What is the Restoration Movement?

[MrJim]

I saw this and was wondering what it was all about.

[Jim Woodell]

I saw this and was wondering what it was all about.

You can research this question by looking up the Stone/Campbell Movement.

The Restoration Movement is a term used to describe an attempt to go beyond protesting existing denominations and "restoring" the NT Church by taking the Bible and the Bible only to find the pattern of NT Christianity. A popular slogan of this movement is, "We speak where the Bible speaks; and we are silent where the Bible is silent." Call Bible things by Bible names, etc.

One appeal is that you can be a Christian only (like Peter, Paul, James, John, and all of those in the first century). You belong to the Church that Jesus built and no other (Matt. 16:18-19). You become a member of the Church of Christ by placing you full faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, turning from your sin in repentance, and putting on the Lord in water Baptsim (John 8:24;Luke 13:3;Gal. 3:26-27; Mark 16:15-16).

Hope this helps.

[MrJim]

Sounds good. How do the congregations identify themselves? I mean, how would I find a group locally?

[MrJim]

I googled and found Church of Christ as primary representative of Restoration Mvmt. Would you agree with this?

Interesting story. When my mother came back to Christ she asked her brother (my Uncle) where she should go to church. Now their father was a baptist minister (long since dead). Her brother was SDA. He said if she wasn't going to go to SDA church then she'd have to go CoC since they were the only other group of believers that "seriously followed the Bible".

[Jim Woodell]

I googled and found Church of Christ as primary representative of Restoration Mvmt. Would you agree with this?

Interesting story. When my mother came back to Christ she asked her brother (my Uncle) where she should go to church. Now their father was a baptist minister (long since dead). Her brother was SDA. He said if she wasn't going to go to SDA church then she'd have to go CoC since they were the only other group of believers that "seriously followed the Bible".

I don't think I would personally agree with the statement that, "The Church of Christ is the primary representative of the Restoration Movement." The Christian Church, which differs with the Church of Christ on the view and practice of instrumental music, is about the same in number as the Church of Christ. Actually the Church of Christ started out as a "unity movement" and later moved toward "restoration." In the beginning people were invited to be Christians only. Later some came to believe those identified with the Church of Christ were the only Christians. Quite a difference.

You can find a Church of Christ by looking at the Church of Christ Directory on the web, or by looking in your local phone book. You will be encouraged to take your Bible and investigate the scripturalness of the group you meet with. Churches of Christ are independent and self-ruled, so you will find minor differences from congregation to congregation. Some are ultra-conservative and others are not.

Although I do agree, for the most part, that Churches of Christ are serious about following the Bible, I do not believe they are the only group that is. Personally I think the SDA are off on their view of sabbath keeping also.

[rider2]

If you want to further information about the modern day Restoration movement and it's leaders, read Dave Hunts book, "What Ever Happened to Heaven".
This modern movement and it's steering leaders of today, hold quite a different theology view than those of early Christianity.
Hunt's book may be out of print by now, but well worth trying to find and read.

[MrJim]

I check it out

[HeyHomie]

Sounds good. How do the congregations identify themselves? I mean, how would I find a group locally?

You don't tell us where you are; that's going to make a pretty big difference. We're pretty active in the Midwest (especially Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri and Kentucky), somewhat active in the West (like, say, west of Kansas), almost unheard of in the Deep South (Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia) and New England, and we're all over Florida.

If the Restoration Movement had an organizational heirarchy and a "capitol," our "Rome" would probably be Cincinnati.

Anyway, most of our churches are named geographically. If it's the only congregation in town, it will be called "[Whatever Town] Christian Church" or "[Whatever Town] Church of Christ." If there's more than one congregation in town, it's usually name for the street or part of town. "South Side Christian Church," "State Street Christian Church," etc. We're not very imaginative. :sick:

[WesWoodell]

... almost unheard of in the Deep South (Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia) and New England, and we're all over Florida.


You sure about that? I've seen a whole bunch of CoC's in those states.

[HeyHomie]

You sure about that? I've seen a whole bunch of CoC's in those states.

