Alexander Campbell, Thomas Campbell, Barton Stone and other Great RM leaders

[spurly]

For those of us who have been here for a while, let's get back to our roots.  This board began many moons ago as a place for people in the restoration movement who were beginning to realize that our churches had become too legalistic and our churches needed a new vision of the grace of God in Christ Jesus.

Many of the great leaders of the restoration movement - Alexander and Thomas Campbell, Barton Stone, Racoon John Smith, Walter Scott and others - were champions of grace and the unity of the body of Christ that comes when we recognize the grace of God in our lives and the lives of others.

If you had to pick one of the restoration movement leaders from the nineteenth century that influenced our movement the most, who would it be?  If you had to pick one person in our movement who began to move our movement from grace to a more legalistic theology, who would that be?

Looking forward to the discussion.

[James.]

f you had to pick one of the restoration movement leaders from the nineteenth century that influenced our movement the most, who would it be?  If you had to pick one person in our movement who began to move our movement from grace to a more legalistic theology, who would that be?

To the first question, on this side of the keyboard I'd have to say Alexander Campbell.  To the second, I'm not quite sure, but they did a humdinger of a job unfortunately.

[DCR]

I think Tolbert Fanning was an important, influential figure around these parts.

[Bocephus]

The intent might have been "unity."  Using division to start an "unity" movement?  That is interesting.

[James.]

It wasn't supposed to be division to start unity, but unity starting unity.  IOW, it was supposed to be e pluribus unum, but instead became out of many, many more.

It's the same all over Protestantism, to the point that criticism over that point coming from any other Protestant looks like people in glass houses throwing stones (the same, of course, is true when RMers criticize folks for division as they/we have none).

[Javelin]

I can find no theological reason or need for a “restoration” movement. The Holy Spirit created the ecclesia (body of Christ) on the day of Pentecost. The concept of a “church” was unknown and did not come into existence for another 300+ years. The church or Catholism was the creation of man. The ecclesia has certainly never been in apostasy and would therefore have no need of being restored. I find the entire concept of a man made movement, created to restore a man made church, to be truly baffling. 

Is salvation found in the replication of rituals, the duplication of ambiguous worship patterns, and the creation of law from silence, or is it found by faith, thought the grace of God, in Christ? The present day Church of Christ was built on erroneous assumptions and flawed human logic.

I believe all of the restoration leaders were honest, sincere, dedicated men, who were deceived and created nothing more than another man made religion.

[da525382]

Is salvation found in the replication of rituals, the duplication of ambiguous worship patterns, and the creation of law from silence, or is it found by faith, thought the grace of God, in Christ?

Bingo.

[DCR]

It's the same all over Protestantism, to the point that criticism over that point coming from any other Protestant looks like people in glass houses throwing stones (the same, of course, is true when RMers criticize folks for division as they/we have none).

You've got that right.  Manna.

[DCR]

I find the entire concept of a man made movement, created to restore a man made church, to be truly baffling.

How about a man made movement created to restore your understanding and concept of ekklesia, as you have described it?

Aren't we really talking about differing concepts of the Biblical definition, functions, and ways of the New Testament ekklesia?

Who here or who among those in the movement we're discussing ever thought they were restoring a "man made church"?

[JERRY C]

Spurly, interesting post.

(despite spearchuckers interlope; fiery dart of the devil?! really, J, you must have had some terrible experiences with RM people; they can be obnoxious, at times, like any other group)

the RM has its problems, like all groups (as already stated)

but, getting back to the Bible is not bad?!  (I do hear "others" saying the same thing!)

maybe "patternism" is flawed, but that is not the point of this post.  and, it seems we have moved from a unity movement with grace emphasis to a purity movement with some other emphasis.

with the presuppositon that the RM is not totally "flawed", I think it would be interesting to look back for some guidance forward.

I remember sitting at the feet of Earl West and listening to him reminesce about bygone leaders, good and bad.  There are many good stories to tell.  But, names elude me at the moment.  I, too, look forward to some positive input.

[Javelin]

I find the entire concept of a man made movement, created to restore a man made church, to be truly baffling.

How about a man made movement created to restore your understanding and concept of ekklesia, as you have described it?

I understand the ecclesia to be the body of Christ. What do you think it is?

Aren't we really talking about differing concepts of the Biblical definition, functions, and ways of the New Testament ekklesia?

It would appear that is your impression or interpretation of this particular topic.

Who here or who among those in the movement we're discussing ever thought they were restoring a "man made church"?

The consequences of our actions are quite often unforeseen and therefore unintended.

[DCR]

I find the entire concept of a man made movement, created to restore a man made church, to be truly baffling.

How about a man made movement created to restore your understanding and concept of ekklesia, as you have described it?

I understand the ecclesia to be the body of Christ. What do you think it is?

That's exactly what I think it is.  Literally, "ecclesia" means "called out" however.

Aren't we really talking about differing concepts of the Biblical definition, functions, and ways of the New Testament ekklesia?

It would appear that is your impression or interpretation of this particular topic.

Who here or who among those in the movement we're discussing ever thought they were restoring a "man made church"?

The consequences of our actions are quite often unforeseen and therefore unintended.

True... which is the legacy of all of Christianity over the last two millennia.  I doubt every person who is credited as starting any given denomination in existence today intended to do this either.

[Bocephus]

It's the same all over Protestantism, to the point that criticism over that point coming from any other Protestant looks like people in glass houses throwing stones (the same, of course, is true when RMers criticize folks for division as they/we have none).

You've got that right.  Manna.

I'm not a Protestant.  And my glass house is bulletproof. 

Seriously, though I think it depends on what "CofC" you are even talking about.  With the whole autonomy thing and absolute diverse range of things that could be believed, I don't classify non-IM Cofc's as one church.  I think criticism for some is warranted, others it is not.

[James.]

I'm not a Protestant.  And my glass house is bulletproof. 

No, no, no, that's our line.

[JERRY C]

back to the main point, 19th century RM giants -

I would like to read more about Barton W. Stone.  I have heard it discussed that he was not nearly as polemic as Alexander Campbell.  It was suggested that things might have been quite different if his shadow had been longer.

But, then, I do not know a lot about Campbell, really.  I have read that he had unbelievable discipline and a study regime that would embarrass most of us.  And, he was self-sufficient, as far as his church work went (this ought to make the anti-paid-pulpiteers happy?!)  But, I think he married into money!