WHY DID CHRISTIANS BEGIN CALLING FOR A RESTORATION OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY?

IF THE CHURCH BELONGS TO CHRIST, WHY NOT RETURN TO HIS TEACHING?

We have followed a long history of Christians seeking reform.

Some challenged the authority of bishops and popes. Others disagreed about baptism, salvation, church government, worship, or spiritual gifts. Many believed they were correcting errors that had developed before their time.

But another question began to receive increasing attention:

WHY STOP WITH REFORMING AN EXISTING CHURCH?

Why not examine the New Testament and seek to follow its teaching directly?

Those who called for restoration did not all agree about what that required. They came from different backgrounds, worked in different places, and sometimes reached different conclusions.

Their history raises a question that reaches beyond any one movement:

CAN CHRISTIANS LEAVE INHERITED TRADITIONS BEHIND WITHOUT TURNING THEIR OWN INTERPRETATIONS INTO NEW TRADITIONS?

We will examine the history and then put the central claims beside the New Testament.

1. DID THE DESIRE TO RESTORE NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY BEGIN IN AMERICA?

No.

Long before the American Restoration Movement, Christians had asked whether established church practices agreed with the New Testament.

The Reformers challenged teachings and authority structures they believed needed correction.

Anabaptists questioned infant baptism and the connection between church membership and personal faith.

Separatists questioned whether they could remain within the Church of England.

Their answers differed, but each movement raised some form of the same question:

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE REQUIRE OF CHRIST’S CHURCH?

The American Restoration Movement arose in a particular historical setting. It was not the first attempt to return to biblical teaching, and it was not the only movement to use the language of restoration.

For this part of our history, we will concentrate especially on movements associated with Barton W. Stone, Thomas Campbell, and Alexander Campbell, while remembering that other Christians were making similar appeals.

2. WHY DID THE AMERICAN FRONTIER MATTER?

During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, settlers moving westward in the United States encountered Christians from different traditions.

Presbyterians preached.

Baptists preached.

Methodists preached.

Others preached.

Revival meetings sometimes brought people from different church backgrounds together.

That made denominational differences difficult to ignore.

People might hear the same Jesus preached at a revival and then return to churches that disagreed about baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church government, predestination, and who was permitted to preach.

So the question was no longer simply:

WHICH DENOMINATION SHOULD I JOIN?

Some began asking:

WHY MUST FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST REMAIN DIVIDED BY DENOMINATIONAL BOUNDARIES THEY CANNOT FIND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?

That question sent them back to the text.

3. WHO WAS BARTON W. STONE?

Barton W. Stone was a Presbyterian minister associated with the great Cane Ridge revival in Kentucky in 1801.

He became increasingly dissatisfied with certain Presbyterian doctrines and with the use of a denominational confession as a test of fellowship.

In 1803, Stone and several other ministers withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Synod of Kentucky and formed the Springfield Presbytery.

But that created an uncomfortable question.

Had they escaped one religious organization only to create another?

That question belongs to more than Stone’s history.

A person may leave an organization because he believes it claims authority God never gave it.

But what happens when the new organization gradually develops similar authority under another name?

Stone and his associates faced that question very quickly.

4. WHY DID THEY WRITE A “LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT” FOR THEIR OWN PRESBYTERY?

In 1804, Stone and five associates signed a remarkable document titled:

THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE SPRINGFIELD PRESBYTERY.

They were deliberately announcing the death of the organization they had created only months earlier.

They wrote that the Springfield Presbytery should:

“die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large.”

They urged Christians to look to Scripture rather than depend upon their newly created presbytery.

But notice something important.

Dissolving a presbytery does not, by itself, prove what New Testament church government should be.

We still have to examine the text.

Read Acts 20:17 and 28.

Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus and told them that the Holy Ghost had made them:

“overseers, to feed the church of God.” — Acts 20:28, KJV

Read Titus 1:5–7.

Paul moves from elders in verse 5 to a bishop in verse 7.

Then read 1 Peter 5:1–4.

Peter tells the elders:

“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.” — 1 Peter 5:2, KJV

And he reminds them that Christ is:

“the chief Shepherd.” — 1 Peter 5:4, KJV

Those passages provide evidence for examining church leadership.