I was talking about my branch of the RM, the Christian Chruch.

[WesWoodell]

Oh. :)

[mazbeth]

You're forgetting about the 'Restoration Movement' in the U.K. which is nothing to do with the denomination called Churches of Christ.
Check out (Google)
Terry Virgo
Bryn and Keri Jones
and others...from the 70's and 80's..

''Putting on Christ'' through water baptism?...hmmm

[Jim Woodell]

You're forgetting about the 'Restoration Movement' in the U.K. which is nothing to do with the denomination called Churches of Christ.
Check out (Google)
Terry Virgo
Bryn and Keri Jones
and others...from the 70's and 80's..

''Putting on Christ'' through water baptism?...hmmm

I don't believe these historically overlap, but I would be glad to hear more about it.

[Oxygen]

I think that a lot of the reason we don't see Christian Churches here in the south is that most of them merged with the UCC in 1957. I can't be sure. Here in Texas, we do have a lot of Churches of Christ, and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), but I have yet to see any Christian Churches. Would you happen to have a URL for the Christian Churches??? Maybe a sight with a directory??? I would be very interested in learning about them.

Oh...I just had a great idea!!! Could someone start a sticky thread with links to Restoration Movement websites. These would include: Church directories, Apologetics, Ministries, etc. I would love to have a resource like that.

[ischus]

Here is one of my favorite sites for the sticky: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/index.html

[haya]

Please please excuse my ignorance and I really hope this isn't offensive, but I'm wondering if you all know about this so-called "Church of Christ" or if you're in the same group...

When I was in university we had a known cult on campus which was called "the International Church of Christ." I knew a guy who got recruited as a freshman and had a horrible 1st semester because of it (they shook up his faith & had him questioning his salvation & his family's salvation for not having been part of the ICC). Thankfully he got out after only just a semester, and then he joined InterVarsity (IVCF) which is how I met him.

Here's a link (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i02.html) I just found about it.

[ischus]

Please please excuse my ignorance and I really hope this isn't offensive, but I'm wondering if you all know about this so-called "Church of Christ" or if you're in the same group...

When I was in university we had a known cult on campus which was called "the International Church of Christ." I knew a guy who got recruited as a freshman and had a horrible 1st semester because of it (they shook up his faith & had him questioning his salvation & his family's salvation for not having been part of the ICC). Thankfully he got out after only just a semester, and then he joined InterVarsity (IVCF) which is how I met him.

Here's a link (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i02.html) I just found about it.

hello :)

The ICC and the Church of Christ are not the same at all, although the ICC did have its roots among some very conservative Church of Christ leaders.

Here is a quote from the article you linked: "The ICC is an offshoot of the mainline Church of Christ denomination, whose name it has usurped. The mainline Church of Christ has distanced itself from the movement."

That pretty much sums it up. But you might be interested in the fact that many of the ICC group (as the article stated) have repented from what they see as being a terrible theology mixed with a terrible ecclesiology and there are now some efforts of reconciliation between the Church of Christ and the ICC.

The Church of Christ is really moving into a period of reconciliation with several of the groups who have split off from them for one reason or another. It is in the early stages right now, but you might see a whole new face on the Restoration movement in five or ten years...

blessings to you,

ischus

[haya]

Thanks ischus -- sorry, I had only just skimmed that link that I posted, didn't read it through. Thank you for responding so kindly and for pointing out that quote!!!
Hmm, I ought to start reading more about this. It's very interesting. I am relieved that many people in the ICC have repented and that there is some reconciliation going on.

God bless,
-haya

[Praying4Peace]

How do the congregations identify themselves? I mean, how would I find a group locally?

Denominations

Christian Chruch (Disciples of Christ) disciples.org
Church of Christ/Independent Christian Churches
Church of Christ (non-instrumental)
Chruch of Christ (non-institutional)
International Chuch of Christ (Crossroads/Boston Movement)

Key Principles

Christianity should not be divided, Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ) intended the creation of one church.

Creeds divide, but Christians should be able to find agreement by standing on the Bible itself (from which all creeds are human expansions or constrictions) instead of on the opinions of men about the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible).

