What qualifies a group/teacher as being part of RM?

[ole Jake]

Thorughout history, there have been many groups/teachers that have claimed to be the 'true, original church restored,' and from the vantage of historic, orthodox Christianity they have been heretical and often morally perverse.

Miguel Servetus wrote a book titled Christianity Restored in which he detailed his denial of the Trinity. All unitarian/anti-Trinitarian groups argue that they have restored true, first century Christianity.

Servetus also denied all historic orthodox teachings about Hell. As he had on Trinitarianism, Servetus said Hell came from the conflation of Christianity with paganism. Servetus asserted that the true 1st century church had no teachings about God condemning people to eternal damnation.

Is Servetus someone that the American Restoration (of the 1st century church) Movement can see as a predecessor? Why or why not?

If you believe that Servetus was in error on any matter relating to Scripture (and that would include all his views on Christian teachings and practices), how do you know that your reading of the Bible is correct and Servetus's reading of the Bible was wrong?

[Bocephus]

Servetus wasn't part of the Bible Church, that's why.

[ole Jake]

Servetus wasn't part of the Bible Church, that's why.

By 'Bible Church' I assume you mean the one true Church. How do you know that Servetus was not part of it? How do you know who is?

Would any of Servetus's teachings have disqualified him from being a member of the one true Church? if so, which ones, and how do you know that Servetus was wrong?

[zoonance]

These are good questions.   Up until recent postings, I would have thought that moral perverseness and the like would have been fairly recognizable: sexual immorality, lying, cheating, stealing, coveting, gossip, etc...... and thus easily identified as clearly biblically "fruitless" and sin.  Heresy would have had more to do with "teachings" contrary to the core teachings of the church (christology, ecclesiology, and so forth) - in my mind.  However, it all seems to be falling apart with such a wide range of "thus not really sayeth the Lord" showing up under the guise of scholarship and real, true wisdom - and with the professed assurance of the Spirit's blessing.  Just about anything is 'acceptable' and/or just about anything is 'not acceptable' now as long as it is a reverse of historical orthodoxy.    The true church should be identifiable - not some construct of the imagination based on a feeling of kum-ba-ya regardless of the current line of reasoning.

[ole Jake]

These are good questions.   Up until recent postings, I would have thought that moral perverseness and the like would have been fairly recognizable: sexual immorality, lying, cheating, stealing, coveting, gossip, etc...... and thus easily identified as clearly biblically "fruitless" and sin.  Heresy would have had more to do with "teachings" contrary to the core teachings of the church (christology, ecclesiology, and so forth) - in my mind.  However, it all seems to be falling apart with such a wide range of "thus not really sayeth the Lord" showing up under the guise of scholarship and real, true wisdom - and with the professed assurance of the Spirit's blessing.  Just about anything is 'acceptable' and/or just about anything is 'not acceptable' now as long as it is a reverse of historical orthodoxy.    The true church should be identifiable - not some construct of the imagination based on a feeling of kum-ba-ya regardless of the current line of reasoning.

Heresy literally is the taking of choice. Heresy is about people choosing what they want, for whatever reasons, justified however they might choose. That can apply to morals as well as to matters such as the Divinity of Christ and Virgin Birth and justification. Once people have gotten away with heresy in major matters that we see as doctrinal, is it not a given - considering the nature of sin in man - that people then will shift their logic to specifically moral issues?

In other words, isn't it logical that the rise of, say, anti-Trinitarianism would produce groups claiming to be Christian that would turn all historic Christian morals on their heads?

[Lee Freeman]

Old Jake's original question raises a practical problem. There have been many Christian restoration movements throughout history, from Zwingli to Servetus, to the Anabaptists, to the Mormons, to the Pentecostals. So to call the movement founded by Stone and the Campbells "the Restoration Movement" is inaccurate, because there were many different restoration movements. But further, to use the phrase "Restoration Movement" is inaccurate, because Stone, the Campbells, Richardson, Srygley, et. al., at least up to the late 1880s, referred to their movement as a reformation. They referred to it as "the Reformation" or "the current Reformation." And also, using the term "restoration movement" implies that restoration was their primary goal, when in fact it was Christian reformation and unity. Campbell used his restoration of the "ancient order" as a means to unity but by the 1840s was instead primarily emphasizing a unity based upon a "catholic" (universal) unity upon the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4 rather than his ancient order of the 1820s.

