Why did the gospel need to be restored?

[DeusExMachina]

Please note that I’m not trying to offend anyone, I just want to start a nice, polite debate, if anyone would care to join in. Ive created this thread because Ive asked people I know and haven’t been given a good answer. The question is this: If churches, like the Roman Catholic, Eastern, and Oriental Orthodox Churches have historical evidence for many of their beliefs going back to the time of the Apostles, why did the Gospel need to be restored? Can you even really say it was “lost” to begin with, given the above?

Please also note that this is primarily intended to guage views of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. However, feedback from any restorationists here would be appreciated.

I really hope that this thread will have most civil discourse.
In Christ,
DeusExMachina

 

[andrewstx]

I was raised in the Campellite “churches of Christ” they too are a restoration teaching sect.
They also believe them selves to be the only true church to exist.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think restorationists would argue that those churches you mention, despite all the sources detailing their beliefs throughout the centuries from a very early point (first and second century till now), were corrupted from a very early point.

Thus when we appeal to those writings like Ignatius or Athanasius or Augustine, we are appealing to apostates and false Christians.

The phrase “restoring the gospel” is interesting to me because I believe I’ve heard some classical protestants use the phrase. Do any of our Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed friends here know of this phrase’s usage within their churches?

 

[DeusExMachina]

I think restorationists would argue that those churches you mention, despite all the sources detailing their beliefs throughout the centuries from a very early point (first and second century till now), were corrupted from a very early point.

Thus when we appeal to those writings like Ignatius or Athanasius or Augustine, we are appealing to apostates and false Christians.

The phrase “restoring the gospel” is interesting to me because I believe I’ve heard some classical protestants use the phrase. Do any of our Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed friends here know of this phrase’s usage within their churches?

It was used in reference to Cranmer in the mid 1800s

 

[susanlo]

I think restorationists would argue that those churches you mention, despite all the sources detailing their beliefs throughout the centuries from a very early point (first and second century till now), were corrupted from a very early point.

Thus when we appeal to those writings like Ignatius or Athanasius or Augustine, we are appealing to apostates and false Christians.

I don’t think that this is true. I have been a part of many different Protestant churches. While God’s word in the Bible is the primary source for instruction, the ministers do read and learn about the writing of the early theologians. Martin Luther was very well read in the early Christian writings, of course. I believe that Augustine’s writing was fundamental in his developing his understandings. Most denominations can find support for their beliefs from somewhere in the early Christian literature.

Protestant reformers wanted to restore Christianity to the first or early centuries. I believe it was the selling of indulgences that caused Martin Luther to write the 95 theses. The printing press was invented making Bibles accessible to many and they were understanding the gospel message and wanted to practice Biblical Christianity. This is an extremely simplified answer, but it is my brief understanding.

 

[ffg]

Does any faith that believes in a restoration, point to a historical event(s) as the cause of the crash other than ‘there was a time when’?

I’m just not sure if an event is interpreted as ‘the cause’, or if the faith’s generally teach a concept on the matter.

Take care,

Mike

 

[susanlo]

I think restorationists would argue that those churches you mention, despite all the sources detailing their beliefs throughout the centuries from a very early point (first and second century till now), were corrupted from a very early point.

Thus when we appeal to those writings like Ignatius or Athanasius or Augustine, we are appealing to apostates and false Christians.

The phrase “restoring the gospel” is interesting to me because I believe I’ve heard some classical protestants use the phrase. Do any of our Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed friends here know of this phrase’s usage within their churches?

Are you speaking of those in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and similar churches? If so, ignore my previous post. I wasn’t sure if you were speaking of protestants in this group and that was what I was referring to in my post. Sorry.

 

[steido01]

There is a very stark difference between the use of the phrase “Restore the Gospel” in Lutheran circles and the use of that phrase in ‘Restorationist’ movements – some of which are not even Christian, like the Mormons.

When a Restorationist says that phrase, they mean to say that the true Church disappeared in some “Great Apostasy” and had to be totally restored.

The Lutheran does not mean this. The Lutheran recognizes Scripture’s plain truth: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is to continue forever and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. The Lutheran understands true Christianity to have always existed, will continue to exist, and will forevermore exist even in heterodox bodies. Yes, Lutherans acknowledge Catholics to be true Christians. The Lutheran simply understands the phrase as; “Restore the Gospel [to its rightful place as the focus of our faith].”

