Can someone please explain the Restoration Movement? [Archive]

View Full Version : Can someone please explain the Restoration Movement?

takijustin

29th January 2007, 02:10 AM

Thank you

WesWoodell

29th January 2007, 10:33 AM

This might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement

Its basically restoring the teachings of the first century church by using the Bible as our authoratative guide, while shying away from non-biblical traditions that have been added by men over the years.

AJB4

29th January 2007, 06:35 PM

The Restoration Movement uses sola scriptura as their guide for church worship and practises. It's pretty much a 'back-to-basics' approach. They (actually, we, because I'm for now a part of it) place heavy influence on water baptism and communion (Lord's Supper, Eucharist). They also use no other name for the church not given in the Bible. Of course, many Restoration Movement practises have become traditions in and of themselves anyway (for example, the 'Church of Christ' non-instrumental thing), but the motto is:

"In the essentials, unity, in the non-essentials, liberty" or something like that. Oh, there's also a saying that we are "Christians only, but not the only Christians". That's also an ancient Restoration Movement slogan. The idea that we are the 'one true church' and that all outside the RM are lost is a view held by only about 20% of its members, and was obviously an idea introduced by man, if the "Christians only, but not the only Christians" slogan is anything to go by.

HeyHomie

29th January 2007, 06:41 PM

Read the sticky at the top of the page.

yananthony

29th January 2007, 09:27 PM

AJB4

29th January 2007, 09:56 PM

EdmundBlackadderTheThird

29th January 2007, 09:56 PM

Hello all. I'm new on the forums and just bumping around to get familiar. Sounds like the Restoration Movement and New Reformation Ministries (our independent ministry newreformation.com) has a lot in common.

Though I was raised Christian, I've never been able to keep up with all the movements, denominations and "isms" among us. Is this restoration movement a non denominational thing or are denominations like Church of Christ part of it?

1. The CoC is not a denomination. The UCoC and the ICoC are denominations and the ICoC is a split from the CoC but the UCoC is not. The CoC are self governed and although they do have unity on quite a bit of doctrine they are not a denomination as a denomination has a central authority which the CoC lacks.

The RM has three major players.

1. The Church of Christ
2. The Christian Church
3. The Disciples of Christ

The only major difference between the first two is instrumental worship. Otherwise the CC and CoC are pretty much the same.

Many will argue the DoC left the RM when they became a denomination and while I agree with that assessment it is not how it is here on CF. So for the purposes of this forum the RM is the CoC (non-instrument, non-denom), the CoC (instrumental, non-denom), the CC (instrumental, non-denom), the DoC (instrumental, denomination).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_movement
The Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement (or simply, Restoration Movement) is a religious reform movement born in the early 1800s in the United States during the Second Great Awakening. Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell were leading figures of four independent movements with like principles who merged together into two religious movements of significant size. These churches have a total population of about 4,000,000 in the United States. Restorationism sought to renew the whole Christian church, on the pattern set forth in the New Testament, without regard to the creeds developed over time in Catholicism or Protestantism, which allegedly kept Christianity divided. Churches are now found throughout the globe, claiming to "concentrate on the essential aspects of the Christian faith, allowing for a diversity of understanding with non-essentials."

Key practices are the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper on the first day of each week, and a commitment to believer's baptism, initially submersion was in a river, stream, or lake most probably.

Many of the more conservative members of the Churches of Christ object to the phrase "Stone-Campbell Movement" as derogatory.

AJB4

29th January 2007, 10:00 PM

1. The CoC is not a denomination. The UCoC and the ICoC are denominations and the ICoC is a split from the CoC but the UCoC is not. The CoC are self governed and although they do have unity on quite a bit of doctrine they are not a denomination as a denomination has a central authority which the CoC lacks.

The RM has three major players.

1. The Church of Christ
2. The Christian Church
3. The Disciples of Christ

The only major difference between the first two is instrumental worship. Otherwise the CC and CoC are pretty much the same.

Many will argue the DoC left the RM when they became a denomination and while I agree with that assessment it is not how it is here on CF. So for the purposes of this forum the RM is the CoC (non-instrument, non-denom), the CoC (instrumental, non-denom), the CC (instrumental, non-denom), the DoC (instrumental, denomination).
The CoC technically is a denomination. Just because it doesn't have a headquarters or government form. It's a church, with a name, started in 1802, therefore it's a denomination.

EdmundBlackadderTheThird

29th January 2007, 10:23 PM

The CoC technically is a denomination. Just because it doesn't have a headquarters or government form. It's a church, with a name, started in 1802, therefore it's a denomination.

Then all churches are denominations. A denomination has a central governing authority which the CoC does not.

4 : a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

This is the Webster's definition that would apply and since there are many factions (one cuppers, anti-Sunday school, instrumental, non-instrumental, non-institutional, premillennialist, and so on) they are not a denomination.

AJB4

29th January 2007, 10:29 PM

^ OK point taken. I don't really like that word anyway. It's always used with negative connotations.

