Truth Magazine

By Tom M. Roberts

In the prejudicial environment of the first century between Jew and Gentile, the biblical doctrine of grace was immediately explosive and controversial. Though God had testified through the prophets that Gentiles would be the objects of His grace (mercy), those who testified of God’s .grace in redemption did not find a ready and receptive audience in every place. Moses and other prophets who followed after had been told that God would have “mercy on whom I will have mercy” (Rom. 9:15) and “I will call that my people which was not my people” (v. 25; cf. Hosea 2:23); a message forgotten indeed. Consequently, even in the first century, there was a need for the restoration of the doctrine of grace by inspired preachers. Grace was not new; it had been lost in the maze of traditionalism and error that characterized first-century Judaism. Additionally, racial and sectarian hatreds made it unthinkable that the uncircumcised among the nations would find a place of equality in the redemptive plan of Jehovah. Is it any wonder that a large portion of sacred Scripture coming down to us from that era addresses and expounds upon the grace of God?

When Martin Luther raised his hammer and affixed the 95 theses to the door of the Whittenburg Cathedral fifteen hundred years later, the blows that echoed through Roman Catholicism were caused in part by that generation’s misconceptions of grace and law-righteousness.. As it developed, neither the Pope nor Luther had the truth but that did not stop the controversy, nor did it fix a solution for future generations.

Our own generation is, as you can see, heir to centuries of controversy over the grace of God. How tragic! That which has been intended by God to be a blessing has been made into a cause of religious warfare. Strewn on the battle, field of sin and death are the souls of men and women who are in desperate need of the grace of God – which grace lies hidden under the debris of sectarian error. Along with the worst Pharisee of the first century, beside the Gentiles of many nations, we of the twentieth century need a restoration of the doctrine of the grace of God. May God indeed have mercy on us as we study to find the truth of His gracious plan of redemption. It is there. It has been revealed. “God is not willing that any should perish” (2 Pet. 3:9). Let us seek, therefore, with assurance, knowing that Jesus died to make us “heirs of the grace of life” (v. 7). Let us restore, in our lifetime, the preaching of the “true grace of God” (1 Pet. 5:12).

A Gentle Reminder: God Is At Work

Lest we be too pessimistic (as though man’s case is hopeless because of the mountain of error) or too arrogant (as though salvation is totally dependent on the work of our hands), we should remember that God is at work through His word. The Scriptures have been given “by the inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16), God’s word will not return unto Him void (Isa. 55:11), and “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (Jn. 8:32). Wherever the Bible goes, truth goes, independent of human agency. Life is in the seed (Luke 8:11) and, though man is used to scatter the seed, the life without the seed is not dependent on the sower. Let us therefore be assured that the “good news” of the grace of God is available to all men around the world because Bibles have been distributed in every nation. Without discounting the important work of gospel preaching, we should recognize that any truth-seeker can know of God’s grace without contact from middle-class America.

Recent History

It takes but a short trip through Restoration history to be aware of this fact. During pioneer America, men arose who threw off the creeds of men and returned to the pure waters of God’s truth. Though beginning in the darkness of error, from within various denominations, seekers of truth came to know the pure gospel of Christ which tells of God’s grace. Gradually, faltering at first but with ever-increasing confidence, multitudes studied themselves out of systems of bondage and became free men and women in Christ. We today are the heirs of these courageous people and owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. Nevertheless, what they did, anyone can do. There is no patent on Bible study. Nor is the entrance to the kingdom of heaven restricted to the Western Hemisphere. let us pray for a restoration of the New Testament doctrine of the grace of God throughout the world. Think how mighty Russia would shake when its people learned of this grace; China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, from continent to continent, around the world. Let us pray and work for the harvest (Matt. 9:38).

