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?

[Bon Voyage]

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.com" thread on the general board isn't a sort of a restorationist church.

[Bon Voyage]

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.

[Bon Voyage]

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 Whore 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?

[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.

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?

In the 1820s Campbell wrote a series in his paper the Christian Baptist entitled "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things," in which he argued that a restoration of certain elements of apostolic Christianity would assist in uniting Christians however he had for all practical purposes abandoned restoration as his platform for unity by the late 1830s. At that time he began arguing for a "catholic" (universal) unity based upon the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4.

In an ecumenical meeting at Lexington, Kentucky in 1841, he stated:

"Whatever in faith, in piety, and morality is catholic, or universally admitted by all parties, shall be adopted as the basis of union."

He often expressed this "catholic rule for unity" in terms of the seven "facts" of Ephesians 4:4-6 (one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all). On the basis of Ephesians 4, Campbell believed that "we must fraternize with all who practically own one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, one hope, one God and Father of all" and "with all such we must maintain the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace." In his 1860 address to the American Christian Missionary Society, he refered to these as the seven hills of the "true Zion of Israel's God." They are the seven "divinely constructed and instituted pillars" which are "alone sufficient, and the all-sufficient foundation--the indestructible basis--of Christ's kingdom on this earth, and of man's spiritual and eternal salvation in the full enjoyment of himself, his Creator, his Redeemer."

But actually as early as 1825 Campbell was using such language, such as his response to Baptist Robert B. Semple:

"One consolation I have, that you and I believe all the same gospel facts. We believe every fact which Paul called the glad tidings, viz. that "Jesus died for our sins; that he was buried; and that he rose the third day according to the Scriptures." Nay, we are equally assured of all facts in the gospel history, and consequently are of one faith.  I do not think there is one historic fact in all the testimonies of the four Evangelists in which our faith is not the same. We are not only of one faith,  but we agree in one immersion also. You say that we are buried with Christ in immersion, and raised with him; and that in this act we put him on.  We do not differ in the one Lord--in the one God--in the one body--in the one Spirit, which animates that one body; and in the one hope of a glorious resurrection from the dead.  In some points of view we differ on some of these unities; or, rather, we view them with more or less distinctness and force. We pray to the same God and Father, through the same Lord and Saviour, and by the same Holy Spirit. In a word, we agree in a thousand things, constituents and connectives of the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian Ages of the world. But we differ in the strength or weakness--in the latitude or longitude of our conceptions of some matters and things connected with, or proceeding from the seven unities. . . ."

Campbell recognized, of course, that "on these subjects there has been an interminable, international, sectarian speculative war in which all parties have incorporated the language of Ashdod." All parties of this war have entered the ranks of the Reformers, but they have entered to the end that there might be full and free discussion as they move to "a more clear and full agreement." Campbell believes that as long as one "practically" admits "but one Lord and one sacrifice for sin," and that "without Christ's blood there is no remission," then he will commune with them despite the fact that their speculations apparently deny what they affirm. Campbell accepted Barton Warren Stone because he saw in Stone a practical faith that affirmed the seven ones of Ephesians even though they disagreed about how to understand the fullness of some of those particulars. In the same breath, Campbell invited Bro. Andrew Broaddus and his "Baptist Christians" to extend the right hand of fellowship to him as he had done to Stone.

Campbell envisioned a community of believers who assented to the seven ones of Ephesians 4 where discussion and communion continue "although in many points [the community] may err both in theory and practice." Campbell calls for a theological unity around the seven ones, but for a unity that is ever progressing toward a deeper and fuller understanding of those seven fundamental beliefs. It would be a discussion that recognizes genuine faith in each other but where theology is in process for the community. The community is centered in the same faith as it seeks to understand that faith in the context of community. This is the task of theology--exegetical, historical and theological--within a community. This is where scholars need to serve the church and minister to its faith.

In 1809 his father Thomas Campbell had penned a document advocating the union of Christians called The Declaration & Address, in which he stated, among other things:

"It is, to us, a pleasing consideration that all the churches of Christ, which mutually acknowledge each other as such, are not only agreed in the great doctrines of faith and holiness; but are also materially agreed, as to the positive ordinances of Gospel institution; so that our differences, at most, are about the things in which the kingdom of God does not consist ,that is, about matters of private opinion, or human invention. What a pity, that the kingdom of God should be divided about such things!! Who, then, would not be the first amongst us, to give up with human inventions in the worship of God; and to cease from imposing his private opinions upon his brethren; that our breaches might thus be healed?"

A. Campbell's friend, personal physician, his biographer, a professor at his college and an editor of his second paper, the Millennial Harbinger, Dr. Robert Richardson, defined the Stone-Campbell Reformation in this way in the 4th installment of his MH series "Reformation," in 1847:

"Were we, indeed, asked to define theoretically, in terms the most brief and expressive the reformation which we urge, we should denominate it- A generalization of Christianity. It is in this character that it presents a basis of Christian union. It is in this point that it lays aside the differences; the peculiarities; the distinctions, which disunite and mark out sects; and retains the agreements, the universalities, the identities which secure harmony and peace. . . ."

Pax.

[blituri]

There is a NEO-restoration movement which as postmodern gives itself the right to REWRITE history. This forum is a good example:

About this period the "Evangelical Alliance," designed to promote the union of Christians, attracted much of Mr. Campbell's attention, and was hailed by him with great satisfaction as an indication of the approach of a better era. As to the basis of union which it proposed, he expressed a substantial agreement,
      though objecting to some of the expressions employed as unscriptural.
      He pointed out the resemblance of the movement to that of the "Christian Association" in Washington in 1809,
      which, like the Evangelical Alliance, assumed not the character of a church,
      but of a society to promote union among Christians, and remarked, at the close of his article:

     "I said at the beginning, I say at the close, of my notice of the Evangelical Alliance, that I thank God and take courage at every effort, however imperfect it may be, to open the eyes of the community to the impotency and wickedness of schism, and to impress upon the conscientious and benevolent portion of the Christian profession the excellency, the beauty and the necessity of co-operation in the cause of Christ as prerequisite to the diffusion of Christianity throughout the nations of the earth.

          "The Reformation for which we plead grew out of a conviction of the enormous evils of schism and partyism, and the first article ever printed by any of the co-operants in the [541] present effort was upon the subject of the necessity, practicability and excellency of Christian union and communion, in order to the purification and extension of the Christian profession.
        The abjuration of human creeds as roots of bitterness and apples of discord,
        as the permanent causes of all sectarianism,
        was set forth as a preliminary step to the purification of the Church and the conversion of the world.

The restoration of a pure speech, or the giving of Bible names to Bible ideas, followed in its train, and from these standing-points we have been led step by step to our present position, each one of the prime movers adding to the common stock something of importance, until matters have issued in one of the most extensive moral and ecclesiastical movements and revolutions of the present age."

Union of Christians was NEVER the union of sects with creeds or those who rejected the principles he has arrived at. It's a strange, strange world.

[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?

In the 1820s Campbell wrote a series in his paper the Christian Baptist entitled "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things," in which he argued that a restoration of certain elements of apostolic Christianity would assist in uniting Christians however he had for all practical purposes abandoned restoration as his platform for unity by the late 1830s. At that time he began arguing for a "catholic" (universal) unity based upon the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4.

In an ecumenical meeting at Lexington, Kentucky in 1841, he stated:

"Whatever in faith, in piety, and morality is catholic, or universally admitted by all parties, shall be adopted as the basis of union."