 

[abucs]

I was raised in the Campellite “churches of Christ” they too are a restoration teaching sect.
They also believe them selves to be the only true church to exist.

Hello Andrew, what is the thinking that this belief is based on?

 

[gazelam]

Please note that I’m not trying to offend anyone, I just want to start a nice, polite debate, if anyone would care to join in. Ive created this thread because Ive asked people I know and haven’t been given a good answer. The question is this: If churches, like the Roman Catholic, Eastern, and Oriental Orthodox Churches have historical evidence for many of their beliefs going back to the time of the Apostles, why did the Gospel need to be restored? Can you even really say it was “lost” to begin with, given the above?

Please also note that this is primarily intended to guage views of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. However, feedback from any restorationists here would be appreciated.

I really hope that this thread will have most civil discourse.
In Christ,
DeusExMachina

I don’t have much time today to engage, but hopefully here are some things to get you started.

The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants (lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1?lang=eng) states this as some reasons:

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth fold and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

17 Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;

18 And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—

19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—

20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;

21 That faith also might increase in the earth;

22 That mine everlasting covenant might be established;

23 That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers.

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

29 And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to atranslate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon.

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

This from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism regarding the Restoration: eom.byu.edu/index.php/Restoration_of_All_Things

The concept of a restoration of all things is biblical and is frequently spoken of in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Peter spoke of the anticipated “times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21). Latter-day Saints understand this as a prophetic anticipation of a full and final restoration of the gospel in the development and fulfillment of the purposes of God in the last days. The current era is therefore called the dispensation of the fulness of times in which all things will be gathered together in Christ (Eph. 1:10; D&C 27:13).

And just off the top of my head I’ll list these problems with Catholic sacraments/ordinances that are non-Biblical

–Infant baptism (baptism always follows belief and repentance in the bible)
–baptism by sprinkling or pouring (baptism is inferred to be by immersion in the bible)
–baptism not done jointly with confirmation/gift of the holy ghost
–confirmation performed with a single hand (bible always mentioned “laying on of hands”)
–communion in the bible consists of an action of both eating and drinking. In the Catholic Church you meet your obligation by eating and/or drinking

That’s all I have time for now. I hope this helps…

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I don’t have much time today to engage, but hopefully here are some things to get you started.

The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants (lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1?lang=eng) states this as some reasons:

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth fold and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

17 Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;

18 And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—

19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—

20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;

21 That faith also might increase in the earth;

22 That mine everlasting covenant might be established;

23 That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers.

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

29 And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to atranslate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon.

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

This from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism regarding the Restoration: eom.byu.edu/index.php/Restoration_of_All_Things

And just off the top of my head I’ll list these problems with Catholic sacraments/ordinances that are non-Biblical

–Infant baptism (baptism always follows belief and repentance in the bible)
–baptism by sprinkling or pouring (baptism is inferred to be by immersion in the bible)
–baptism not done jointly with confirmation/gift of the holy ghost
–confirmation performed with a single hand (bible always mentioned “laying on of hands”)
–communion in the bible consists of an action of both eating and drinking. In the Catholic Church you meet your obligation by eating and/or drinking

That’s all I have time for now. I hope this helps…

If Mormons object supposedly non-biblical practices Catholics have, how do you square with temple ceremonies, communion with water instead of wine, and other practices that are clearly not biblical? Catholicism at least has a Tradition to which it can refer. What would make the LDS more legitimate (serious question, not intended to mock)?

 

[jane_doe]

Please note that I’m not trying to offend anyone, I just want to start a nice, polite debate, if anyone would care to join in. Ive created this thread because Ive asked people I know and haven’t been given a good answer. The question is this: If churches, like the Roman Catholic, Eastern, and Oriental Orthodox Churches have historical evidence for many of their beliefs going back to the time of the Apostles, why did the Gospel need to be restored? Can you even really say it was “lost” to begin with, given the above?

Please also note that this is primarily intended to guage views of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. However, feedback from any restorationists here would be appreciated.

I really hope that this thread will have most civil discourse.
In Christ,
DeusExMachina

Speaking the LDS perspective here, acknowledging that others believe differently.

The Truth had to be restored because it was lost. The mainstream Christian church adopted doctrines which were not True (such as the co-substainiation of the Father/Son/Spirit) and integrated them into their core. Therefore, the Truth had to be restored.

 

[wmscott]

Speaking the LDS perspective here, acknowledging that others believe differently.

The Truth had to be restored because it was lost. The mainstream Christian church adopted doctrines which were not True (such as the co-substainiation of the Father/Son/Spirit) and integrated them into their core. Therefore, the Truth had to be restored.

So is Transubstantiation a departure from the truth?

 

[jane_doe]

So is Transubstantiation a departure from the truth?

From the LDS perspective: yes, the Lord’s Supper is symbolic.

I acknowledge and respect that Catholics believe differently and that Transubstantiation is an extremely sacred belief to them.

 

[LivingWaters7]

And just off the top of my head I’ll list these problems with Catholic sacraments/ordinances that are non-Biblical

–Infant baptism (baptism always follows belief and repentance in the bible)
–baptism by sprinkling or pouring (baptism is inferred to be by immersion in the bible)
–baptism not done jointly with confirmation/gift of the holy ghost
–confirmation performed with a single hand (bible always mentioned “laying on of hands”)
–communion in the bible consists of an action of both eating and drinking. In the Catholic Church you meet your obligation by eating and/or drinking

That’s all I have time for now. I hope this helps…

I am always amused by this type of argument from Mormons. Without addressing each specific accusation, this argument is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, nowhere does the Bible state that everything must be found in the Bible. That proposition itself is non-Biblical. Indeed, the LDS church itself is not Bible-only (nor is the Catholic Church).

Secondly, this argument is essentially cherry-picking. For example, you claim that Communion in the Bible consists of an action of both eating and drinking. Well, lets be specific: communion in the Bible consists of eating unleavened bread and drinking wine. Mormons do not follow the Communion as found in the Bible. So, must the ordinance be performed exactly as done (purportedly) in the Bible?

Thirdly, I always cite the example of the evolution in the LDS initiatory washing and anointing. Originally, this ordinance entailed an actual bath washing and anointing of specific parts of the body. It evolved into dabbing water and oil on specific body parts. Today, as I experienced a few years ago, I was “symbolically” washed and anointed, with water and oil put on my head and the rest of my body was “symbolically” washed and anointed. Then of course there is the Endowment, which has gone under many changes, with additions and subtractions since it was first presented. Clearly the LDS church has had a number of changes in the performance of certain ordinances (apparently baptism was also performed for health/healing in the early LDS church. Where is that in the Bible, going by this argument).

So, I really don’t find this argument convincing, especially when it seems that both churches presumably believe they have Divinely given authority (and perhaps inspiration) to make any changes or adaptations that have been found in the performance of ordinances/sacraments over time.

 

[andrewstx]

Hello Andrew, what is the thinking that this belief is based on?

The cofC people teach that the original church followed the bible to the tee and literally,and when they stopped this slavish near worship of the bible. The church ceased to exist for hundreds of years until it was “restored” back into existence by Campbell pere et fil.

When I was young it was heard from the preacher:: “God said in the book of Acts, and not that Luke said”.

Of course this “Apostacy” happened hundreds of years before the various books of the bible had been Canonized and became one book.

 

[andrewstx]

B

I don’t have much time today to engage, but hopefully here are some things to get you started.

The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants (lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1?lang=eng) states this as some reasons:

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth fold and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

17 Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;

18 And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—

19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—

20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;

21 That faith also might increase in the earth;

22 That mine everlasting covenant might be established;

23 That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers.

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

29 And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to atranslate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon.

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

This from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism regarding the Restoration: eom.byu.edu/index.php/Restoration_of_All_Things

And just off the top of my head I’ll list these problems with Catholic sacraments/ordinances that are non-Biblical

–Infant baptism (baptism always follows belief and repentance in the bible)
–baptism by sprinkling or pouring (baptism is inferred to be by immersion in the bible)
–baptism not done jointly with confirmation/gift of the holy ghost
–confirmation performed with a single hand (bible always mentioned “laying on of hands”)
–communion in the bible consists of an action of both eating and drinking. In the Catholic Church you meet your obligation by eating and/or drinking

That’s all I have time for now. I hope this helps…

But is an 6 or 8 years old capable of such belief? STandrd age for mormon dunking.

 

[veilofveronica]

Please note that I’m not trying to offend anyone, I just want to start a nice, polite debate, if anyone would care to join in. Ive created this thread because Ive asked people I know and haven’t been given a good answer. The question is this: If churches, like the Roman Catholic, Eastern, and Oriental Orthodox Churches have historical evidence for many of their beliefs going back to the time of the Apostles, why did the Gospel need to be restored? Can you even really say it was “lost” to begin with, given the above?