The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery may direct us back to that evidence.

But the 1804 document itself is not our authority.

5. WHY DID STONE’S FOLLOWERS WANT TO BE CALLED SIMPLY “CHRISTIANS”?

Stone and his associates wanted to avoid names that placed a human leader or denominational identity at the center of Christian identity.

They preferred the name Christian.

That name is found in the New Testament.

“And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” — Acts 11:26, KJV

Peter wrote:

“Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.” — 1 Peter 4:16, KJV

Their point was simple.

WE BELONG TO CHRIST. WHY NOT BE CALLED CHRISTIANS?

There is something attractive about that appeal.

But we need to distinguish what the text establishes from what we may conclude from it.

The New Testament calls disciples Christians.

It does not say that everyone who uses the name Christian necessarily understands every teaching of Christ correctly.

Nor does it say that anyone using an additional descriptive term automatically ceases to belong to Christ.

The name points us toward the One we follow.

The more important question is whether our faith and conduct actually belong to Him.

6. WERE STONE AND THE CAMPBELLS THE ONLY PEOPLE MAKING THIS APPEAL?

No.

James O’Kelly, who had been a Methodist minister, and the New England preachers Abner Jones and Elias Smith were among others who challenged denominational boundaries and called Christians toward a simpler biblical faith.

Their movements arose in different places and were not all branches of one organization. Some became associated with what came to be called the Christian Connection.

That matters.

The history is sometimes told as though one man opened his Bible, discovered the New Testament church, and started the Restoration Movement.

That is too simple.

Different Christians were questioning inherited practices.

They sometimes reached similar conclusions independently.

And they sometimes disagreed with one another.

Therefore, none of these men becomes our authority.

If something is true, it is not true because Stone taught it.

Or Thomas Campbell.

Or Alexander Campbell.

Or O’Kelly.

Or Jones.

Or Smith.

IT IS TRUE IF IT IS WHAT SCRIPTURE TEACHES.

7. WHO WAS THOMAS CAMPBELL?

Thomas Campbell was a minister from the Presbyterian tradition who came to America from Ireland.

He became troubled by denominational divisions and by rules that, in his judgment, prevented Christians from receiving one another.

In 1809, he helped organize the Christian Association of Washington in Pennsylvania.

The association was not originally intended to become another denomination. Its purpose was to encourage Christian unity.

Campbell then prepared an important document:

THE DECLARATION AND ADDRESS.

It was approved in September 1809.

Campbell urged Christians to return to the divine standard rather than allowing human opinions and traditions to become authoritative.

That sounds simple.

But it raises one of the hardest questions in our entire series:

HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH WHAT CHRIST REQUIRES FROM WHAT WE HAVE INFERRED, ORGANIZED, OR INHERITED?

8. WHAT DID THE DECLARATION AND ADDRESS SAY ABOUT THE CHURCH?

Thomas Campbell began with the conviction that Christ’s church is one.

He recognized that Christians necessarily meet in separate local congregations, but argued that these congregations should not become hostile religious parties.

He wanted Christians to return to what Christ and His apostles had actually taught rather than making human opinions conditions of fellowship.

Now put that appeal beside Scripture.

Read Ephesians 4:1–6.

Paul says:

“There is one body, and one Spirit.” — Ephesians 4:4, KJV

He continues:

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” — Ephesians 4:5, KJV

Now read 1 Corinthians 1:10–13.

Some Corinthians were saying:

“I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” — 1 Corinthians 1:12, KJV

Paul immediately asks:

“Is Christ divided?” — 1 Corinthians 1:13, KJV

Campbell’s appeal directs us toward genuine New Testament concerns.

But his Declaration and Address is still a document written in 1809.

It is not another book of the Bible.

IT TOO MUST BE TESTED BY SCRIPTURE.

9. DID THOMAS CAMPBELL WANT EVERY CHRISTIAN TO AGREE ABOUT EVERYTHING BEFORE THEY COULD BE UNITED?

No.

His proposal was not that Christians had to solve every difficult biblical question before recognizing one another.