He often expressed this "catholic rule for unity" in terms of the seven "facts" of Ephesians 4:4-6 (one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all). On the basis of Ephesians 4, Campbell believed that "we must fraternize with all who practically own one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, one hope, one God and Father of all" and "with all such we must maintain the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace." In his 1860 address to the American Christian Missionary Society, he refered to these as the seven hills of the "true Zion of Israel's God." They are the seven "divinely constructed and instituted pillars" which are "alone sufficient, and the all-sufficient foundation--the indestructible basis--of Christ's kingdom on this earth, and of man's spiritual and eternal salvation in the full enjoyment of himself, his Creator, his Redeemer."

But actually as early as 1825 Campbell was using such language, such as his response to Baptist Robert B. Semple:

"One consolation I have, that you and I believe all the same gospel facts. We believe every fact which Paul called the glad tidings, viz. that "Jesus died for our sins; that he was buried; and that he rose the third day according to the Scriptures." Nay, we are equally assured of all facts in the gospel history, and consequently are of one faith.  I do not think there is one historic fact in all the testimonies of the four Evangelists in which our faith is not the same. We are not only of one faith,  but we agree in one immersion also. You say that we are buried with Christ in immersion, and raised with him; and that in this act we put him on.  We do not differ in the one Lord--in the one God--in the one body--in the one Spirit, which animates that one body; and in the one hope of a glorious resurrection from the dead.  In some points of view we differ on some of these unities; or, rather, we view them with more or less distinctness and force. We pray to the same God and Father, through the same Lord and Saviour, and by the same Holy Spirit. In a word, we agree in a thousand things, constituents and connectives of the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian Ages of the world. But we differ in the strength or weakness--in the latitude or longitude of our conceptions of some matters and things connected with, or proceeding from the seven unities. . . ."

Campbell recognized, of course, that "on these subjects there has been an interminable, international, sectarian speculative war in which all parties have incorporated the language of Ashdod." All parties of this war have entered the ranks of the Reformers, but they have entered to the end that there might be full and free discussion as they move to "a more clear and full agreement." Campbell believes that as long as one "practically" admits "but one Lord and one sacrifice for sin," and that "without Christ's blood there is no remission," then he will commune with them despite the fact that their speculations apparently deny what they affirm. Campbell accepted Barton Warren Stone because he saw in Stone a practical faith that affirmed the seven ones of Ephesians even though they disagreed about how to understand the fullness of some of those particulars. In the same breath, Campbell invited Bro. Andrew Broaddus and his "Baptist Christians" to extend the right hand of fellowship to him as he had done to Stone.

Campbell envisioned a community of believers who assented to the seven ones of Ephesians 4 where discussion and communion continue "although in many points [the community] may err both in theory and practice." Campbell calls for a theological unity around the seven ones, but for a unity that is ever progressing toward a deeper and fuller understanding of those seven fundamental beliefs. It would be a discussion that recognizes genuine faith in each other but where theology is in process for the community. The community is centered in the same faith as it seeks to understand that faith in the context of community. This is the task of theology--exegetical, historical and theological--within a community. This is where scholars need to serve the church and minister to its faith.

In 1809 his father Thomas Campbell had penned a document advocating the union of Christians called The Declaration & Address, in which he stated, among other things:

"It is, to us, a pleasing consideration that all the churches of Christ, which mutually acknowledge each other as such, are not only agreed in the great doctrines of faith and holiness; but are also materially agreed, as to the positive ordinances of Gospel institution; so that our differences, at most, are about the things in which the kingdom of God does not consist ,that is, about matters of private opinion, or human invention. What a pity, that the kingdom of God should be divided about such things!! Who, then, would not be the first amongst us, to give up with human inventions in the worship of God; and to cease from imposing his private opinions upon his brethren; that our breaches might thus be healed?"

A. Campbell's friend, personal physician, his biographer, a professor at his college and an editor of his second paper, the Millennial Harbinger, Dr. Robert Richardson, defined the Stone-Campbell Reformation in this way in the 4th installment of his MH series "Reformation," in 1847:

"Were we, indeed, asked to define theoretically, in terms the most brief and expressive the reformation which we urge, we should denominate it- A generalization of Christianity. It is in this character that it presents a basis of Christian union. It is in this point that it lays aside the differences; the peculiarities; the distinctions, which disunite and mark out sects; and retains the agreements, the universalities, the identities which secure harmony and peace. . . ."

Pax.

And none of that is specific. For example, what does 'one Lord' mean? Is that Lord God Incarnate, or a mere man, or a man made Deity by God the Father?

What does 'one faith' mean? Does it include both sola fide and rejection of Luther's doctrine as heresy?

What does 'one baptism' mean? Does it include those who assert that baptism is a mere form after the person has been saved by faith only, or is it restricted to those who assert that baptism is regenerative?

What does 'one body' mean? Does it mean some group of the saved who are scattered among thousands of denominations with contradictory doctrines, or does it mean one visible church that clearly has existed throughout history since the 1st century?

[Lee Freeman]

This is how Campbell explained it, from the above:

Campbell believes that as long as one "practically" admits "but one Lord and one sacrifice for sin," and that "without Christ's blood there is no remission," then he will commune with them despite the fact that their speculations apparently deny what they affirm. Campbell accepted Barton Warren Stone because he saw in Stone a practical faith that affirmed the seven ones of Ephesians even though they disagreed about how to understand the fullness of some of those particulars.

As long as they accepted, on faith, those same "seven ones" Campbell would fellowhip them, despite differences of interpretation regarding some or all of them. They could, as fellow-believers, discuss those specific interpretations later. And of course on peripheral matters, a person was entitled to his/her private opinion, so long as he/she didn't make such into a test of fellowship.

Campbell argued for a unity upon what he viewed as the essentials of the Christian faith-that common ground that all Protestant Christians already had in common; this union left room for disagreements on just exactly how some of these essential doctrines should be interpreted however. Campbell looked primarily for the Spirit of Christ in people, and a sincere willingness to obey Christ to the fullest extent of their knowledge of his will. What he abhorred was sectarians, people who staked out a position on a particuular doctrine and refused to commune with any but their narrow sect.

As an example, in the 1840s, a Christian/Disciples minister named Aylette Raines developed Universalist views. This alarmed many of his brethren, who urged that he be disfellowshiped and withdrawn from. Alexander Campbell disagreed and refused to withdraw from Raines, provided Raines kept his Universalist views to himself, which Raines agreed to do. Campbell figured that Raines would eventually study himself out of that view and sure enough, Raines did study himself out of it, and credited Campbell with helping him to do so.

But on the other hand when Christian/Disciples minister Jesse B. Ferguson began publically teaching Universalism in the 1850s, and refused to stop publically teaching it after repated entreaties from Campbell, Campbell reluctantly urded the brethren to withdraw from him.

And in the 1830s when English Disciples pastor Dr. John Thomas began narrowly excluding those baptized in Baptist Churches or without the specific knowledge of the remission of sins, from fellowship Campbell urged Thomas to stop, who refused, and so Campbell reluctantly urged that he, too, be withdrawn from.

Campbell understood there to be saved Christians scattered among all the orthodox Christian sects; when pressed about whether he'd extend fellowship to the "pious unimmersed," he asserted that he could not make any one duty, even one as important as baptism, the litmus test of fellowship, but rather whether that person exhibited the spirit of Christ and an obedient heart. Campbell asserted that it was possible for a person to mistake the outward baptism while possessing the inward baptism.

So yes, Campbell would extend the right hand of fellowship to sincere people with whom he disagreed on some or all of the "seven ones." In an 1825 CB article he argued that belief in Jesus as the Christ and baptism were the only two prerequisites for becoming a Christian-and as we saw, he would consider extending fellowship even to the "pious unimmersed," so long as they believed that Jesus was the Christ.