Ecclesiastical traditions divide, but Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian) should be able to find common ground by following the practice (as best as it can be determined) of the early church.

Names of human origin divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by using biblical names for the church (i.e., "Christian Church" or "Church of Christ" as opposed to "Methodist" or "Lutheran", etc.). It is in this vein that conservative members of the Churches of Christ object to the phrase "Stone-Campbell Movement".


source wikipedia.org

[TreysNana]

Perhaps this will help.


What Kind of Church Is This?



By LeRoy Lawson



One thing is certain–there is no shortage of churches. You can take your pick among the hundreds of different kinds, from the proud old denominations like the Episcopalian and Presbyterian to the newer, more energetic Assembly of God or Seventh Day Adventists, to say nothing of those amazingly numerous and various cults that keep springing up. In the midst of such diversity, what is special about our church? What kind of a church is it, anyway?

We answer paradoxically. The distinctive about this Christian church is that it has no distinctives. In fact we deliberately seek not to be different, because our goal is unity, not division. Christianity has suffered long enough from deep divisions separating denomination from denomination, Christian from Christian. When Jesus prayed “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us” (John 17:21),* He had us in mind. In the spirit of His prayer we seek unity with all others in Christ.

Obviously that desire is difficult to achieve. Human nature resists oneness. We seem to believe with Robert Frost that “good fences make good neighbors,” even though something within us “doesn’t love a wall, wants it down.” God desires unity, however, so it must be possible.

Christian churches and churches of Christ trace their modern origins to the early 19th-century American frontier, a period of militancy among denominations. America’s pioneers brought their deeply rooted religious convictions to the new land and perpetuated their old animosities. Presbyterian squared off against Anglican who defended himself against Baptist who had no toleration for Lutheran. A reaction to this mutual animosity was inevitable.

Our Roots
When it came, the reaction was spontaneous. A group of New England Christians broke out of denominationalism, announcing their intention to follow the Bible only. Another group in Kentucky, and still another in Pennsylvania, each independent of the others, felt the spirit of unity moving them to stand with, not against, fellow Christians. Under the leadership of minister Barton W. Stone, some Presbyterian leaders in Kentucky published The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery, putting to death their denominational connections. They said, “We will, that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large; for there is but one body, and one Spirit . . .”

The early leaders of what later came to be called the Restoration Movement believed unity in Christ was–and is–possible. To achieve it required letting go of human traditions and loyalties to dynamic personalities. Christ alone could be exalted. The ideal of the church that emerges from the pages of the New Testament must be the standard for today’s congregations.

While gratefully acknowledging their debt to great reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, and others, these “Christians only” believed their reforms remained unfinished. The only way to determine what the church should be and how Christians should behave is to study New Testament documents in which the churches of Christ are presented in splendor–and in shortcomings. While there is no single church that we should imitate, the ideal of the church as the body of Christ, the household of faith, the temple of the Holy Spirit, and the people of God is clearly pictured.

In a unity effort initially separated from the Stone movement, another Presbyterian minister, Thomas Campbell, published his now famous Declaration and Address in 1809. He had earlier migrated to Pennsylvania from his home in Ireland. While still there, he had grown restless with the strictures of his denomination. The Old-Light Anti-Burgher Seceder Presbyterian Church, a splinter of a split of a division in the denomination.

When he found the divisions caused by local grievances in Scotland separating Presbyterians in America, he rebelled. He would not exclude nonmembers of his denomination from Communion in his church. He was expelled from his presbytery. It was really a question of who fired whom, for by this time Campbell could not carry out policies he deplored.

His son Alexander, meanwhile, had reached similar conclusions in his studies in Ireland and Scotland and, when father and son were reunited in America in 1809, each embraced the other’s position. In time, the son surpassed the father as the leader of their unity movement.