Of course, in the view of the hard-liners, the CoC was started in Jerusalem, 33AD ^_^

yananthony

31st January 2007, 02:21 PM

1. The CoC is not a denomination. The UCoC and the ICoC are denominations and the ICoC is a split from the CoC but the UCoC is not. The CoC are self governed and although they do have unity on quite a bit of doctrine they are not a denomination as a denomination has a central authority which the CoC lacks.

The RM has three major players.

1. The Church of Christ
2. The Christian Church
3. The Disciples of Christ

The only major difference between the first two is instrumental worship. Otherwise the CC and CoC are pretty much the same.

Many will argue the DoC left the RM when they became a denomination and while I agree with that assessment it is not how it is here on CF. So for the purposes of this forum the RM is the CoC (non-instrument, non-denom), the CoC (instrumental, non-denom), the CC (instrumental, non-denom), the DoC (instrumental, denomination).
Thanks Edmund. I appreciate you taking the time to give me such an informed answer. And thanks to AJB4 too.

Hockley

10th February 2007, 03:30 AM

I grew up in the CofC and have since worhipped with both other streams within the Campbell-Stone movement, have stuidied in one of their colleges, managed one of their church camps and I have some wonderful friends there. Currently worship with some Vineyard brothers. Great to see the discussion (even if it appears confusing on the surface).

Celestron

10th February 2007, 09:52 PM

for a better understanding, try the website: gracecentered.com, a restoration movement website and forum and check out the forums....you might be interested in a character named lee freeman who has done extensive research into the rm.

notreligus

13th February 2007, 02:39 PM

Then all churches are denominations. A denomination has a central governing authority which the CoC does not.

4 : a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

This is the Webster's definition that would apply and since there are many factions (one cuppers, anti-Sunday school, instrumental, non-instrumental, non-institutional, premillennialist, and so on) they are not a denomination.
There are a few definitions of "denomination" but another one is "a particular religious body." I've got many years of experience with Restoration Movement churches and I'm in a Restoration Movement Bible College. There is no way that anyone can say, and be reasonable about it, that the Restoration Movement does not contain denominations. The fact that there are three divided groups proves just that. They divide over full immersion baptism and instrumental music, for starters. The Disciples of Christ that I'm aware of will accept others as members who have been sprinkled and do not insist on full immersion. These are just a few of many examples I could provide.

Also, the Restoration Movement began divided. Much like you would not read anything negative about Jehovah's Witnesses if you only read Watchtower publications, you won't read anything negative about the Restoration Movement within their own publications. Do some independent study about the history of religions in the United States and you'll find out that the Restoration Movement started out divided! Barton Stone, of the "Stonites" and Alexander Cambpell, of the "Campbellites", agreed to disagree on many points. The main point of emphasis that greatly disturbs me is the Trinity. Stone was Unitarian. From what I've read of Campbell's comments about the Trinity, the best I can say about him is that he was a Modalist, similar to T.D. Jakes today. A modalist believes that God transforms Himself into the Father, and then into the Son, and then into the Holy Spirit. Frankly, I was disappointed to find what I did about these men. I think that they committed a fraud. Much of what is reported about them is true, such as that they did want to establish churches without central governing bodies, but there are plenty of true independent churches out there that are more like what is described in the NT than what the Restoration Movement claims.

Having said that, I don't want everybody to jump ship and leave their churches. Hang in there where you are at if you are satisfied and you feel that there is nothing there that is an obstacle between you and Jesus Christ. The Christian Faith is a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. If you don't have that then it doesn't really matter what name is on the building. God Almighty sees us through the blood of Christ. If you're not saved and cleansed by the blood of Christ, all of this discussion is moot.

TruthSetsFree

22nd February 2007, 09:10 AM

Another Wikepedia Article under "Restorationism" is much more enlightening. It shows the Restoration Movement keeps both the biblical 7th Day Sabbath Saturday as well as the Sunday, First Day of the week. That is great to hear of groups like this that are true to scripture!

here's a quote from the wikepedia article on "restorationism":

"The Sabbatarians have generally agreed on the approximate date of AD 135 as the start of the apostasy. Justin Martyr in about AD 160 had specifically defended the first day assembly, and so is considered an apostate to Sabbatarians. Nevertheless, the early church history recorded the continued keeping of the Sabbath for creation and Sunday for the Resurrection in Hippolytus's time. They view the apostasy as not complete until the church stopped keeping the Sabbath sometime after Constantine."

I've also read several of the founders' articles of the restoration movement and they proclaim both Sunday and Saturday to be kept separate from all other days, clearly called the FIRST DAY, and SEVENTH DAY.

WesWoodell

22nd February 2007, 10:30 AM

Yeah, that's not us.

I believe that entry is referring to Seventh Day Adventists.