Pax.

[blituri]

Lee, you certainly have a gift as great as Richard Hughes.  Since you refer to the Stone Campbell movement I am absolutely certain that you are reading tea leaves because it never existed before Leroy Garrett switched from Daniel Sommer to the Left Wing.  It still consists of the NACC which confiscated the "churches of Christ" name to define themselves as Christian Churches-churches of Christ meaning the musical brand.

If I remember correctly in 1841 Alexander was a Baptist and was having lots of problem defiing "congregational" as independant churches.  There is not now nor has there ever been a LEFT WING component which narrowly defined CHURCH as Jesus commanded the "church in the wilderness," as he exampled the synagogue, as he promised his ekklesia, which Paul uniquely defines as a teaching/admonishing assembly and which the historic church practiced before the proto-islamist imposed SINGING as an act in the year 373.  The Campbells so RESTORED that until the fabricators and prevaricators came in out of the cold.

I am not aware of any "conservative" Christian church person in my circle who claims Stone as the father of their theology: ANY similarity between Stone and Campbell was forced onto Stone when his charismatic system of preaching and the mourner's bench didn't work like baptism to convince even the semi-literate who had ever heard the Bible read.  Preachers generally came to reject his Nominating and Ordaining group and assuredly the Shouting Methodist Act of Worship never entered a Campbell church.   Campbell taught and Stone slowly learned but contributed not a single tenet to the modern Church of Christ: certainly his UNION by refusing to teach on the major dividers down through history might have been cute but quite unaware.

[ole Jake]

This is how Campbell explained it, from the above:

Campbell believes that as long as one "practically" admits "but one Lord and one sacrifice for sin," and that "without Christ's blood there is no remission," then he will commune with them despite the fact that their speculations apparently deny what they affirm. Campbell accepted Barton Warren Stone because he saw in Stone a practical faith that affirmed the seven ones of Ephesians even though they disagreed about how to understand the fullness of some of those particulars.

As long as they accepted, on faith, those same "seven ones" Campbell would fellowhip them, despite differences of interpretation regarding some or all of them. They could, as fellow-believers, discuss those specific interpretations later. And of course on peripheral matters, a person was entitled to his/her private opinion, so long as he/she didn't make such into a test of fellowship.

Campbell argued for a unity upon what he viewed as the essentials of the Christian faith-that common ground that all Protestant Christians already had in common; this union left room for disagreements on just exactly how some of these essential doctrines should be interpreted however. Campbell looked primarily for the Spirit of Christ in people, and a sincere willingness to obey Christ to the fullest extent of their knowledge of his will. What he abhorred was sectarians, people who staked out a position on a particuular doctrine and refused to commune with any but their narrow sect.

As an example, in the 1840s, a Christian/Disciples minister named Aylette Raines developed Universalist views. This alarmed many of his brethren, who urged that he be disfellowshiped and withdrawn from. Alexander Campbell disagreed and refused to withdraw from Raines, provided Raines kept his Universalist views to himself, which Raines agreed to do. Campbell figured that Raines would eventually study himself out of that view and sure enough, Raines did study himself out of it, and credited Campbell with helping him to do so.

But on the other hand when Christian/Disciples minister Jesse B. Ferguson began publically teaching Universalism in the 1850s, and refused to stop publically teaching it after repated entreaties from Campbell, Campbell reluctantly urded the brethren to withdraw from him.

And in the 1830s when English Disciples pastor Dr. John Thomas began narrowly excluding those baptized in Baptist Churches or without the specific knowledge of the remission of sins, from fellowship Campbell urged Thomas to stop, who refused, and so Campbell reluctantly urged that he, too, be withdrawn from.

Campbell understood there to be saved Christians scattered among all the orthodox Christian sects; when pressed about whether he'd extend fellowship to the "pious unimmersed," he asserted that he could not make any one duty, even one as important as baptism, the litmus test of fellowship, but rather whether that person exhibited the spirit of Christ and an obedient heart. Campbell asserted that it was possible for a person to mistake the outward baptism while possessing the inward baptism.

So yes, Campbell would extend the right hand of fellowship to sincere people with whom he disagreed on some or all of the "seven ones." In an 1825 CB article he argued that belief in Jesus as the Christ and baptism were the only two prerequisites for becoming a Christian-and as we saw, he would consider extending fellowship even to the "pious unimmersed," so long as they believed that Jesus was the Christ.

Pax.

So then, what we have here is that Campbell decided that his interpretation of one verse was to be the basis of uniting all the Protestants (thus re-producing the 1st century church?) because Campbell's interpretation of that one verse guaranteed the essentials of Protestantism.

Unity then to Campbell was to be achieved by others agreeing that Campbell had the authority to declare what was and was not essential.

[Lee Freeman]

Lee, you certainly have a gift as great as Richard Hughes.  Since you refer to the Stone Campbell movement I am absolutely certain that you are reading tea leaves because it never existed before Leroy Garrett switched from Daniel Sommer to the Left Wing.  It still consists of the NACC which confiscated the "churches of Christ" name to define themselves as Christian Churches-churches of Christ meaning the musical brand.

If I remember correctly in 1841 Alexander was a Baptist and was having lots of problem defiing "congregational" as independent churches.  There is not now nor has there ever been a LEFT WING component which narrowly defined CHURCH as Jesus commanded the "church in the wilderness," as he exampled the synagogue, as he promised his ekklesia, which Paul uniquely defines as a teaching/admonishing assembly and which the historic church practiced before the proto-islamist imposed SINGING as an act in the year 373.  The Campbells so RESTORED that until the fabricators and prevaricators came in out of the cold.

I am not aware of any "conservative" Christian church person in my circle who claims Stone as the father of their theology: ANY similarity between Stone and Campbell was forced onto Stone when his charismatic system of preaching and the mourner's bench didn't work like baptism to convince even the semi-literate who had ever heard the Bible read.  Preachers generally came to reject his Nominating and Ordaining group and assuredly the Shouting Methodist Act of Worship never entered a Campbell church.   Campbell taught and Stone slowly learned but contributed not a single tenet to the modern Church of Christ: certainly his UNION by refusing to teach on the major dividers down through history might have been cute but quite unaware.

Ken, first of all, "Stone-Campbell Movement" is how nearly all academics, of whatever stripe, refer to the movement. If Garrett is so wrong on that, how is it that the academic community at large has since adopted his description for the movement? The movement was founded when Barton Stone's Christians and Thomas and Alexander Campbell's Christians formally united on New Years' Day, 1832, in Lexington, Kentucky.

Secondly, by 1841 the Campbell churches had been out of the Redstone Baptist Association since 1826 and out of the Mahoning Association since it dissolved in 1830. So no, Campbell wasn't a Baptist in 1841.

If you would set aside your preconceived ideas for a minute and actually study this history without your blinders on, Stone's tremendous influence on the Churches of Christ will become glaringly apparent. Just a few of them were:

a) Stone's apocalyptic worldview and counterculturalism influenced Tolbert Fanning, David Lipscomb, and in turn, James A. Harding tremendously. Where do you think Lipscomb's and Harding's pacifism and deep aversion to all systems of human governments came from? Where did their premillennnialism come from? Campbell was post-millennial. That's right, it came from Stone. Stone's apocalyptic, countercultural worldview was a huge influence on many CoC evangelists.

b) Stone's use of "Christian" whereas Campbell favored "Disciples of Christ."

c) Stone's views on slavery were also influential.

d) Lots of "Campbellites" subscribed both to Stone's Christian Messenger and Campbell's Christian Baptist and Millennial Harbinger.

e) Stoneite evangelists were offering an invitation at the end of sermons some twenty years before Campbellite churches adopted the practice after 1827. The first recorded response to an invitation was when Tolbert Fanning responded to an invitation offered by Stoneite evangelist Dr. B. F. Hall at the Republican Christian Church (now Stony Point Church of Christ), in Lauderdale County, Alabama in September of 1826. I don't know of many CoCs that do not offer an invitation at the end of every sermon.

f) And as I've said before many times already, there are dozens of Churches of Christ in NW AL that were originally founded in the 1820s by Stoneite preachers. So to deny the huge influence of Barton Stone on Churches of Christ is to stick one's head in the sand and ignore evidence because one doesn't like it. But that's not how real history works.