He wanted them to stop making humanly devised requirements conditions of fellowship and seek unity around what Christ and His apostles had taught.

But that leaves a practical problem.

Two sincere Christians may read the same passage and disagree about what it requires.

Suppose both read Acts 20.

One concludes that the local congregation is overseen by its own elders and that a regional bishop governing several congregations is therefore unauthorized.

Another agrees that elders oversee the local congregation but believes some larger form of regional supervision is a permissible arrangement for cooperation.

Both say:

“I FOLLOW THE BIBLE.”

That does not settle anything.

They need to show how they reached their conclusions from the text.

AN APPEAL TO THE BIBLE IS NECESSARY.

But:

“WE FOLLOW THE BIBLE” IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.

We must open the text and show how our conclusion follows from it.

10. WHO WAS ALEXANDER CAMPBELL?

Alexander Campbell was Thomas Campbell’s son.

He became a prominent preacher, writer, editor, debater, and organizer in the developing movement.

Through publications and public debates, he urged Christians to examine apostolic teaching and reconsider inherited church practices.

For a period, Campbell and congregations associated with him maintained fellowship with Baptist associations. Eventually serious disagreements developed.

Alexander became so influential that opponents sometimes called his followers Campbellites.

But Paul had already warned about attaching ourselves to human teachers.

“Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas.” — 1 Corinthians 1:12, KJV

The problem is not learning from a teacher.

We all learn from someone.

The problem begins when loyalty to the teacher or movement becomes the test of loyalty to Christ.

Alexander Campbell can help us examine Scripture.

He cannot become the standard by which Scripture is interpreted.

11. WHY DID THE CAMPBELLS RECONSIDER BAPTISM?

The Campbells came from a tradition that practiced infant baptism.

Alexander Campbell’s study of the subject eventually convinced him that New Testament baptism followed a person’s own faith and confession and was immersion.

On June 12, 1812, Alexander and Thomas Campbell, their wives, and several others were immersed by Baptist minister Matthias Luce.

This became a major turning point for the Brush Run congregation.

But once again, their decision does not settle the biblical question.

Read Acts 2:37–41.

Peter said:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” — Acts 2:38, KJV

Read Acts 8:35–39.

Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian. The Ethiopian asked:

“See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” — Acts 8:36, KJV

Read Romans 6:3–4.

Paul says:

“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.” — Romans 6:4, KJV

Those passages deserve examination on their own terms.

We should not accept believer’s baptism because Alexander Campbell accepted it in 1812.

And we should not reject it because older church traditions practiced infant baptism.

WHAT DID THE APOSTLES TEACH?

That is the question.

12. WHAT DID THE RESTORATION PREACHERS TEACH ABOUT THE LORD’S SUPPER?

Many congregations associated with the Stone-Campbell movement came to observe the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week.

They appealed especially to Acts 20:7:

“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.” — Acts 20:7, KJV

They also pointed to Acts 2:42:

“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” — Acts 2:42, KJV

And Paul discusses the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34.

But now we must do exactly what this entire study is teaching us to do.

Does Acts 20:7 merely tell us what happened in Troas on that occasion?

Does it reveal a regular apostolic practice?

Does it establish the day on which Christians should break bread?

How does it relate to Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians?

Those questions cannot be settled by saying:

“THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT DID IT EVERY SUNDAY.”

The practice may send us to the passage.

THE PASSAGE MUST ESTABLISH THE PRACTICE.

13. DID THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT HAVE A CREED?

Many early Restoration leaders strongly opposed making human creeds conditions of Christian fellowship.

Their appeal eventually became associated with expressions such as:

NO CREED BUT CHRIST.

NO BOOK BUT THE BIBLE.

The idea sounds wonderfully simple.

But there is a danger here that deserves careful thought.

Suppose a church says:

“WE HAVE NO CREED. WE JUST FOLLOW THE BIBLE.”

Then suppose that church develops a settled interpretation about baptism.

Or worship.

Or church government.

Or salvation.

May someone question that interpretation?

May a teacher say:

“I think we need to look at this passage again”?

Or does questioning the congregation’s traditional interpretation become the same thing as questioning the Bible?

A creed does not have to be printed in a book.