How to Insure the Restoration in Our Day

It has been said that “those who ignore the mistakes of the past are bound to repeat them.” Others, from the New Testament days until now, have lost view of God’s grace and drifted into error. How can we be sure that we profit from past mistakes, “Keeping ourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life” (Jude 21)? I affirm that we must follow the trail left by those Restorationists before us (including the apostles) by depending on an understanding of God’s word to lead us into truth (Jn. 17:17). We must learn what Paul taught the Pharisee and the Gentile. We must avoid the mistakes of Catholicism and Martin Luther and the Reformers. We must restore it as did Peter: ” . . . I have written unto you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God: stand ye fast therein” (1 Pet. 5:12). We know of it only as we know the Scriptures: “And now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you the inheritance among all them that are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). “The grace of God hath appeared bringing salvation to all men” (Tit. 2:11) but this appearance is not ethereal, mysterious and unattainable. It “instructs us” (v. 12), indicating its connection with the word. Further, we are to “speak these things and exhort and reprove with all authority” (v. 15). A restoration of grace is as sure as a restoration of gospel preaching.

A False Charge

In our time, this true grace has been an d is being preached. Of late, some have charged us with not preaching grace because we do not preach a denominational concept of grace. Among our brethren, some have fallen backward into the error from which we have previously escaped. Having accepted false definitions of Bible terms, they accuse us of not preaching grace because we don’t use their definitions: faith only, imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness, once saved, always saved, etc. We are told that we are “legalists” when we teach free will, human responsibility, faithful obedience (man’s ability to “do”), and the possibility of apostasy. But we will not be deterred by such charges. Paul faced such treatment when he taught God’s grace and so will we. “Let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). What does God have to say about His grace?

The Doctrine of Grace

God did not have to save sinful man; we are justly condemned (Rom. 1, 2, 3). But “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for the us” (Rom. 5:8). The source of grace is God. The basis for grace is the death of Christ. The appropriation of grace is man’s faith. “Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; through whom also we have had our access by faith into this grace wherein we stand. (Rom. 5:1,2). Access by faith into grace, we are told. Salvation is “by grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8,9). Grace is the- gi ft of God (unmerited favor) and it is not of works (lest we boast), but faith and faithful obedience (Rom. 1:5; 16:26) are not included in the category of boastful works; they are essential to salvation. To understand grace, we must understand the relation that faith sustains to it. To receive this grace, we must avoid boastful works. This is the historic battleground upon which so many have fallen through misunderstanding. Let us be sure that we have the truth.

Proper Understanding of Faith

Faith is not a gift of God as the Calvinists teach. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10: 17). Faith is work (Jn. 6:29) but not a boastful work. It is a response of man (something man does, a work) from his free will and innate ability. Man is not depraved in nature, but can do either good or evil. “Man, as he is,” expounded Benjamin Franklin, one of the pioneer preachers, explaining that man does not need a “Holy Spirit experience” to believe. He is able to believe because God addressed His revelation to man’s intelligence. He is able to disbelieve, and is therefore accountable because of his ability. But faith itself is not a gift; it is a response to God’s expressed will. Abraham is the one chosen by God to illustrate faith as a response to His grace. Abraham believed (Gen. 15:6) and proved it on at least three notable occasions: leaving Ur, the birth of Isaac and the offering of Isaac, In these instances, faith is not an abstract mental assent but expressed in living action (faithfulness). Abraham trusted God in these instances (and others), not in his works. He did not fail to obey but he did not trust in obedience; he trusted in God. This difference is the essence of faith. As James described it: “Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith” (Jas. 2:18). It is this kind of faith that gives us “access into grace” (Rom. 5:1,2) and not faith alone, as taught by Calvinists. It is upon the condition of this faithfulness that Paul says God expressed His grace to Abraham when He forgave Abraham’s sins. “For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh (trusting in his works, tr), the reward is not reckoned as of ‘grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh not (not trusting in his works, tr), but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned -for righteousness” (Rom. 4:2-5). In Romans 4, Paul continued the discussion by showing that God put (reckoned, imputed) righteousness to Abraham’s account because his sins were forgiven (v. 7). His sins were forgiven because of Abraham’s faith and obedience (faithfulness) toward God. Abraham had access by faith into the grace of God. But why is the story of Abraham important to me?