Thanks for the comparison to Dr. Richard Hughes, though I certainly don't deserve it. He is one of my favorite historians and authors, even though I don't always agree with him. Garrett is another favorite. Its largely due to him that CoC historians finally began to view Campbell and Stone as the complex figures they truly were. Its Dr. Garrett who caused many CoC historians to seriously rethink many of their preconceptions. I mean, they chose him to write the entry on Alexander Campbell for the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, which you should get by the way. Its excellent!

Pax.

[Lee Freeman]

So then, what we have here is that Campbell decided that his interpretation of one verse was to be the basis of uniting all the Protestants (thus re-producing the 1st century church?) because Campbell's interpretation of that one verse guaranteed the essentials of Protestantism.

Unity then to Campbell was to be achieved by others agreeing that Campbell had the authority to declare what was and was not essential.

Jake, Campbell (and his father ahead of him) believed that most orthodox Protestant churches already were in essential agreement on those "seven ones" already, because they all claimed them as indespensible items of faith-they just weren't "oficially" united in any kind of way. What divided them were, to quote TC, not the "postive ordinances of the gospel," but the myriad of peripheral non-essential items. They were basically majoring in minors. Campbell believed that all reasonably intelligent people could agree as to the important basics, the essentials, of Christianity. They were free to disagree on the rest of it. So that, as Dr. Richardson clarified, their aim was for all practical purposes, a generalization of Christianity that would look for and highlight that common ground all orthodox Protestant sects already shared.

Pax.

[blituri]

The "seven ones" proves that Ephesians 4 has not been read with discernment which comes from word definitions and recourse to the original documents in which the words appear.  Paul, as he does to all of the churches, defines the kind of rituals performed at Cane Ridge and the musical enchantment now called "Navigating the Winds of Change."

Paul defined the TESTS to apply to any of those he defined as Robbers to UNEARTH them.   It would make Jesus and Paul and all of the "poor priests" from what they called The Church of Christ fools and idiots for doing more than what they call "just preaching Jesus."  This is a MARK to separate the spiritual from the carnal.

For instance, Paul did not list a preacher or doctor of the Law and he defined the SOLE authorized Pastor-Teachers as the elders commanded to "teach that which had been taught." In the synagogue they had PREACHED by READING Moses.  But, the unifiers miss the huge putdown even as Jesus had informed everyone that the doctors of the Law "take away the key to knowledge" and he called the Scribes and Pharisees (writers and preachers) hypocrites by pointing to speakers, singers and instrument players.

You cannot name one Greek Geek in any of the once-Christian colleges who can read Ephesians 4.

Jesus MARKED the MEN of that race as CHILDREN and as pipers, singers and dancers consigned them to the polluted marketplace with all of the other religious twisted brothers.

Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children,  tossed to and fro,
        and carried about with every wind of doctrine,
        by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness
        whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Craft in Revelation 18 or Techne includes "speakers, singers and instrument players" which John and all evidence charge with being SORCERERS: Sorcerers burn.

Panourgia (g3834) pan-oorg-ee'-ah; from 3835; adroitness, i.e. (in a bad sense) trickery or sophistry: - (cunning) craftiness, subtilty.

3835.  panougos, pan-oor´-gos; from 3956 and 2041; all-working [ergon], i.e. adroit (shrewd):  crafty.

A musical instrument is a machine for doing hard WORK from ERGON. This was always to MAKE WARE or to induce the arousal in religious ritualism.

    Organon , to, ( [ergon, erdô]  3.a hard piece of work, a hard task, Il.: also, a shocking deed or act,
    3. musical instrument

    Aristotle Politics 1341b and all the instruments that require manual skill. And indeed there is a reasonable foundation for the story that was told by the ancients about the flute. The tale goes that Athena found a flute and threw it away. Now it is not a bad point in the story that the goddess did this out of annoyance because of the ugly distortion of her features; but as a matter of fact it is more likely that it was because education in flute-playing has no effect on the intelligence, whereas we attribute science and art to Athena...
       And since we reject professional education in the instruments and in performance 
      (and we count performance in competitions as professional, 
      for the performer does not take part in it  for his own improvement,
      but for his hearers'  pleasure, and that a vulgar pleasure, [outlawed for the ekklesia or synagogue Rom 15]
      owing  to which we do not consider performing to be proper for free men, but somewhat menial;
      and indeed performers do become vulgar,

Panourg-êma  A. knavish trick, villainy,   sophistry, Gal.5.251; cf. panourgeuma.

    Sophis-tikos  Artistic or poetic, This includes the techne or craftsmen who perform as sorcerers in Rev 18.

    Techn-ê , A.art, skill, cunning of hand, soothsayer, to learn a thing professionally,
    hence title of various treatises on Rhetoric (v. VI; but rather tricks of Rhetoric, OF the rhapsoidikos, poetlc

Clement Against Heresies of the inventer of "new style musical worship"
    To me, therefore, that Thracian Orpheus, that Theban, and that Methymnaean,-men,
    and yet unworthy of the name,-seem to have been deceivers, 
    who, under the pretence of poetry corrupting human life,
    possessed by a spirit of artful sorcery for purposes of destruction,
    celebrating crimes in their orgies, and making human woes the materials of religious worship,
    were the first to entice men to idols;
            nay, to build up the stupidity of the nations with blocks of wood and stone,-
                  that is, statues and images,-
            subjecting to the yoke of extremest bondage the truly noble freedom
                 of those who lived as free citizens under heaven
                 by their songs and incantations. Technites

Both in Hebrew and Greek a BURDEN is a song which creaths spiritual anxiedy (laded burden) or the self-pleasure in Romans 15 which is a reproach (exposing one's pudenda)

ON THE VERY LARGE OTHERHAND, THE EKKLESIA OR SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE IS DIRECTLY COMMANDED.

The DIRECT COMMAND by the Spirit of Christ for the Church in the wilderness, the SOLE example of Jesus in the Synagogue, the SOLE activity allowed in the civil ekklesia, the SOLE command of Paul in the NOT musical passages and the SOLE understanding of people without Phds.  This was the Driven Purpose of the Campbells.

But speaking the truth in love,
     may grow up into him in all things,
     which is the head, even Christ: Eph 4:15

From whom the whole body
     fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,
     according to the effectual working in the measure of every part,
     maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. Eph 4:16

That is the ONE ONES which defines the actual ASSEMBLY to which the Lord's Supper was added as a TEACHING activity.

If everyone can take the pledge that they believe in the SEVEN ONES that still had absolutely NO EFFECT on whom anyone would fellowship.  It did NOT define anyone as a for FELLERSHIP (Oh, that gag word) who beat his wife or insisted on blowing a flute during the sermon (imposed c. 400) or song (imposed c. 400).

Those subscribing to the Shelly Seven Ones have systematically violated the direct EXCLUSION and INCLUSION demanded of Ephesians and have SAT DOWN the elders and deacons and become THE Pastor.  So don't ever believe that anyone pushing the seven ones does not have another six or seven before YOU can get on the dole.