AN UNWRITTEN CREED CAN BECOME JUST AS BINDING AS A WRITTEN ONE.

The absence of a printed confession does not guarantee the absence of human tradition.

The real test is whether we remain willing to put our conclusions back on the table and examine them again beside Scripture.

14. DID THE EARLY RESTORATION LEADERS AGREE ABOUT EVERYTHING?

No.

Stone and Campbell came from different backgrounds and often emphasized different concerns.

Stone strongly emphasized Christian unity.

Alexander Campbell gave sustained attention to what he understood as the restoration of apostolic teaching and practice.

Their followers did not agree about everything either.

Nevertheless, in 1832, many associated with the Stone and Campbell movements entered into fellowship in Lexington, Kentucky. Barton W. Stone and John “Raccoon” Smith became important public representatives of that union.

Their coming together did not mean every disagreement had disappeared.

It meant they were attempting to stop functioning as rival religious parties and recognize one another as fellow disciples.

That raises a question Scripture itself forces us to consider.

HOW MUCH MUST CHRISTIANS AGREE ABOUT BEFORE THEY CAN RECOGNIZE ONE ANOTHER AS BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST?

15. DOES UNITY REQUIRE US TO PRETEND THAT DIFFERENCES DO NOT EXIST?

No.

Read Romans 14:1–13.

Paul addresses Christians who disagreed about eating certain foods and observing particular days.

He tells them not to despise or condemn one another.

But now read Galatians 1:6–9.

Paul does not treat every disagreement as a harmless difference of opinion.

He warns:

“If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” — Galatians 1:9, KJV

Those passages are not contradictory.

They tell us that not every disagreement belongs in the same category.

Some differences can be borne patiently.

Some teaching strikes at the gospel itself.

That means we cannot solve Christian division by saying:

EVERY DIFFERENCE IS UNIMPORTANT.

But neither can we solve it by saying:

EVERY DIFFERENCE REQUIRES SEPARATION.

We have to do the harder work of studying the text.

16. DID THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT RESTORE THE FIRST-CENTURY CHURCH?

Before answering, we need to define restore.

If we mean returning to apostolic teaching and correcting practices that contradict it, Christians should always be willing to do that.

The first Christians:

“continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine.” — Acts 2:42, KJV

And Paul wrote:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction.” — 2 Timothy 3:16, KJV

But if by restore we mean that a nineteenth-century movement successfully recreated every detail of first-century church life, that is a much larger claim.

Which first-century congregation?

Jerusalem?

Antioch?

Corinth?

Ephesus?

Philippi?

The New Testament does not present one congregation whose every action is offered as the model to copy.

Corinth certainly is not.

Paul spent much of 1 Corinthians correcting it.

Some churches met in houses.

Some had serious divisions.

Some needed elders appointed.

Some were faithful.

Others were warned.

The goal is not to reproduce first-century clothing, architecture, transportation, or culture.

THE GOAL IS TO UNDERSTAND AND OBEY THE TEACHING CHRIST GAVE THROUGH HIS APOSTLES.

17. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMMAND AND A DESCRIPTION?

This question lies at the heart of any attempt at restoration.

Acts 20:7 describes Christians meeting on the first day of the week to break bread.

Acts 2:46 describes believers breaking bread from house to house.

Acts 16:13 describes Paul going to a riverside where people gathered for prayer.

All those things happened.

But does every historical detail become a command?

Must Christians meet beside a river?

Must every church meet in a house?

Must we travel as Paul traveled?

Obviously, recording something does not automatically make every circumstance a universal requirement.

Now compare that with Matthew 28:19–20.

Jesus says:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them.” — Matthew 28:19, KJV

And:

“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” — Matthew 28:20, KJV

There we have instruction.

So when studying Scripture, we need to ask:

IS THIS PASSAGE COMMANDING SOMETHING?

IS IT DESCRIBING SOMETHING?

IS THE DESCRIPTION SHOWING HOW A COMMAND WAS CARRIED OUT?

That distinction matters.

18. CAN AN APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE ESTABLISH A PRACTICE?

Yes, an apostolic example can teach us something important.