The Gospel Was Preached To Abraham

“Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed. So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham” (Gal. 3:7-9). Hear it! We are going to be saved by grace like Abraham was saved. Not, to be sure, by leaving our kindred or by having a son in our old age or by offering him on an altar. These were the tests of Abraham’s faith. We have different tests (repentance, confession, baptism, godly living) but the proper response is that of faith. And that faith must be in God, not faith in works (as illustrated in the following chart).

But, someone asks: “Why spend so much time talking about faith when the subject is of grace?” The obvious reason is that there is no need to exhort God about grace. God has done His part so very well that grace is available to all as a “finished work” in Christ. Nothing remains to be done, nothing is lacking, grace is a reality. But we must exhort men to respond to this grace and that response is “faith to the saving of the soul” (Heb. 10:36). It balances the heavenly equation of salvation “by grace through faith.” Grace makes salvation possible; faith accepts it; obedience proves my faith to God.

Bible Survey Bears This Out

Anyone familiar with Bible history should be able to understand the doctrine of grace. The fall of man introduces our need: man is lost without God’s mercy. He cannot save himself by a law of the conscience (Rom. 2:12-16) as Gentiles attempted; he cannot save himself by law-keeping (Rom. 2:1-3) as the Jews attempted. Man needs mercy, grace. Beginning with the prophecy in Genesis 3 and continuing with the promises to Abraham, the Lord offers that help. Jacob’s descendants become Exhibit “A” as God unfolds the Plan of Redemption through the Seed promise (Gal. 3:16). The constant and unremitting rebellion of the Jews do not keep God from performing His promise to bring the Messiah. The advent of Messiah was unconditional; the reception of grace by sinners is conditional – and that condition is faith. The case histories in the Bible bear this out: Noah, Moses, Joshua, the Israelites, David, the prophets, et al. Since one picture is said to be worth more than a thousand words, let me introduce a simple chart by Roy Cogdill that simply, yet profoundly, states the case before us: God and man, grace and faith.

Brethren, to preach this chart is to preach grace and faith unto salvation. When a detractor charges us with not preaching about grace in today’s pulpits, I remind him that this material pre-dates Roy Cogdill. It pre-dates America’s Restoration. In fact, it is essentially the argument of the writer of the Hebrew letter. The Hebrew writer (unknown by name) was a Restorationist preacher: he was attempting to restore dispirited Hebrew Christians to the grace of God. When we preach the same material today and emphasize baptism, we are preaching grace through faith. If a restoration of the doctrine is needed today, we can begin at no better place. Tell the story of Noah, Abraham and Israel and we are telling of God’s grace. Tell the story of Jericho, Naaman, and the sinner being baptized into Christ and we are preaching salvation by grace through faith. God’s grace has appeared and it instructs us (Tit. 2:11,12). By faith, we accept.

Not So Technical

This study has not attempted to address theological questions about grace, though we have no fear of an investigation on that level. Rather, we have looked at grace on a level where we common men and women must operate and understand. We stand at the intersection where grace and faith meet on Main Street of sinful Earth. Seeing our need and being aware of our helplessness, we reach out to God in faith. And, you know what? He is there. He is willing to save me, not condemn me. It is for this reason that I, with millions of others can sing:

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound,

That saved a wretch like me.

I once was lost, but now am found,

Was blind, but now I see.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 330-332
June 5, 1986

By Mike Willis

While attending a state university, I took an introductory course in psychology. As the professor gave his first lecture, he said, “If there are any ‘Bible thumpers’ in this class, I would recommend that you drop the class.” Later, I attended a graduate school at a seminary run by the Disciples of Christ. In a class on “Introduction to the New Testament,” the professor said, “About the only thing historical in the gospel record of the life of Christ is ‘Jesus died.”‘ I frequently observe blatant disrespect for the Bible by the news media and in television situation comedies.