In his Declaration, Thomas Campbell set forth principles that sound as modern as today to New Testament Christians:

That the church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures. . . .
That . . . there ought to be no schisms, no uncharitable divisions among [local congregations].
That . . . nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion; but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them, in the Word of God.
That . . . the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament church, and as perfect a rule of the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline, and government of the Old Testament church. . . .
That . . . [no] human authority [has] power to impose new commands or ordinances upon the church, which our Lord Jesus Christ has not enjoined.
There are more propositions, but these are enough to show Campbell’s unusual good judgment. From his day until now, millions of others have decided they also wanted to be Christians only, without the complications of denomination.

Our Position
How, then, shall we summarize what kind of church we are talking about? Perhaps the following terms will help.

[b]A Christian church
Our message is that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.” We require no other creed. He alone is Lord and Savior.
A church of Christ
The church belongs to Him. We have no authority to change the teachings, rewrite the rules, alter membership requirements, or usurp His place. The church is not a democracy.
A church seeking unity
Like the Campbells and Stone, members of this church seek to be one in Christ with all others He calls His own.
A church seeking to restore
As much as possible, we imitate the New Testament precedents. That is why our baptism is by immersion, our Communion is every Lord’s Day, our leaders are called elders, our preaching is about Christ, and our prayers are in Christ’s name. Even our church name is rooted in the earliest days, when disciples were called Christians and their congregations were often addressed as “churches of Christ.”
An apostolic church
The church, Ephesians 2:20 states, is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” Whatever we know about Christ and the church we learned from Jesus’ closest companions, the apostles.
A thinking church
In the same Ephesian letter, Paul prays that God will give a “Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. . . .” Christian faith demands the best our minds can give, so we are a studying church, seeking to apply biblical truth intelligently.
A feeling church
Ours is not a dryly intellectual approach to God, however. We rejoice and praise and pray and love and serve from the heart. We are unashamed of the gospel and not embarrassed to let our excitement be seen.
A sharing church
We share our faith and love with as many as we can reach and our possessions as persons who know that everything we have belongs to God to be used for His purposes.
A free church
We have no bishops or superintendents or national headquarters to determine local church policies. We elect our own leaders, call and support our own ministers, and decide where our mission money will go. We are not isolationists, though. Our congregations freely associate with one another to accomplish tasks too big for one church alone.
A growing church
We want to grow, because we are under Christ’s commission to disciple the world. We haven’t completed the task yet, so Christian churches and churches of Christ are renewing our commitment to go unto the ends of the earth, preaching and baptizing and teaching, until the whole world knows the one Lord of all.
LeRoy Lawson is the recently retired president of Hope International University, Fullerton, California. Adapted from The Family of God (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1980).

Used with permission of Christian Standard, copyright December 1, 2002. The Standard Publishing Company, Cincinnati, Ohio.

[TreysNana]

And if you're looking for a restoration movement church, try googling Christian Church search.

[knownbeforetime]

So, is the RM like it sounds? Starting over? Because, personally, I'm all for starting over. I'm sick of hearing "we were here first" from EO's and RC's. I think the issue of who has the oldest doctrines is stupid such as amillenialism. (Although, I think Paul preached a pre-trib rapture...) A few of you guys make it sound as if no one can have a new idea even 2,000 years after the ascension of Christ. The Lord says "Sing a new song" and a few of you respond by pulling out something written 500 years ago.

Sorry for the rant... Hope I wasn't harsh... at all...

The "family of churches" I belong to is New Frontiers International. Would this be considered part of the RM?

Luke, the gospel writer, would like my church. We meet in an old clinic...

[HeyHomie]

So, is the RM like it sounds? Starting over? Because, personally, I'm all for starting over. I'm sick of hearing "we were here first" from EO's and RC's. I think the issue of who has the oldest doctrines is stupid such as amillenialism. (Although, I think Paul preached a pre-trib rapture...) A few of you guys make it sound as if no one can have a new idea even 2,000 years after the ascension of Christ. The Lord says "Sing a new song" and a few of you respond by pulling out something written 500 years ago.

Sorry for the rant... Hope I wasn't harsh... at all...

The "family of churches" I belong to is New Frontiers International. Would this be considered part of the RM?

Luke, the gospel writer, would like my church. We meet in an old clinic...