But we still have to determine what the example is intended to establish.

Acts 14:23 says:

“And when they had ordained them elders in every church.” — Acts 14:23, KJV

Paul later instructed Titus:

“ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.” — Titus 1:5, KJV

Then 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 give qualifications for overseers.

Taken together, those passages give substantial evidence that qualified elders were part of the apostles’ arrangements for caring for congregations.

Now compare that with Acts 20:8:

“And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.” — Acts 20:8, KJV

There were many lights.

They were upstairs.

Both are inspired details.

Does either detail establish a requirement for church buildings?

No.

So saying:

“WE HAVE AN APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE”

is only the beginning.

We still have to ask what the inspired writer is teaching through that example and how it relates to the rest of Scripture.

19. WHAT ABOUT NECESSARY INFERENCE?

Sometimes Scripture establishes something without stating the conclusion in exactly the words we might use.

Jesus Himself reasoned this way.

Read Matthew 22:23–33.

The Sadducees denied the resurrection.

Jesus quoted God’s words:

“I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” — Matthew 22:32, KJV

Then He concluded:

“God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” — Matthew 22:32, KJV

Jesus expected His hearers to recognize what necessarily followed from God’s words.

So reasoning from Scripture is not wrong.

But here is the danger:

NOT EVERY INFERENCE IS NECESSARY.

Suppose we read that Christians met in a house.

We may safely conclude:

CHRISTIANS MAY MEET IN A HOUSE.

But can we conclude:

THEREFORE EVERY CHURCH MUST MEET IN A HOUSE, AND RENTING A ROOM IS SINFUL?

No.

That conclusion does not necessarily follow.

This is one of the most important safeguards in Bible study.

We must learn to distinguish:

WHAT THE TEXT SAYS

from:

WHAT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS FROM WHAT IT SAYS

from:

WHAT WE HAVE ASSUMED WHILE READING IT.

And that rule applies to traditions we inherited and to conclusions we reached while trying to escape those traditions.

20. DOES SILENCE IN SCRIPTURE SETTLE EVERY QUESTION?

This became one of the most difficult questions within the Restoration Movement.

Christians agreed that Scripture should guide the church.

They disagreed about what to do when Scripture did not explicitly mention a practice.

Some reasoned:

IF SCRIPTURE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE IT, THE CHURCH SHOULD NOT INTRODUCE IT.

Others reasoned:

IF SCRIPTURE DOES NOT FORBID IT, AND IT HELPS US CARRY OUT SOMETHING SCRIPTURE COMMANDS, IT MAY BE PERMISSIBLE.

Those different approaches contributed to later disputes over missionary societies and instrumental music.

But simply saying:

“THE BIBLE IS SILENT”

does not finish the discussion.

First ask:

What has God commanded?

Then ask:

Does this proposed practice change the command?

Does it add another act of worship?

Does it create an authority God has not given?

Or is it simply a way of carrying out something already commanded?

A meeting place is not the same thing as a governing organization.

A printed Bible is not the same thing as adding another act of worship.

A teaching schedule is not the same thing as creating an office with authority over congregations.

WE HAVE TO ASK WHAT THE THING ACTUALLY DOES.

21. WHAT HAPPENED WHEN RESTORATION CONGREGATIONS DISAGREED?

During the nineteenth century, congregations associated with the movement developed serious disagreements.

Two of the best-known concerned:

MISSIONARY SOCIETIES

and:

INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN CONGREGATIONAL WORSHIP.

Some Christians believed missionary societies were permissible means of coordinating evangelistic work.

Others believed they created organizations exercising functions God had given the church.

Some believed instrumental music was a permissible aid or expression in worship.

Others believed it introduced a form of worship not authorized in the New Testament.

The disagreements involved more than the objects themselves.

Behind them were deeper questions.

How does Scripture authorize?

What does silence mean?

What authority belongs to a congregation?

How may congregations cooperate?

The Civil War, regional tensions, and different patterns of development also complicated relationships.

So Christians who had wanted to escape denominational division discovered something painful.

RETURNING TO THE BIBLE DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN EVERYONE INTERPRETED THE BIBLE THE SAME WAY.