Ever since Dr. Leroy Garrett's 1982 book The Stone-Campbell Movement, most scholars among the three main branches of the movement have been referring to it as the Stone-Campbell Movement, rather than the "restoration movement."

Now to be a part of the Stone-Campbell Movement, which this board and this particular forum of this board is, one's church has to trace its origins back to Barton W. Stone's Christians or Thomas and Alexander Campbells' Disciples, which officially united in 1832.

Pax.

[ole Jake]

Old Jake's original question raises a practical problem. There have been many Christian restoration movements throughout history, from Zwingli to Servetus, to the Anabaptists, to the Mormons, to the Pentecostals. So to call the movement founded by Stone and the Campbells "the Restoration Movement" is inaccurate, because there were many different restoration movements. But further, to use the phrase "Restoration Movement" is inaccurate, because Stone, the Campbells, Richardson, Srygley, et. al., at least up to the late 1880s, referred to their movement as a reformation. They referred to it as "the Reformation" or "the current Reformation." And also, using the term "restoration movement" implies that restoration was their primary goal, when in fact it was Christian reformation and unity. Campbell used his restoration of the "ancient order" as a means to unity but by the 1840s was instead primarily emphasizing a unity based upon a "catholic" (universal) unity upon the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4 rather than his ancient order of the 1820s.

Ever since Dr. Leroy Garrett's 1982 book The Stone-Campbell Movement, most scholars among the three main branches of the movement have been referring to it as the Stone-Campbell Movement, rather than the "restoration movement."

Now to be a part of the Stone-Campbell Movement, which this board and this particular forum of this board is, one's church has to trace its origins back to Barton W. Stone's Christians or Thomas and Alexander Campbells' Disciples, which officially united in 1832.

Pax.

Didn't Marcion claim he had restored true, Pauline 1st century Christianity? Didn't most Gnostic groups in Antiquity and the Middle Ages claim to be restored pure 1st century Chrsitianity?

How can anyone know that he is rightly 'restoring the true church?'

Are we to see the American Restoration Movement not as the truly restored 1st century church but as a splintering American denominatuion, now into 3 main parts, that began as a reform of the Reformation?

[marc]

Old Jake's original question raises a practical problem. There have been many Christian restoration movements throughout history, from Zwingli to Servetus, to the Anabaptists, to the Mormons, to the Pentecostals. So to call the movement founded by Stone and the Campbells "the Restoration Movement" is inaccurate, because there were many different restoration movements. But further, to use the phrase "Restoration Movement" is inaccurate, because Stone, the Campbells, Richardson, Srygley, et. al., at least up to the late 1880s, referred to their movement as a reformation. They referred to it as "the Reformation" or "the current Reformation." And also, using the term "restoration movement" implies that restoration was their primary goal, when in fact it was Christian reformation and unity. Campbell used his restoration of the "ancient order" as a means to unity but by the 1840s was instead primarily emphasizing a unity based upon a "catholic" (universal) unity upon the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4 rather than his ancient order of the 1820s.

Ever since Dr. Leroy Garrett's 1982 book The Stone-Campbell Movement, most scholars among the three main branches of the movement have been referring to it as the Stone-Campbell Movement, rather than the "restoration movement."

Now to be a part of the Stone-Campbell Movement, which this board and this particular forum of this board is, one's church has to trace its origins back to Barton W. Stone's Christians or Thomas and Alexander Campbells' Disciples, which officially united in 1832.

Pax.

Didn't Marcion claim he had restored true, Pauline 1st century Christianity? Didn't most Gnostic groups in Antiquity and the Middle Ages claim to be restored pure 1st century Chrsitianity?

How can anyone know that he is rightly 'restoring the true church?'

Are we to see the American Restoration Movement not as the truly restored 1st century church but as a splintering American denominatuion, now into 3 main parts, that began as a reform of the Reformation?

I think that one sure sign that a person hasn't is that he thinks he's completely done it.  Any work of restoration requires humility and constant restudying. 

I'm curious as to whether a church such as the one I reference in the "differentkindofchurch.co m" thread on the general board isn't a sort of a restorationist church.

[Bocephus]

I don't believe in the need for a "Restoration Movement."  Satan never prevailed against the Church, so there is no need to restore it.