[ole Jake]

So then, what we have here is that Campbell decided that his interpretation of one verse was to be the basis of uniting all the Protestants (thus re-producing the 1st century church?) because Campbell's interpretation of that one verse guaranteed the essentials of Protestantism.

Unity then to Campbell was to be achieved by others agreeing that Campbell had the authority to declare what was and was not essential.

Jake, Campbell (and his father ahead of him) believed that most orthodox Protestant churches already were in essential agreement on those "seven ones" already, because they all claimed them as indespensible items of faith-they just weren't "oficially" united in any kind of way. What divided them were, to quote TC, not the "postive ordinances of the gospel," but the myriad of peripheral non-essential items. They were basically majoring in minors. Campbell believed that all reasonably intelligent people could agree as to the important basics, the essentials, of Christianity. They were free to disagree on the rest of it. So that, as Dr. Richardson clarified, their aim was for all practical purposes, a generalization of Christianity that would look for and highlight that common ground all orthodox Protestant sects already shared.

Pax.

What is an 'orthodox' Protestant church? Is that one that adheres fiercely to sola fide? One that is as anti-free will as both Luther and Calvin?

How would Campbell, pere or fils, or Stone, know for certain which were the essential matters and which were the peripheral matters? If Campbell declared 'majors' and 'minors,' then Campbell acted as if he were Pope and Magisterium.

[blituri]

Rogers makes it clear that Stone was connected with these "strange exercises" only in his "early history." He also explains why Stone is believed by some historians to have hindered the restoration movement among some groups--

http://www.piney.com/RmAwak3.html

"As the bodily agitations which have appeared in association with Christianity, in various periods of the history of the church, have been the subject of much speculation; and as the early history of B. W. Stone is intimately connected with these strange exercises, as they appeared in this western country in the beginning of the present century, I have concluded to devote a chapter to this subject. I am the more disposed to do this, because the facts in the case have been misrepresented; and especially because an effort has been made to cast odium upon the reformation efforts of B. W. Stone, on account of their connection with these strange developments as if they were new things under the sun, and were to be regarded as the legitimate offspring of what his opposers considered the wild vagaries of B. W. Stone and his co-adjutors." (Stone Biography, p. 348)

However, it is true that Stone studied the Methodist's technique and returned to Cane Ridge and reproduced them.

This connection runs down through history and was considered witchcraft or madness in may places including Corinth. Because Stone was tainted the Baptists failed to flow into certain wings of the church.

B.F. Hall notes "On the 15th of May, A. D. 1825, I was, by prayer and imposition of hands, ordained by the venerated B. W. Stone and others".. in Missouri

Then Hall reports on a preaching trip into Middle Tennessee undoubtedly preaching Stone doctrine with the same failures which Stone noted from trying to get people to have an experience--

"Early in the summer of that same year (1825), I returned and preached through Middle Tennessee and Northern Alabama. We had many camp meetings that fall. It was a season of much religious interest. It was no uncommon thing, at a camp-meeting, to see from ten to fifty weeping sinners at the anxious seat, crying out for mercy. Being naturally sympathetic, I thought they were the most affecting, touching scenes I had ever witnessed. At many of those meetings I spent nearly the whole night singing, praying for, and trying to instruct weeping mourners how to obtain pardon. I would weep with those that wept, and rejoice with those that rejoiced.

"At one of those meetings, in the fall of 1825, an unusually large number were constantly at the anxious seat, weeping, and praying, and begging us to pray that God would have mercy upon them. Some found relief during the meeting; but the greater number remained uncomforted. At the close of the meeting, when about to leave for another meeting, a brother proposed that we sing a parting hymn, and the Christians first, and then the mourners, who had not found peace, should come forward and give the minister the parting hand.

When the broken hearted mourners came in a long line, weeping as if their hearts would break, I could sing no longer, but burst forth in a wail of anguish of soul. My pent-up grief found vent in a gush of tears. On the way to the next meeting, I said to a brother preacher:

"There is a wrong somewhere. Surely, we do not preach as the Apostles and first evangelists preached." (Rogers, p. 57-58).

Therefore, Hall seemed totally frustrated and went visiting family. He tells how he was led to the truth by Campbell through reading a book. He came across a copy of the Campbell-MacCalla debate and said: "I knew it would exactly fit and fill the vacant space. I was converted over; and was one of the happiest young converts you ever saw; happier than when I was converted the first time." Hall no longer held his Stone influenced conversion to be good enough and he, in effect, rejected Stone as an authority by rejecting his primary method of revival.

Hall then met with Stone but Stone rejected the teaching because it chilled the mourning which he saw as the work of the Holy Spirit. His preconception stood between his mind and the Bible. Or perhaps the universal principle that truth does not attract the masses was something he was not ready to accept.

Bypassing Stone, Hall baptized Samuel Rogers as the only preacher who did not oppose the idea. At this time, Hall moved a bit closer to the Biblical pattern and with Rogers was the only Stone preachers who were prepared to advance the Restoration cause.

Therefore, if we were looking for the "trail to the Old Paths" we should see that the restoration movement branched totally away from Stone's early views at this moment. In 1827 Hall preached in a meeting and if he baptized no one else, one convert went on to fan the flame. His new move toward restorationism led him to preach (note his spelling)--

Baptism for the remission of sins on Cyprus Creek, in Lauderdale county, Ala., on the Lord's-day night. Talbert Fanning was present and heard the discourse, was convinced of the truth, and, when the invitation was given came forward and made the good confession, and was immersed the next morning for the remission of sins." (Rogers, p. 60)

[Lee Freeman]

Ken, I know the history of how Hall came to see the necessity of baptism. But that wasn't my point. My point was/is that at the time Hall baptized Fanning, Hall was still a Stoneite evangelist (the Stoneites and Campbellites hadn't united yet), and in 1826 the Campbellites didn't offer invitations at the end of services. Stone's churches issued an invitation. So that's one way that Stone's views influenced Churches of Christ, admittedly a minor way (or maybe not, considering how some folks view the invitation), but still an influence.

And I think Richard Hughes argues convincingly that Stone's apocalyptic outlook influenced many evangelists in the Church of Christ.

And as I understand it, Stone was a bit put-off by the conversion experiences evidenced at Cane Ridge. What impressed him more was the non-sectarian preaching and the fact that he knew personally many of the converts who exhibited the strange exercises and that they remained faithful to Christ ever after. In Stone's later CM report of the Cane Ridge Revival, he says almost nothing about the exercises. They simply didn't occupy much of his thinking.

As for baptism, Stone's churches, while believing adult immersion was the only scriptural baptism, nevertheless originally left it up to individuals whether or not to be baptized; however he wrote in the CM that by 1827 nearly every adult member in his churches had been baptized.

But if you'll remember, Alexander Campbell didn't equate the remission of sins with baptism until nearly 10 years after he began preaching immersion; and when the younger Campbell first informed his father that he was going to preach immersion, his father asked him not to, as it might be divisive and wreck their efforts at unity. Though both Campbells (and their family) were immersed, neither was ever baptized for the remission of sins-even after Campbell later discovered that doctrine and began preaching and debating it, he still refused to be rebaptized, on the grounds that there was no scriptural warrant for his doing so. In the 1830s Campbell challenged John Thomas' insistance that Baptist baptisms were invalid.



But my point remains that Stone's influence among Churches of Christ was/is much greater than you seem to think.

Pax.

[blituri]

And I think Richard Hughes argues convincingly that Stone's apocalyptic outlook influenced many evangelists in the Church of Christ

Because the word has been twisted out of shape and based on the mantra that Campbell was "Apocalyptic" my bet is that Hughes does not know what the word means.  I know that the opinions expressed by Hughes has often been used to hit the Church of Christ with psychological violence to assure us that we are the defects.