That is not a reason to abandon Scripture.

It is a reason to examine our interpretations more carefully.

22. DID THE MOVEMENT EVENTUALLY DIVIDE INTO DIFFERENT CHURCH BODIES?

Yes.

But the separation was gradual.

Eventually several identifiable fellowships emerged from the Stone-Campbell heritage, including the Churches of Christ, the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

The United States religious census of 1906 listed Churches of Christ separately from Disciples of Christ.

But the census did not cause the division.

It recognized a separation that had already developed.

And even that does not mean every congregation or every Christian fit neatly into two identical camps.

History is usually messier than our charts.

Missionary societies mattered.

Instrumental music mattered.

Different understandings of biblical authority mattered.

Regional and social conditions mattered.

Later developments produced additional separation.

So we should resist the temptation to explain the entire division with one sentence.

But the irony should not escape us.

A movement deeply concerned about Christian division eventually divided.

And some of those divisions concerned this very question:

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO RESTORE NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY?

23. CAN “WE ARE NOT A DENOMINATION” BECOME A DENOMINATIONAL CLAIM?

Yes.

A congregation may sincerely reject denominational hierarchy and try to follow the New Testament.

That does not automatically make it a denomination.

But trouble begins when:

“WE ARE NOT A DENOMINATION”

quietly becomes:

“THEREFORE OUR IDENTIFIABLE GROUP ALONE IS THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.”

The name on a church sign does not establish that.

Neither does the absence of a denominational headquarters.

Neither does calling ourselves simply Christians.

Read 1 Corinthians 1:10–13 again.

Paul’s concern is allegiance to human parties and leaders.

Replacing a human leader’s name with a claim about our group does not solve the problem if loyalty to our group becomes the test of loyalty to Christ.

Here is the better question:

ARE WE FOLLOWING CHRIST?

And just as important:

ARE WE WILLING TO CHANGE WHEN SCRIPTURE SHOWS THAT WE HAVE BEEN WRONG?

A restoration movement that can no longer examine its own traditions has stopped restoring.

24. WHAT SHOULD WE KEEP FROM THE RESTORATION APPEAL?

Whatever we think about Stone, the Campbells, or the movements that followed them, their history puts some worthwhile questions in front of every Christian.

Are we giving a human leader or organization authority that belongs to Christ?

Are we requiring something as a condition of fellowship that Christ has not required?

Are we neglecting something the apostles clearly taught?

Are we confusing a useful method with a divine command?

Are we treating our interpretation as though it cannot be questioned?

Are we willing to open the Bible with Christians whose backgrounds differ from ours?

The Bereans:

“received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” — Acts 17:11, KJV

Notice whom they were checking.

PAUL.

If apostolic preaching was examined against Scripture, surely no preacher today should object when someone checks what he says.

Paul told Timothy:

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God.” — 2 Timothy 2:15, KJV

And Peter said Christians should:

“be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” — 1 Peter 3:15, KJV

The responsibility to examine Scripture does not belong to the Restoration Movement.

It belongs to everyone who seeks to follow Christ.

That includes us.

25. WHERE DOES OUR HISTORY GO NEXT?

The Restoration Movement began with a powerful appeal:

Leave denominational rivalry behind.

Return to the New Testament.

Let Christ determine what His church should believe and practice.

But its own congregations eventually disagreed about how biblical authority worked and what Christians could do when Scripture did not explicitly mention a practice.

We should examine those disagreements rather than merely list the groups that resulted.

The first involves a question we have encountered repeatedly throughout this entire series.

Christ commanded His people to preach the gospel.

Christians may certainly work together to do that.

But:

WHEN CHRISTIANS JOIN TOGETHER TO PREACH THE GOSPEL, AT WHAT POINT DOES COOPERATION BECOME AN ORGANIZATION EXERCISING AUTHORITY OVER CONGREGATIONS?

That question stood near the center of the controversy over missionary societies.

And it takes us to our next study:

WHY DID MISSIONARY SOCIETIES DIVIDE THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT?

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Read First. Conclude Later.

RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?

NEXT STUDY: WHY DID MISSIONARY SOCIETIES DIVIDE THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT?