Occasionally, someone sends an e-mail in the form of a question which may lead to a brief (or a lengthy) discussion. This one turned out to be brief, but the ideas brought into it were quite broad. All of the comments came from someone who will be referred to as KB, and his first question was: “Do you maintain that Alexander Campbell restored the church?”
The obvious answer is, “No,” but what was behind the asking of this question? The direction of the conversation could go anywhere from here; so after thinking it over a bit, I wrote the following answer:
No. Martin Luther and others began the Restoration process (trying to go back to practice what the Bible teaches rather than continue in the traditions of men); Campbell and many others continued it.
A question for you would be: Do you think anything needed to be restored?
Anyone who knows the history of Christianity knows why Luther and others saw the need for reforms because of the direction that the Catholic Church took from about 350 to 1500. Luther and the Reformers did indeed begin a process of returning to what the Bible teaches, but they only went so far. Campbell and others realized that fact and determined to go all the way back to what was taught in the New Testament. They made more progress, and we continue to have the same attitude today. But thus far, KB had not stated the reason for asking the question. His next message was not only astounding; it became clear that he wanted to go a different direction:
I don’t think the church needed to be restored. Matt 16:18. We are in a constant state of reformation (repentance) though. Do you maintain that the design of one’s water baptism must be “in order to obtain the remission of sins” in order to be valid?
His first sentence leaves one flabbergasted. The church that Jesus established (Matt. 16:18) in the first century bore no resemblance to what was taught concerning salvation in the 1500s—or what worship had become. Furthermore, there were the doctrines regarding relics and indulgences which is mainly what Luther opposed. His second sentence is a little closer to the truth. We should always have an attitude that, if we learn more truth, we have a responsibility to practice it. However, we do not expect, in light of the last 200 years of discussions and debates, to find anything earth-shattering at this point.
The question asked in the third sentence came as a surprise. Since we had begun discussing restoration, I was not quite ready to switch topics. I responded:
That’s interesting. The original church (although not all Christians) morphed into a system that, pertaining to organization, had an unauthorized pope and an unauthorized priesthood; in terms of salvation changed immersion (the definition of baptism) into sprinkling; and perverted worship in about every way possible—yet you say it did not need to be restored. One question: What would it take further to need restoration?
This response pretty much explains itself. An additional clarification might be helpful regarding the original church changing the way it did. Some departures had already occurred from the New Testament at the time that Constantine issued the Edict of Toleration in 311 A.D. After that date, this Roman emperor had a huge effect on the church—especially as it regards structure. The Biblical design of elders and deacons over one congregation was scrapped, and a hierarchy was instituted not unlike that of the Roman government. Men were appointed over districts and regions; the eventual result was the establishment of a universal bishop, or pope, in 606. Not all Christians accepted these changes, but the majority did, and they regarded anyone who did not as a heretic. KB’s next response made it clear that he had not really written to discuss restoration. Read his first sentence, and try to keep your jaw from dropping.
Brother Gary, the Catholic Church could just stop doing un-biblical things, couldn’t they? They could reform (repent). Many Catholics will make it to heaven in spite of themselves…just like you, me, and mother Teresa. Eph. 2:8, 9, 10. Do you maintain that the design of one’s water baptism must be “in order to obtain the remission of sins” to be valid?
Wow! How should one respond to this message? I decided not to deal with his opinion of whom he thought might be saved; the truth is that only those who have obeyed the gospel can be saved (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Just because I “feel” that I am or others are saved does not make it so. The New Testament defines who is saved and who is not. Salvation is not a subjective experience but rather obeying what God said to do. It would probably prove counterproductive to the remainder of the discussion to challenge what KB said at this point; so I sent the following reply:
Have you ever seen any sign that the Catholic Church will cease doing un-biblical things? It’s been a thousand years. Do you know how long the list is of things they changed from the New Testament? That is the reason that the practices of the New Testament need to be restored. Have you not read how that Hezekiah and Josiah restored Israel? They went back to doing things the way Moses said. The only way the church can be restored is to go back to what Jesus and the apostles taught. I’m not understanding why that is a problem for you.
As to baptism, I have no power (nor the will) to change what Peter, the apostle of the Lord taught, when asked, “What shall we do?” Are you going to take issue with Acts 2:37-38?
At this point KB launched everything that he had been wanting to say but had held back on. Here we will only deal with what he had to say on the subject of restoration. The rest of his comments will be examined in a subsequent article. He wrapped up his thoughts about Catholicism in this way:
Brother Gary, if we were to debate a Catholic clergyman….and we argued that we need to follow what Jesus and the apostles taught, his response would be, “How do you think the Bible came in to existence? Do you think it just dropped down from heaven miraculously? The church fathers put it together. Out of all the books floating around, they decided which books belonged in the canon. Therefore, we, the clergymen, have final authority, etc.” How would we counter this argument?
Notice that he deserted the discussion of restoration, nor did he answer the questions I asked him concerning how restoration is achieved. He ignored all of that (remember he is the one who began the correspondence with a question about restoration) and tried to point out why my comments to a Catholic clergyman might be irrelevant. My response to him answered his question:
A Catholic can claim anything he wants. Jesus still says that we will be judged by His words—not some pope’s or priest’s interpretation (John 12:48). Furthermore, Paul said that all Scripture was given by inspiration of God—not inspiration of God and approval of the Roman Catholic Church (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Peter writes that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). Yes, the Bible is a miracle (see miraculousbible.org for lots of information). Can the God Who created the heavens and the earth instantaneously (Ps. 33:9) not inspire AND PRESERVE His Scriptures? The church fathers only included what was already accepted. How do you know the providence of God was not involved in this decision? According to the books of the Bible (which Catholics say they chose), their “clergy” has no authority for existing. The Bible speaks not of cardinals, archbishops, or popes. Peter said that God had given Christians all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). Those offices were not included. Jude said “the faith” was once for all delivered to the saints (Christians) (Jude 3). Nothing was reserved for future Catholic clergymen. Their hollow claims have no validity.
KB did not reply to these comments, which were sent on August 13, 2016. The Catholic Church makes a lot of claims they cannot prove. One pope even claimed that they changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday (so why do they have services on Saturday, then?), which the Seventh-Day Adventists are fond of quoting. They did not, however, do so. New Testament Christians met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7)—the same day Paul authorized a collection to be taken up (1 Cor. 16:1-2). They can claim they decided what books are in the New Testament, but that was decided more than 200 years before there was a pope. No one has the right to change what the New Testament teaches—not a pope, not Joseph Smith, not Ellen G. White—not anyone. God delivered to the saints in the first century “the faith” (Jude 3). It does not change.
However, when men make changes, then Christianity is no longer the true religion Jesus gave to the world. The same thing had happened in the first century, and Jesus dealt with that problem. The Pharisees had established a tradition that violated the fifth commandment. They should have honored their fathers and mothers by supporting them when they became elderly, but they devised a way to get around that, which involved saying, “It is Corban,” meaning that they had dedicated the money to God that would have helped their parents (Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:11). Jesus said that this practice made their worship vain because they were teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. The only way out of this predicament was to quit the man-made practice and take care of their parents.
Likewise, they had, over the years, arrived at the point where some taught that they could divorce their wives for just any cause. When they asked Jesus about it, He went to Genesis and asked if they had not read what Moses wrote there about God creating one woman for one man for life. The only way to get out from under what is being done wrong today is to go back and read the New Testament. God established the structure for the church that He desired it to have, which included elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13). He did not authorize any type of church government beyond the local congregation. Every congregation of the Lord’s church is supposed to be self-governing and independent.
How many religious groups would be willing to give up their national headquarters and conventions? Yet they are not in the New Testament. If we are going to be pleasing to God, we ought to restore the truth and the correct practices of the church of the New Testament. What we teach regarding salvation should be what Jesus and His apostles taught. Our worship should be as simple as theirs was. Our government must echo theirs. Our doctrines should come from New Testament passages. Only then can we be the restored New Testament church. No man (or group of men) has authority from God to make changes in any of these areas. And why would we want to? Should it not be the goal of each Christian to believe and obey the truth?