[Lee Freeman]

Old Jake's original question raises a practical problem. There have been many Christian restoration movements throughout history, from Zwingli to Servetus, to the Anabaptists, to the Mormons, to the Pentecostals. So to call the movement founded by Stone and the Campbells "the Restoration Movement" is inaccurate, because there were many different restoration movements. But further, to use the phrase "Restoration Movement" is inaccurate, because Stone, the Campbells, Richardson, Srygley, et. al., at least up to the late 1880s, referred to their movement as a reformation. They referred to it as "the Reformation" or "the current Reformation." And also, using the term "restoration movement" implies that restoration was their primary goal, when in fact it was Christian reformation and unity. Campbell used his restoration of the "ancient order" as a means to unity but by the 1840s was instead primarily emphasizing a unity based upon a "catholic" (universal) unity upon the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4 rather than his ancient order of the 1820s.

Ever since Dr. Leroy Garrett's 1982 book The Stone-Campbell Movement, most scholars among the three main branches of the movement have been referring to it as the Stone-Campbell Movement, rather than the "restoration movement."

Now to be a part of the Stone-Campbell Movement, which this board and this particular forum of this board is, one's church has to trace its origins back to Barton W. Stone's Christians or Thomas and Alexander Campbells' Disciples, which officially united in 1832.

Pax.

Didn't Marcion claim he had restored true, Pauline 1st century Christianity? Didn't most Gnostic groups in Antiquity and the Middle Ages claim to be restored pure 1st century Chrsitianity?

How can anyone know that he is rightly 'restoring the true church?'

Are we to see the American Restoration Movement not as the truly restored 1st century church but as a splintering American denominatuion, now into 3 main parts, that began as a reform of the Reformation?

That's pretty much it.

Both TC and AC claimed to be advocating "simple evangelical Christianity." But what their spiritual descendents created wasn't "simple" at all.

Pax.

[Bocephus]

Old Jake's original question raises a practical problem. There have been many Christian restoration movements throughout history, from Zwingli to Servetus, to the Anabaptists, to the Mormons, to the Pentecostals. So to call the movement founded by Stone and the Campbells "the Restoration Movement" is inaccurate, because there were many different restoration movements. But further, to use the phrase "Restoration Movement" is inaccurate, because Stone, the Campbells, Richardson, Srygley, et. al., at least up to the late 1880s, referred to their movement as a reformation. They referred to it as "the Reformation" or "the current Reformation." And also, using the term "restoration movement" implies that restoration was their primary goal, when in fact it was Christian reformation and unity. Campbell used his restoration of the "ancient order" as a means to unity but by the 1840s was instead primarily emphasizing a unity based upon a "catholic" (universal) unity upon the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4 rather than his ancient order of the 1820s.

Ever since Dr. Leroy Garrett's 1982 book The Stone-Campbell Movement, most scholars among the three main branches of the movement have been referring to it as the Stone-Campbell Movement, rather than the "restoration movement."

Now to be a part of the Stone-Campbell Movement, which this board and this particular forum of this board is, one's church has to trace its origins back to Barton W. Stone's Christians or Thomas and Alexander Campbells' Disciples, which officially united in 1832.

Pax.

Didn't Marcion claim he had restored true, Pauline 1st century Christianity? Didn't most Gnostic groups in Antiquity and the Middle Ages claim to be restored pure 1st century Chrsitianity?

How can anyone know that he is rightly 'restoring the true church?'

Are we to see the American Restoration Movement not as the truly restored 1st century church but as a splintering American denominatuion, now into 3 main parts, that began as a reform of the Reformation?

That's pretty much it.

Both TC and AC claimed to be advocating "simple evangelical Christianity." But what their spiritual descendents created wasn't "simple" at all.

Pax.

TC and AC got to unity by division.  It may not have been their intent, but it happened.  I am certain the problems started long before a corruption by spiritual descendants.

[ole Jake]

Old Jake's original question raises a practical problem. There have been many Christian restoration movements throughout history, from Zwingli to Servetus, to the Anabaptists, to the Mormons, to the Pentecostals. So to call the movement founded by Stone and the Campbells "the Restoration Movement" is inaccurate, because there were many different restoration movements. But further, to use the phrase "Restoration Movement" is inaccurate, because Stone, the Campbells, Richardson, Srygley, et. al., at least up to the late 1880s, referred to their movement as a reformation. They referred to it as "the Reformation" or "the current Reformation." And also, using the term "restoration movement" implies that restoration was their primary goal, when in fact it was Christian reformation and unity. Campbell used his restoration of the "ancient order" as a means to unity but by the 1840s was instead primarily emphasizing a unity based upon a "catholic" (universal) unity upon the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4 rather than his ancient order of the 1820s.