Please also note that this is primarily intended to guage views of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. However, feedback from any restorationists here would be appreciated.

I really hope that this thread will have most civil discourse.
In Christ,
DeusExMachina

I was LDS for almost a year. Catholic before that, and Catholic now.

Here was the LDS view I was taught: after the apostles died, the “true teachings” were lost and people were wicked, so the truth was taken from the Earth, and then restored through Joseph Smith.

This always boggled me as well. Yes, the Church did have dark times and evil infiltration as we all know, but the Faith remained. There was no need for "Restoration " as we still had the Truth. This is also a big difference between Catholics and Protestants…i.e. Martin Luther, who wanted a major overhaul of Catholicism and left to form his own sect, and this was of course key to the Protestant Reformation.

LDS take it one step further in that they are not Protestant (although, they have Protestant roots in the mix, as Joseph Smith was originally raised Protestant and Protestant belief certainly influenced his teachings. ), but “restorationist” by their own description: they do not have the same creed as Catholics or Protestants and are not Trinitarian.

 

[veilofveronica]

I don’t have much time today to engage, but hopefully here are some things to get you started.

The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants (lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1?lang=eng) states this as some reasons:

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth fold and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

17 Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;

18 And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—

19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—

20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;

21 That faith also might increase in the earth;

22 That mine everlasting covenant might be established;

23 That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers.

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

29 And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to atranslate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon.

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

This from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism regarding the Restoration: eom.byu.edu/index.php/Restoration_of_All_Things

And just off the top of my head I’ll list these problems with Catholic sacraments/ordinances that are non-Biblical

–Infant baptism (baptism always follows belief and repentance in the bible)
–baptism by sprinkling or pouring (baptism is inferred to be by immersion in the bible)
–baptism not done jointly with confirmation/gift of the holy ghost
–confirmation performed with a single hand (bible always mentioned “laying on of hands”)
–communion in the bible consists of an action of both eating and drinking. In the Catholic Church you meet your obligation by eating and/or drinking

That’s all I have time for now. I hope this helps…

Hi there.

Some thoughts on your post…

The D&C , for those not familiar, are alleged revelations given to Joseph Smith from God. If one doesn’t believe Joseph was a prophet, then the revelations are not a basis for belief.

The Catholic Church believes in both Sacred Scripture and Tradition, therefore not all of our beliefs are strictly Bible-Based, same as the LDS teaching, which teach an open canon and not strictly scripture based, as LDS scripture is constantly evolving (words of the Prophet/President and Apostles are considered scripture, for example.)

As for Baptism…in the Bible, entire households were baptized. This reasonably would have included children. There is some basis for infant baptism. I invite you to read our teachings about this here:
catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism

Here is info on immersion vs sprinkling/pouring. You’d be interested to know, perhaps, that some Catholic Churches do utilize immersion Baptism, however, we do not see it as a requirement.Neither is this spelled out in the Bible. Here is more info:

catholic.com/tracts/baptism-immersion-only

Baptism was also not necessarily followed by Confirmation in the Bible. When non-baptized adults are received into the Catholic Church, they receive the Sacraments of Baptism, followed by Confirmation and Eucharist. The Apostles received the Holy Spirit 49 days after Easter, at Pentecost, as per scripture. Presumably they were baptized previous to this.

The Minister of Confirmation, normally the Bishop, does practice the laying on of hands at the Confirmation rite. More info here:
catholic.com/encyclopedia/imposition-of-hands

I don’t know what you mean by Communion by eating and drinking, but Catholics practice Communion to the fullest extent it can be…we believe Communion is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ…Jesus instituted this Sacrament and it can be found in the Gospel of John.

Thanks!

 

[veilofveronica]

B

But is an 6 or 8 years old capable of such belief? STandrd age for mormon dunking.

Therein lies one issue. 8 is the standard age of baptism in the LDS faith, as that is what they believe is the age of reason. (it is 7 to Catholics). However…a child from a Mormon family would likely not know anything different, and there is a tremendous amount of “encouragement” and even pressure to be baptized from the time you are old enough to go to Primary (Sunday School), which is at around age 4, and Nursery before that. An eight year old might be able to reason, but I don’t think they would have an adult understanding of Baptism, either, so this argument really falls apart there.