Yeah, I'd say we're all about starting over. We don't claim to have any "we were here first" issues. We're trying to re-do Christianity as the Christians in the first century did it.

I've never heard of New Frontiers International, but looking at their website it's pretty obvious that they are not in any way connected with the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just different.

[Lawless]

Hello

[mazbeth]

Yes, N.F.I. are connected with the 'Restoration movement' from the 70's and 80's but they broke away (under Terry Virgo's leadership) from what some think was a more worrying part of it...

we were in it for about 3 and a half years until 3 years ago.
It's mainly based in the U.K, and Europe, and some Third world countries where they are doing great work...
but in the U.S. (where Terry lived and ministered for a few years in the early '90's) I think there are links with Charles Mahaney (People of Destiny??)

[breezynosacek]

So, in this desire for Unity, are they into ecuminism? In other words, do they or are they willing to confront false doctrines or do they embrace every tom, dick and harry who says they are christians?

[HeyHomie]

So, in this desire for Unity, are they into ecuminism? In other words, do they or are they willing to confront false doctrines or do they embrace every tom, dick and harry who says they are christians?

Anybody who comes into one of our churches is welcome to fellowship with us, partake of the Lord's Supper with us, etc. We don't have written creeds or any kind of "litmus test" for fellowship.

However, anyone who wants to be a teacher or a leader will very quickly find themselves answering to their congregation's elders if they teach false doctrine.

[mazbeth]

So, in this desire for Unity, are they into ecuminism? In other words, do they or are they willing to confront false doctrines or do they embrace every tom, dick and harry who says they are christians?

we could ask Jesus the same question...

John 17:23 May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me

I hope we know what His answer would be...in Word and spirit/Spirit.

[Legacyforlife]

Interesting in the church of christ people are clear
only problem is that it takes more to be a member of a church of christ than it does to have everlasting life John 6:47
that would concern me

You can research this question by looking up the Stone/Campbell Movement.

The Restoration Movement is a term used to describe an attempt to go beyond protesting existing denominations and "restoring" the NT Church by taking the Bible and the Bible only to find the pattern of NT Christianity. A popular slogan of this movement is, "We speak where the Bible speaks; and we are silent where the Bible is silent." Call Bible things by Bible names, etc.

One appeal is that you can be a Christian only (like Peter, Paul, James, John, and all of those in the first century). You belong to the Church that Jesus built and no other (Matt. 16:18-19). You become a member of the Church of Christ by placing you full faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, turning from your sin in repentance, and putting on the Lord in water Baptsim (John 8:24;Luke 13:3;Gal. 3:26-27; Mark 16:15-16).

Hope this helps.

[ReformedCharismatic]

The British RM, interestingly enough, like NFI, tends to be more Reformed (as in "Calvinist") and Charismatic (both of which seem pretty logical, if one is trying to start a New Testament style church, looking at Paul's theology and the early church's experience of the work of the Holy Spirit), where-in the US based RM tend to be both cessationalist (don't believe in the modern day gifts) and arminian (key word "FREE WILL"). So, even though the intention of both may be similar (restoration of the early church way of doing things), the way they panned out is almost polar opposite of one another. Personally, I'm a Christian with a very "reformed-charismatic" understanding of the Bible (see Terry Virgo, C.J. Mahaney, Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Sam Storms, & R. T. Kendall), even though I originally was exposed to the Gospel and "saved" in a Cambellite-style Church of Christ.
Good threat...very good thread.

[HeyHomie]

even though I originally was exposed to the Gospel and "saved" in a Cambellite-style Church of Christ.
Good threat...very good thread.

Why do you put "saved" in quotation marks? Do you believe that arminianism and cessasationalism automatically rule out salvation?

I hardly believe that one's beliefs on these points of doctrine are a litmus test for salvation in God's eyes. In fact, I'd say that 90% of the people in the pews on any given Sunday morning don't even know what those words mean.

[Phoebe Ann]

Let's bypass Jacob Arminius and John Calvin and look at what the Bible has to say on the subject of salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9

Salvation is not of ourselves. We don't deserve God's grace. Eternal life is referred to as a "free gift." Faith is also a gift. We can't give ourselves faith.