What I have read from the "ditto heads" is that Campbell was looking for the soon return of Christ to set up an earthly kingdom.  However, the only "Apocalyptic" sect existing at the time was the so-called Millerites which assuredly some of all groups believed.  Miller stirred up lots of people by setting the date of october 22, 1844.  However, in 1832 Alexander was aware of the millenial views.  From 1841 to 1843 he wrote against the possibility of a near return is very many of the prophecies were fulfilled.  He clearly believed that the Church was the kingdom set up by Jesus Christ and considers as figurative much of the views now pounded into a Major Industry.

http://www.piney.com/Second.Coming.Campbell.html

At the time of the agreement to disagree in 1932 they were called Reforming Baptists

Stone died in 1844 before any of the major divisive issues arose. In May, 1834 he was still distinctly ANTI-reformers did repudiate the Reformers for daring to introduce the weekly Lord's Supper which was divisive but authorized by the Bible and early church history. Therefore, his LAWS OF UNITY would not let you add the weekly Lord's Supper even if a large percentage believed it to be COMMANDED.

It seems that the seven ones does NOT define how you conduct any of the functions of an assembly: Shelly etal would ask that you please NOT use anything beyond the 7 so that THEY can have the "liberty" to go beyond being minimalists even if it intends to sow discord.  That means that Jesus Christ gets to define the basis of FORCED UNITY but has nothing to say about what you do when you get unioned.  Pretty slick: did I tell you that all sacrificial music was to "force the lambs to be silent before the slaughter priest?"

[Lee Freeman]

Ken, check your history again. Most early leaders in the Disciples of Christ were millennarians of one stripe or the other. Why do you think Campbell named his second paper the Millennial Harbinger?

From the "Prospectus" of the Millennial Harbinger Vol. I:

THIS work shall be devoted to the destruction of Sectarianism, Infidelity, and Antichristian doctrine and practice. It shall have for its object the developement, and introduction of that political and religious order of society called THE MILLENNIUM, which will be the consummation of that ultimate amelioration of society proposed in the Christian Scriptures.


Campbell was very occupied with the millennium. So much so that, not only did he name his second paper to draw attention to its near advent, but he wrote many articles, including a series entitled "Millennium."

From "Millenmnium No. 1," MH, Mon., Feb. 1, 1830:

ALL the promises do travail and are burthened with a glorious day of grace. The nations of this world are all to become the kingdoms of our King--they are all to submit to his government, and to feel the benign and blissful influences of his sceptre. This is the expectation of almost all the saints now living, as it was the expectation and the prayer of all those who have fallen asleep. The present essay proposes not to enter closely nor minutely into the developement of the promises nor the prophecies relating to what is usually called "the Millennium." This we propose to do with great deliberation and with much detail. But we must approach it cautiously and gradually. We wish to discriminate and to draw the line accurately between what is certain and what is conjectural upon this subject. We shall, then, in the present essay, attend to the following items:--

To purge christianity, so called, of every thing extraneous, is more than half the work requisite to restore the ancient order of things. For as God has nothing better to propose to the world than what he proposed some 2000 years ago, all that the world needs to its happiness, and all that is necessary to bring us into the millennial enjoyments, will be to have the ancient gospel and the ancient order of things clearly, fully, and faithfully propounded to us. I know at least a thousand men so much improved by the ancient gospel, that all that is necessary to the enjoyment of the millennial glory and felicity, is to get a majority of society, or, if you please, mankind generally, as much under its influence as this thousand, in order to have glory to God in the highest, peace on earth, and good will among men.

So Campbell was looking for the advent of the millennium. All that was necessary to enjoy the "millennial glory" was the proclamation of the gospel and the unity of the church. And its obvious from the above that for Campbell, the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven was NOT the church, but was, as Christ himself said in the gospels, the rule of God on earth.

But other early Stone-Campbell fathers also embraced Millennial views. For example, Walter Scott, under the penname "Philip," wrote a series for Campbell in the CB. In his "On the Millennium No. 1" from the CB of July 6, 1826, Scott/Philip wrote:

Thirdly, Mankind having nearly exhausted the limits allotted to them for pursuits purely physical and political, and having, by dint of long experiences learnt the inefficiency of commerce and war to secure happiness, are now deeply inspired with a premonition of some great and incomprehensible change, the present nature of which time alone can fully clear up. This is the millennial or evangelical age of the world; during, which the human race will enjoy great happiness, and that third order of relations which have been revealed as subsisting between men and their Creator and Redeemer, shall be fully investigated, developed, and enjoyed.

But in his own publications Scott also addressed the millennium:

From Walter Scott's "The Second Aventists," Protestant Unionist of Nov. 6, 1844:

After the most careful examination of the prophecies, we have never been able to see with some other men, that the day, or hour, or year of Christ's coming and kingdom could be infallibly ascertained from Scripture. Yet we have long been of opinion, that as articles of Christian doctrine, these grand themes have been unwarrantably neglected. We have therefore to the utmost limits of our christian liberality, listened calmly to, and, we trust, judged impartially of, all that our Second Advent brethren have written and spoken of the matter.

So Scott says that while nobody should try to set a precise date for the advent of the milennium, the theme itself should not be neglected.

From the PU of Wed., June 23, 1847:

The reader will find on our first page a letter from Charles Beecher, addressed to the Editor of the Advent Herald. We advert to it principally on account of the excellent spirit manifested by the writer, who, though not a Millerite (we use not the word with the slightest degree of disrespect) is a Millenarian. We drop a word on this subject for another reason, namely: to say that it even affords us a real gratification to see the faithful and pure of that portion of the Protestant community treated with affection and respect, for as prophecy, history and the voice of the church concur in affirming that the crisis of the Millennial age is at hand, it will not be denied that the Second Adventists as they choose to be called, have at least given, to that great event, in the minds of the thinking portion of the Church who were prudent enough to hear them and keep pace with their developments, a relief and fixedness which it did not antecedently possess. The clamor about 1813 is long hushed into obmutescence; the exultation of the Adventists has sunken into the gloom of disappointment; the swollen public excitement has burst, and by the inexorable law of re-action, has been followed and superseded by a proportionate recklessness and apathy. It ought however be remembered that while the errors of the Adventists have receded into the past their greatest thought--the "second coming" of Christ is still before us; and stands singled out from other truth for public contemplation. It may now be said with special emphasis, we apprehend, "the Lord is at hand."

Scott plainly says that "the crisis of the Millennial age is at hand." And, despite the errors of the calculations of the Adventists regarding Christ's imminent retrun, Scott says that "their greatest thought--the "second coming" of Christ is still before us; and stands singled out from other truth for public contemplation. It may now be said with special emphasis, we apprehend, "the Lord is at hand."