Ever since Dr. Leroy Garrett's 1982 book The Stone-Campbell Movement, most scholars among the three main branches of the movement have been referring to it as the Stone-Campbell Movement, rather than the "restoration movement."

Now to be a part of the Stone-Campbell Movement, which this board and this particular forum of this board is, one's church has to trace its origins back to Barton W. Stone's Christians or Thomas and Alexander Campbells' Disciples, which officially united in 1832.

Pax.

Didn't Marcion claim he had restored true, Pauline 1st century Christianity? Didn't most Gnostic groups in Antiquity and the Middle Ages claim to be restored pure 1st century Chrsitianity?

How can anyone know that he is rightly 'restoring the true church?'

Are we to see the American Restoration Movement not as the truly restored 1st century church but as a splintering American denominatuion, now into 3 main parts, that began as a reform of the Reformation?

That's pretty much it.

Both TC and AC claimed to be advocating "simple evangelical Christianity." But what their spiritual descendents created wasn't "simple" at all.

Pax.

What would simple evangelical Christianity be?

As Martin Luther created it, perhaps it would be exactly what Luther taught and did.

But as the English Reformation was about a King's desire to have no religious authority above him in his kingdom, which led to endless numbers of puritanizers who claimed to be restoring the pure 1st century church by violently purging all remaining 'popishness', English-speaking evangelicalism had dozens of heads and contradictory doctrines.

So, Campbell and Stone would have been attempting to unify all those contradictions, which would require either a reigning spirt of a-doctrinal unversalism or the mass rejections of cherished Anglo-Protestant doctrines by millions.

Beyond that, these matters remain: What is true Christianity? How can you be certain you know it and know when you have it? What authority do you have to assert that your interpretations of Scripture and Christian history are such that you can found a new group that is, in effect, the restoration of the 1st century church?

[Lee Freeman]

Campbell would've (and did) equate "simple evangelical Christianity" with "simple NT Christianity." To him it was the basic Christian faith-or the essential items of it- that all Protestant sects held in common. Campbell endorsed the Evangelical Alliance in 1847.

Pax.

[blituri]

The word MOVEMENT intends to lump "disciples" which come in the singular form into a ORGANIZATION which was just what Jesus came to REmove so that what remained was the local synagogue, ekklesia or school of the Bible.  The ONLY function was to "Make known the manifest wisdom of God" and the true REST is defined in Isaiah 58 as NOT seeking your own pleasure (Rom 15:1) NOR speaking YOUR OWN WORDS.  It it is BIGGER than that it is an INSTITUTE calculated to live on the DESTITUTE as Jesus warned about the Scribes and Pharisees He defined as hypocrites by pointing to speakers, singers and instrument players.  If it is less than that it has no rationale for existing and should quit fleecing.

Calvin's Restoration Movement was to PEEL OFF everything not defined by the Word of God: this included sermonizers, clergy singers and clergy instrumentalists.

The Kingdom of Christ was a RESTORATION of that which Godly people practiced in the synagogue beginning as the "church in the wilderness." 
        It is INCLUSIVE of Rest, Reading and Rehearsing the Word of God
        It is EXCLUSIVE of "vocal or instrumental rejoicing" the same "triumph" Judas would try on Jesus (Psalm 41)

The SACRIFICIAL thread under the Levites whom Josephus was wise enough to blame (along with Ezekiel) with the destruction of the nation, is THAT WHICH is called by the LEFT WING which invented Restoration Movement.

The Neo-Restoration movement in no uncertain words insists on RESTORING that which God always cursed and the Spirit of Christ defined as robbers an parasites in the Prophets as"that which was to be" especially GIVEN HEED TO (the only worship word).  The agreed-upon magical mantra is that of the Warrior Levites "God commanded instrumental praise and you must not be disobedient." Therefore, they have confessed to the 2/3 blind and deaf that they have VIOLATED the direct command NOT TO participate in these Qahal or "synagogues of Satan."

After the fall from grace at Mount Sinai, God turned them over to worship the starry host which was that practiced by the LEVITES as a synomym for the musical-perverted worship of Dionysus.