JDIBe

22nd February 2007, 10:39 AM

I agree with Wes. That's not us. RM people generally believe the Old Law was "nailed to the cross" and therefore the time for Sabbath-keeping is passed. Sorry to disappoint.

ladybugforJesus

3rd March 2007, 01:32 AM

WesWoodell

3rd March 2007, 11:45 AM

That's how I think too.

mrconstance

5th March 2007, 01:37 AM

Ok, I basically believe that "religion" itself is a bad thing, and if anybody ever asks me what I am, I just say "I am a follower of Christ, a believer of the Bible, a christian". Thats it. I go by the Word, and don't associate myself with any denomination/organization.

Is this basically what RM is/believes?
To the people looking for information: you've accidentally opened up a can of worms, and I'm going to try to give you some neutral information.

The Restoration Movement got started in the early 1800s. The people who started it wanted to end conflict between denominations by doing everything the New Testament said, and allowing total freedom on matters not specified in the Bible. The idea was to be "just Christians" and not part of any denomination.

The Restoration Movement churches have few things in common:

We allow each congregation to have complete independence.
We baptize believers, not infants.
We celebrate communion every week.
We focus on the Bible as the only authority.
We allow "lay people" to do everything that "clergy" do (or, in some churches, don't have any clergy at all).

Since the early 1800s, different groups of churches have moved in different directions, and there's a very wide range of beliefs and positions. Some churches believe that some other churches in the movement are not really part of the Restoration Movement anymore, and there are churches that have gone off into some strange directions, both liberal and conservative. One of the sore points for everyone is being called a "denomination." Everyone in the Restoration Movement wants to be part of the Body of Christ, not part of some splinter group, and they've adopted different approaches to making that happen.

That's a pretty vague statement, but I hope that it's accurate and acceptable to all!

Alan

ladybugforJesus

5th March 2007, 01:02 PM

excellent, thank you guys for your help! God Bless!

Mobiosity

10th March 2007, 11:31 PM

Does the RM believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Speaking in tongues, etc.

HeyHomie

11th March 2007, 09:17 AM

Does the RM believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Speaking in tongues, etc.

There's no "official" teaching on this (or anything, for that matter, since we don't have a headquarters handing out doctrine), but most RM congregations teach that those gifts were transitory in nature and specific to the first century church.

AJB4

11th March 2007, 06:14 PM

There's no "official" teaching on this (or anything, for that matter, since we don't have a headquarters handing out doctrine), but most RM congregations teach that those gifts were transitory in nature and specific to the first century church.
Without drifting off-topic too much, how do people who teach against the gifts explain people who do them?

I don't really have a particular stance on the matter myself, although:

Matthew 19:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&verse=26&version=9&context=verse) - But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Mark 9:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=9&verse=23&version=9&context=verse) - Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Mark 10:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=10&verse=27&version=9&context=verse) - And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

I don't think I could personally deny the gifts outright, because I think to do so is perhaps putting limits on God. I think the Bible makes it quite clear that all things are possible through God. It doesn't say that all things are possible unless otherwise stated.

HeyHomie

12th March 2007, 09:15 AM

Without drifting off-topic too much, how do people who teach against the gifts explain people who do them?

I don't really have a particular stance on the matter myself, although:

Matthew 19:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&verse=26&version=9&context=verse) - But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Mark 9:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=9&verse=23&version=9&context=verse) - Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Mark 10:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=10&verse=27&version=9&context=verse) - And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

I don't think I could personally deny the gifts outright, because I think to do so is perhaps putting limits on God. I think the Bible makes it quite clear that all things are possible through God. It doesn't say that all things are possible unless otherwise stated.

I've never been in a RM church where anyone was practicing any of the charismatic gifts, so I can't speak to how this is addressed. It's just never come up.

Mobiosity

12th March 2007, 02:39 PM

How about Hell? Is there a general consensus about that? (Since there is no official teaching)

HeyHomie

12th March 2007, 06:47 PM

How about Hell? Is there a general consensus about that? (Since there is no official teaching)

No. Some believers are annihilationists, some believe that hell is a state of being, some believe in a literal place of eternal torment, and most view it as a state of separation from God.

Mobiosity

12th March 2007, 08:10 PM

No. Some believers are annihilationists, some believe that hell is a state of being, some believe in a literal place of eternal torment, and most view it as a state of separation from God.
What is an annihilationist?

HeyHomie

13th March 2007, 10:13 AM

What is an annihilationist?

An annihilationist believes that the soul of the unsaved simply ceases to exist. There is no afterlife for the unsaved.

Mobiosity

13th March 2007, 12:18 PM

Thanks

Libre

29th March 2007, 06:41 PM

HeyHomie

30th March 2007, 08:15 AM

I have long understood that the Charismatic movement was a restoration movement. That's what we say, anyway. How is that restoration movement different from what I am reading here? I mean, the thing about spiritual gifts like speaking in tongues is definitely a apart of the charismatic movement, and not transitory. Confused about that.

Libre

The Restoration Movement, at least the one that this sub-forum is named for, traces its history to a handful of men named Stone and Campbell, who got things going in the early 1800's.

The modern charismatic movement began in, what 1910?

The same name for different things, I guess.