We hear the word of God and the Holy Spirit convicts us.

Romans 5:15

Matthew 16:17

John 6:37

Galatians 5:22

[DiscipleOfIAm]

Interesting discussions.

I must say, I have never considered the newer Church of Christ to be part of the RM. I grew up in an RM church and it was started as a Disciples of Christ Church, but became independant and is now "Christian Church". The CoC around here a little "cultish" for lack of a better word. They tend to believe if you are not a member of the CoC then you are not a true Christian.

I do agree with HeyHomie about 90% of people not knowing what these words mean. Probably more than that. Some ministers don't even know these subjects or know very little. I think the free gift we are able to receive is being read into too much. Trying to make more out of it than it is. Who cares who was here first or who's beliefs date back the farthest. God has no time, He is omnipresent. Follow the teachings of the Bible, not men, and you'll be okay.

God Bless

[ReformedCharismatic]

Oh, no - not at all. I don't believe it to be a litmus test of faith, and many of my best friends (and the best critics of philosophical calvinism - as opposed to biblical calvinism - are arminians, or at least non-calvinists) are not only non-calvinist, but some are anti-calvinism, and scholars! And, you are right - though at one time almost all of the Bible believing church were "Calvinists" (it's just a title - there are people that essentially taught the same regarding salvation as calvin long before him) - even Augustine of Hippo, and Luther (not most Lutherans, though, who's theology actually finds it's roots in Melanchthon) - nowadays Calvinists primarily exist only in conservative Presbyterian, Particular Baptist, and some rare charismatic denominations.

The reason I said "saved" is that sometimes it's hard to tell when someone's saved, and some people on this list would say that I was saved - if I discribed my spiritual journey - at that point in my life, and some wouldn't. Whether I was or not, to me, is not important - only that it's clear that at least the Holy Spirit had a grip on me at that point and at some point He taught me to trust int he Biblical Christ. You see, when I walked the aisle, I was anti-trinitarian, and didn't even think Jesus was divine - I thought he was only a human, filled with the power of God. But I did know one thing, in spite of all my questions, and doubts, I knew I was a sinner and that God did something in the life of that guy we call Jesus, and I knew that whatever it was, I needed it, and would do anything I had to do to follow that God.

Thanks for the question...



Why do you put "saved" in quotation marks? Do you believe that arminianism and cessasationalism automatically rule out salvation?

I hardly believe that one's beliefs on these points of doctrine are a litmus test for salvation in God's eyes. In fact, I'd say that 90% of the people in the pews on any given Sunday morning don't even know what those words mean.

[ShaneMark01]

Many struggle, or even create a difference between which view to choose...ARE WE CHOSEN, OR DO WE HAVE A CHOICE? I do not claim to be an expert or theologian (although even they can't be fully correct in doctrine), but I have an offer to put on the table.
1. We are chosen...scripture very clearly states that children of God are chosen/elected, and that salvation is not by works, it is the free gift of God.
2. Also, you have a choice...All may come...God desires that all men come to repentance...not just "some," not just "the elect."
The main point which I would like to make is that the apostle Paul never tried to explain what being chosen meant...he didn't go into gobbs of detail, he just simply says we are chosen. Many people steer completely to one side or the other, and think that the two aspects contradict eachother, when actually they don't. DO I BELIEVE IN PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION?? WELL SURE I DO, SCRIPTURE IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT IT...BUT ALSO...DO I BELIEVE THAT ALL MAY COME AND THAT WE HAVE A CHOICE?? YOU BET I DO. WHAT KIND OF A LOVING, COMPASSIONATE, GOD OF JUSTICE WOULD CHOOSE SOME TO GO TO HELL AND SOME TO NOT? WE MUST ACCEPT BOTH BY FAITH... WE DONT' HAVE TO TRY AND EXPLAIN IT. THE APOSTLE PAUL NEVER DID.
A final note to end on is this: Can you fully explain the Trinity??? Nope... but you accept that God exists in the Triune Godhead by faith, don't you??? :) The same goes for these issues regarding salvation.