The venerable Moses Lard was also a millennarian, as can be seen from the following excerpt from his article "A Theory of the Millennium," from Lard's Quarterly, October, 1865:

On one point, and that, too, the very point on which the reader is almost certain to feel most the want of light, I have no theory to advance; namely, the time when the millennium is to commence. In this our views will be felt to be decidedly defective. We do not know that it is proper to regret the circumstance; hence, we shall not do it. That time we believe to be indeterminate, especially to any high degree of certainty, and mere conjectures would be of no value. This much, however, we may add, that the world is living in the expectation that some momentous religious event will transpire between the present date and the year 1870. But this expectation is looking specifically to the overthrow of the "Man of Sin;" and we are free to say, we can not see how, according to dates found in the Word of God, that tremendous crash can be postponed much longer. Our prayer is, that the day may be at hand. Now, of one thing we feel somewhat assured, that soon after the catastrophe of the "lawless one" will begin to happen that series of events which is immediately precedent to the millennium. Of some of these events we shall have occasion to speak soon. How long it may take to complete that series we have no means of knowing. Our persuasion is, that the time will be short. Should such be the case, then it falls not beyond the limit of probability, that there are those now living who shall never see death, but who shall live to see the gorgeous day of the millennium ushered in. If such be thy will, O Lord, count us among that number! But from these hints let no one accuse us of attempting, except contingently, to determine even proximately the time when the millennium is to begin. We have a feeling, we call it not a faith, but a feeling; and of that feeling we can give no account, except that we are as distinctly conscious of it as we are of the love of life - we repeat, we have a feeling that the day in question may be nearer at hand than the world in its drowsy mood is dreaming of. This feeling itself is somewhat distinct, the enormous object which excites it is less so; but how near to us, or how far from us, that object may be, we have no more means of determining than we have of measuring the distance between us and the spectre which strides across our path when shrouded in the fallacious mists of the sea. Of this we are sure, that the object itself is real; only it approaches us in an atmosphere so hazy as to impart incertitude to our faith, and, it may be, to disappoint our expectations. Still, in patience and in hope we shall await the disclosures of the future. . . .

The notion, so very prevalent, that the Christian's future home lies away in some immeasurably distant region, is only a vulgar error. No foundation whatever exists for it. God built this earth for man, and he does not intend to be defeated in his purpose. Nothing can be weaker than to suppose that the Saviour will rebuild, out of the old material, a new earth, and then leave it to float in space without an occupant. Such will not be the case. The earth in its renewed form will be man's everlasting dwelling-place. On it will stand the New Jerusalem, the true city of the Great King, and the home of God's ransomed children. Here amid the splendors of that grand fane shall they spend the cycles of eternity.

Lard says that, while he is not comfortable setting a date for the Lord's return and the advent of the millennium, he feels "that the day in question may be nearer at hand than the world in its drowsy mood is dreaming of." And Christians will then live in the earthly new Jerusalem on the earth, "in its renewed form."


Gradually however, many leaders in the Stone-Campbell Movement backed off their earlier millennial speculations. For example, in May of 1842, Barton W. Stone, in the Christian Messenger wrote that "the subject of prophecies has too much engrossed the attention of our periodicals, and our brethren in general," and that he intended to avoid any further discussion "on that subject in the Messenger."

After Miller's failure Walter Scott gradually reverted back to his earlier postmillennialism.

As for Campbell, though himself being post-millennial, he was neverheless originally impressed with Miller. However by 1856 Campbell was very frankly ccalling the Millerites "Bastard Millennarians." In 1834 Campbell started arguing against premillennialism via a series of articles titled "The Millennium," in which Campbell urged his readers to study the arguments of both premillennialism and postmillenialism before choosing, and made his own postmillenial views apparent. Campbell was most decidely a postmillennialist. In the Millennial Harbinger Campbell wrote several articles on the mistakes of Miller.

Pax.

[blituri]

Now, find us some information that Campbell ever thought of a literal second coming where Jesus would dwell and establish his literal kingdom: that is the meaning of PreMillenialism.  I know some people of the change movement who were absolutely convinced that if they could get everyone uninionized and jubilated they would ENABLE Jesus to set up a literal kingdom.

If you read the Second Coming you will see Campbell aware that the kingdom HAD been established as the church and that Jesus was NOW sitting on His throne and ruling HIS SECTOR of the world.  It was a sign that he lacked knowledge of human nature and that the overwhelming majority of religionism in all ages has been ANTI-christian in content.  Because the SECTARIAN pastors are mercinary any hope that all of them would agree to quit living off private opinions was a noble goal but no one can believe that he expected his projected goals to be met.

There is no premilllenialism other than Amillenialism which is not identified by a LITERAL second advent based on the premise that the first advent failed and Jesus high tailed it back to heaven to await a better shot.  You would be lucky if He had named it PREmillennial Harbinger :-)

It would be pretty bad stuff to accuse Campbell of that:  I think the Millenniel was added to attract attention to REPUDIATE Millerism.  As I posted, Campbell was repudiating a literal earthly reign long before Miller came on the scene because it was a common error.  As a Calvinist, Baptists, Presbyterian or Methodist everyone would have been steeped in DENYING that Jesus had the power to do what he came to do.  And so you COULD accuse Campbell of lots of errors before he stumbled on the notion that the Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice.  He was also UNIQUE with respect to the Anglican Wing in being able to read that Jesus DID establish His kingdom and will never reign other than in a NEW HEAVEN and a NEW EARTH which he thought figurative.

Besides, the Campbells etal are dead and you cannot prove any Biblical doctrine based on what someone believed. I never heard of the Campbells until I was Post Navy and in College.  I never heard anything from the Bible validated by an appeal to ANY preacher--very few of whom were on the dole when I grew up.

I am reading Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg where he documents the eternal mantra of the Liberal Facists to label conservatives as Nazis or Pharisees: pretty slick trick.  The methods of the hireling-changelings can be read almost verbatim from Machiavelli or Hitler:

"When the Nazis pursued and ANTI- movement or a people's community" the aim was to transcend class differences, but only within the confines of the cummunity.  "We have endeavored," Hitler explained, "to depart from the external, the superficial, endeavored to forget social origin, class, profession, fortune, etucation, capital and everything that separates men, in order to reach that which binds them together."  In a perversely ironic way, the Nazi pitch was often crafted in the same spirit as liberal sentiments."

Shelly, Garrett said it UNITY IN DIVERSITY which meant YOU forget your diversities and JOIN with us even if you think we are ANTI-Bible and practice pagan worship.   You don't know a single urger of UNITY who does not mean YOU affirm our  sowing deliberate discord to become a MUSIC SECT, or you CONFORM to OUR practices. That is pretty Nazi to me.

As it turns out when YOU give up your beliefs based on the Bible for the beliefs of the OPINIONATOR and join his Community Church (defined in terms of commune), unity only applies to those WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.  Sure sounds like Stone and the modern false teachers urging everyone to return and RESTORE THE RESTORATION but only on the terms of false teachers such as Garrett and Hughes.  As Hitler would say, everyone gets a car, free health coverage, free education, a CUT of the profits of the local department story but EVERYONE is defined as THE RACE.  That's exactly what the Unity in Diversity people mean.  You will never find in history any more hatred poured out upon those who refused to "Rise up to Play" and will always refuse as the NACC only captured less than a dozen already fellow travellers out of over 13000.  I think that is a vote for MY side.  If I couldn't seduce more than that I would do the Judas Maneuver.

[Lee Freeman]

Now, find us some information that Campbell ever thought of a literal second coming where Jesus would dwell and establish his literal kingdom: that is the meaning of PreMillenialism.  I know some people of the change movement who were absolutely convinced that if they could get everyone uninionized and jubilated they would ENABLE Jesus to set up a literal kingdom.

From the Millennial Harbinger "Extra," August, 1833:


                                                   PHYSICAL REGENERATION.

