumenical talks.

Much more about can be found about the Disciples here.

disciples.org/Home/WhoWeAre/AboutTheChristianChurchDisciplesofChrist/tabid/67/Default.aspx

I was raised in the non instrumental “churches of Christ” and they themselves have risen rigidness to an art form.

They have divided into several competing denominations over such trivialities as whether to have sunday school classes, to use one chalice for the grape juice, and whether or not to contribute to orphanages and other equally trivial issues.

It’s really sad when you know that the Campbells sought church unity as their founding principle to have divided repeatly.

The denomination that got it close was the Disciples who seek unity by ecumenism as opposed to the “churches of Christ” who just want everybody to join them and do things their way.