Gen. 49:5 Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments [Sword or Musical]
         of cruelty are in their habitations.
Gen. 49:6 O my soul, come not thou into their secret;
        unto their assembly [synagogues], mine honour, be not thou united:
        for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.
Gen. 49:7 Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel:
        I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.

Those who follow the STARRY HOST thread intentionally DIVIDE and SCATTER the owners silly enough to be "robbed" of their health-care monety.

The TWO THREADS are detailed from Genesis to Revelation is a "historical record of the great struggle between white and black magic:
         Between the Prophets who were knowledgeable and of the RIGHT PATH
         and the LEFT PATH, the Levites, the clergy of the brutal masses.

Gen. 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way,
        an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels,
        so that his rider shall fall backward.

This is the same "serpent" in the garden of Eden: identified by the prophets as Lucifer the singing and harp playing prostitute.

5175.  nachash, naw-khawsh´; from 5172; a snake (from its hiss):—serpent.
5172. nachash, naw-khash´; a primitive root; properly, to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell; generally, to prognosticate: certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) x enchantment, learn by experience, x indeed, diligently observe.

The PROPHECY is clear and the OUTCOME is certain when God PARTITIONED OFF the  Serpent and Star thread from the godly Synagogue or Word of God thread. Here is some of the connection.

3882. livyathan, liv-yaw-thawn´; from 3867; a wreathed animal, i.e. a serpent (especially the crocodile or some other large sea-monster); figuratively, the constellation of the dragon; also as a symbol of Babylon.:--leviathan, mourning.
3881.  Leviyiy, lay-vee-ee´; or Leviy, lay-vee´; patronymically from 3878; a Levite or descendant of Levi: Leviite.
3878.  Leviy, lay-vee´; from 3867; attached; Levi, a son of Jacob:--Levi. See also 3879, 3881.
3879. Leviy, lay-vee´; (Aramaic) corresponding to 3880:—Levite.
3880.  livyah, liv-yaw´; from 3867; something attached, i.e. a wreath:—ornament.

The Kabalists explain the fiery serpents by saying that "this was the name given to the tribe of Levi, to all the Levites," in short, and that Moses was The PROPHET whom the musical idolaters refused to listen to and thus ANOTHER prophet like Moses would arise. The original meaning of the "Dragon-Slayers" are the prophets thundering against the "abominations" of the people of Israel, that there were two schools.

"Fiery serpents" was, then, simply the epithet given to the Levites of the priestly caste, after they had departed from the good law, the traditional teachings of Moses: and to all those who followed Black Magic.

Because God had abandoned them especially after the "elders" demanded a king so they could worship like Babylon (the nations) no historic scholar failed to grasp that David rejected the Law of Moses and "instituted a new system of jubilating praise."

All of the historic scholars understood that the Curse of the Law of Moses and the later fall after David into the temple-centered slaughter, was NOT to be included as part of our teaching and practices as one noted ACU scholar wishes.

John refused to baptize the RACE of VIPERS and Peter warned "Save yourselves from this CROOKED RACE."  That points specificially to the assemblies where they got drunk on wine and music (Piped down with wine) in CONTRAST to Paul's absolute command to use THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN as the only resource for what he defined as a "synagogue" where preaching and a "praise service" were always outlawed.

LEFT HAND RESTORATION can mean RESTORATION of the Sacrificial syhstem where the musicians "made the lambs dumb before the slaughter priests.

RIGHT HAND RESTORATION of the Qahal, synagogue or Church in the Wilderness now FREED by the utter destruction of the Levites and Danites and their "temples built by human hands."

As a synagogue or ekklesia in NO SENSE was either a MOVEMENT which had any reach beyond the local community with ten MATURE males.

[ole Jake]

Campbell would've (and did) equate "simple evangelical Christianity" with "simple NT Christianity." To him it was the basic Christian faith-or the essential items of it- that all Protestant sects held in common. Campbell endorsed the Evangelical Alliance in 1847.

Pax.

So Campbell was focused on lowest common denominator unity among Protestants. What did all Protestant sects hold in common other than rejection of Apostolic succession, triply so of the seat of Peter, and a faith that the Catholic Church was the wh*re of Babylon?

Does that explain how the only thing that almost unites the Disciples of Christ, the Independent Christian Churches, the 'conservative Churches of Christ,  and the 'grace-centered' 'liberal' Churches of Christ is their strident opposition to the Catholic Church?