      Our mortal bodies are yet to feel the regenerating power of the Son of God. This is emphatically called "the glory of his power." "The redemption of the body" from the bondage of corruption, is the consummation of the new-creating energy of him who has immortality. Life and incorruptibility were displayed in and by his resurrection from the dead. It was great to create man in the image of God, greater to redeem his soul from general corruption, but greatest of all to give to his mortal frame incorruptible and immortal vigor. The power displayed in the giving to the dead body of the Son of God incorruptible glory and endless life, is set forth by the Apostle Paul as incomparably surpassing every other divine work within the reach of human knowledge. He prays that the mind of Christians may be enlarged to apprehend this mighty power--that the Father of glory would open their minds, "that they might know the exceeding greatness of his power in relation to us who believe--according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places." Faith in this wonderful operation of God--hope for the riches of the glory of the inheritance of the saints in light, are the most powerful principles of action which God has ever planted in the human breast. This is the transcendent hope of the Christian calling, which imparted such heroic courage to all the saints of eternal renown. This better resurrection in prospect, has produced heroes which make cowards of all the boasted chiefs of worldly glory. As the magnetic needle ever points to the pole, so the mind influenced by this hope ever rises to the skies, and terminates on the fulness of joy and the pleasures forevermore, in the presence and at the right hand of God.

      To raise a dead body to life again, is not set forth as more glorious than by a touch to give new vigor to the palsied arm, to impart sight to the blind, or hearing to the deaf; but to give that raised body the deathless vigor of incorruptibility, to renovate and transform it in all its parts, and to make every spirit feel that it reanimates its own body that is as insusceptible of decay, as immortal as the Father of eternity, is a thought overwhelming to every mind, a development which will glorify the power of God, as the sacrifice of his Son now displays his righteousness, faithfulness, and love to the heavens and to the earth.

      This new birth from the dark prison of the grave, is fitly styled "the redemption of the body" from bondage, "the glorious liberty of the sons of God." As in our watery grave the old man is figuratively buried to rise no more, so in the literal grave, the prison of the body, we leave all that is corrupt; for he that makes all things new will raise us up in his own likeness, and present us before his Father's face in all the glory of immortality. Then will regeneration be complete. Then will be the full revelation of the sons of God. Immortality, in the sacred writings, is never applied to the spirit of man. It is not the doctrine of Plato which the resurrection of Jesus proposes. It is the immortality of the body of which his resurrection is a proof and pledge. This was never developed till he became the first born from the dead, and in a human body entered the heavens. Jesus was not a spirit when he returned to God. He is not made the Head of the New Creation as a Spirit, but as the Son of Man. Our nature in his person is glorified; and when he appears to our salvation, we shall be made like him: we shall then see him as he is. This is the Christian hope.

                                            "A hope so great and so divine
                                                May trials well endure,
                                             And purify the soul from sense and sin,
                                                As Christ himself is pure."

      Thus matters stand in the economy of redemption. Thus the divine scheme of regeneration is consummated: the moral part, by the operation of moral means; the physical part, by the mighty power of God operating through physical means. By the word of his power he created the heavens and the earth; by the word of his grace he reanimates the soul of man; and by the word of his power he will again form our bodies anew, and reunite the spirit and the body in the bonds of an incorruptible and everlasting union. Then shall death "be swallowed up forever."

                                         "Where now thy victory, boasting grave?"

    But for this we must patiently wait. "We know not what we shall be." We only know, that when he appears we shall be like him; that we shall see him as he is.

                                                                                                              A. C

From the Millennial Harbinger "Extra," August, 1833:                         



                                 REGENERATION OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.

      The Bible begins with the generations of the heavens and the earth; but the Christian revelation ends with the regeneration or new creation of the heavens and the earth. This is the ancient promise of God, confirmed to us by the Christian Apostles. The present elements are to be changed by fire. The old or antediluvian earth was purified by water; but the present earth is reserved for fire, with all the works of man that are upon it. It shall be converted into a lake of liquid fire. But the dead in Christ will have been regenerated in body before the old earth is regenerated by fire. The bodies of the saints will be as homogeneous with the new earth and heavens as their present bodies are with the present heavens and earth. God re-creates, regenerates, but annihilates nothing; and therefore the present earth is not to be annihilated. The best description which we can give of this regeneration, is in the words of one who had a vision of it on the island of Patmos. He describes it as far as is connected with the New Jerusalem, which is to stand upon the new earth, under the canopy of the new heaven. As the natural close of our essay on regeneration, we shall transcribe the picture of this new earth and the New Jerusalem, drawn by the direction of that Spirit to whom the future is as intelligible as the past:--

      "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth were passed away; and the sea was no more. And I, John, saw the holy city, the New Jerusalem, descending from God out of heaven, prepared like a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven, saying, Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall pitch his tent among them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be among them--their God. And he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more, nor grief, nor crying; nor shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." . . .

      "And he brought me in the Spirit to a great and high mountain; and he showed me the city, the holy Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God; (its lustre was like to that of a precious gem, even as a jasper stone, clear as crystal;) having a great and high wall; having also twelve gates, and over the gates twelve angels, and names written upon them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel: on the east, three gates; on the north, three gates; on the south, three gates; and on the west, three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations; and on them the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb. And he that spoke with me had a golden reed that he might measure the city, and its gates, and wall. And the city is square, and its length is equal to its breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs; and its length, and its breadth, and its height are equal. And he measured its wall, one hundred and forty-four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel. And the wall was built of jasper, and the city was pure gold, like refined [483] glass. And the foundations of the walls of the city were adorned with every precious stone. The first foundation is jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, crysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprasus; the eleventh, hyacinth; and the twelfth, amethyst. And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: each of the gates was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass. And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it; for the glory of the Lord enlightened it, and the Lamb is the light of it. And the nations of the saved shall walk in its light; and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and their honor into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut by day, (for there shall be no night there.) And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. And nothing unclean shall enter into it, nor any thing which practices abomination and falsehood; but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life." . . .

      "And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, issuing out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb. In the midst of the broad street, and on each side of the river, was the tree of life, producing twelve kinds of fruit--producing its fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. And every curse shall cease. And the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him. And they shall see his face; and his name shall be borne upon their foreheads. And there shall be no more night; and they have no need of a lamp, nor of the light of the sun; because the Lord God shall enlighten them; and they shall reign for ever and ever."

                                                                                                             A. C.

Pax.

[blituri]

The Bible begins with the generations of the heavens and the earth; but the Christian revelation ends with the regeneration or new creation of the heavens and the earth. This is the ancient promise of God, confirmed to us by the Christian Apostles. The present elements are to be changed by fire. The old or antediluvian earth was purified by water; but the present earth is reserved for fire, with all the works of man that are upon it. It shall be converted into a lake of liquid fire

That would exclude a literal Jerusalem and a literal temple.

Both pre and post millenialism claim that Christ will return to the LITERAL earth as it exists and humanoids will rebuild the literal temple in literal Jerusalem to enable the return of Christ. He will rule in literal Jerusalem and ride a literal white horse.  This is not what Campbell taught and the Bible clearly shows that the present earth will pass away with fire.



Whereever you put the millennium block the LITERAL is still there.  If God turns the earth into a molten mass or not, the only millenialism theory that makes sense is Amillenialism.

Much of the Book of Revelation speaks for the people THEN LIVING to show the radical contrast between the pagan, ceremonial legalism and the EKKLESIA where after the sorcerers as speakers, singers and instrument players have their candles removed and thus declared the ANTI-ekklesia, Jesus will send his messengers with the FREE WATER OF THE WORD.

Because Jacob promised a Curse on the tribe of Levi and commanded that we not attend their assemblies, and because the hireling-changlings are actively promoting a SECTARIAN system based on Levitical music (exorcism noise), Revelation 22 has John pointing to the religion of the Greeks as the END TIME fulfillment.  As the Alpha and Omega Jesus Christ provides all of the WORDS for His ekklesia.

Here are some quick notes which links to the paganism John used as a bad example.  Whatever one thinks of it, a study of the pagan religionism should give anyone pause before they become an ENABLER of those who lie to RESTORE what is clearly paganism.  It is a working document for now:

http://www.piney.com/Revelation.22.html