There is a need in America for us to restore a wholesome respect for the authority of the Bible in our lives. But some may ask, “Why should I have a respect for the Bible?”

The Bible Is A Revelation From God

There are basically two concepts which man can have of the Bible: (1) the Bible is a record of man’s gropings to find God and (2) the Bible is a revelation from God to man. Those who view the Bible as a record of man’s groping to find God have no qualms in disagreeing with the writings of Isaiah, Matthew, Luke, or Paul. Their thoughts and beliefs are just as worthwhile as are those of the biblical writers. They conceive of the New Testament description of the early church as the historical record of the beginnings of Christianity but think that man must ever work to improve the Christian religion. Others (2) believe that the Bible is a revelation of God’s will to man. It contains the record of God’s work to redeem man from sin, a revelation of the ethics which are acceptable to God, a revelation of the conditions for obtaining forgiveness of sins, and a pattern for congregational worship, work, organization, etc. (a blueprint for the church). To conceive of the church revealed in the Bible as a model to be improved upon is incompatible with the idea of a perfect revelation from God.

Each of us stands at this crossroads and makes a commitment to one of these concepts of the Bible. Those who view the Bible as a record of man’s gropings for God commit themselves, not to following the details of the Bible, but to changing and reshaping Christianity to fit the age in which they live. Those who view the Bible as a divine revelation will commit themselves to following the pattern revealed in the Bible in every respect.

I contend that the Bible is an expression of the authority of God over man. As our Creator, God has supreme authority over us. “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created” (Rev. 4:11). God has given all authority to Jesus (Matt. 28:18). “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing” (Rev. 5:12). The apostle Paul said that God had raised Jesus from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:20-22).

The Scriptures clearly affirm that Jesus is the Lord over all things to man (cf. Acts 2:36). How does one learn the mind of Christ in order that he might submit to His authority?

Jesus revealed His will to mankind through the apostles and prophets of the first century. As Jesus prepared to depart from this world, He promised to give the apostles another Comforter, the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit would come, He “will guide you into all truth” (Jn. 16:13). In explaining the Spirit’s work, Jesus said, “But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak” (Matt. 10: 19). Hence, the Holy Spirit came to the apostles, revealing to them the words of God.

At first, God’s revelation to man through the apostles was oral. Later, this revelation was committed to writing. This written revelation was just as certainly the voice of God as what was spoken through them orally, as the following Scriptures indicate:

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of God (1 Cor. 14:37).

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thess. 2:13).

He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit (1 Thess. 4:8).

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me (Lk. 10:16; cf. Matt. 10:40; Jn. 13:20).

The same principle is seen in the usage of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers. The New Testament use of the Old Testament Scriptures reveals that the words of the Old Testament were the words of God (Mt. 1:22; 2:15; 22:31; 22:43). That which was spoken by the prophet was considered the word of God (cf. Heb. 3:7; 4:7).

The Holy Spirit did what the Lord sent Him to do. He guided the apostles into all truth. Through His work of revelation, the Lord has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:34) and has given us the inspired Scriptures which thoroughly furnish us unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:17). There is no spiritual blessing available to man but that which comes to us through Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:3) and is revealed to us in the Bible. Some men say that we need to exalt the Man and not the Book. However, everything we know about the Man is revealed to us in the Book; hence, one cannot exalt the Man without exalting the Book.

This word of God will be the standard of judgment in the last day (Jn. 12:48; Rev. 20:12). By it mankind will be judged.

Hence, the Bible, far from being a record of man’s fallible searching and groping in an effort to find God, is a divine, infallible revelation of the will of God to man. It is man’s most precious possession, for without it we do not know how to obtain forgiveness of sins and to inherit heaven when we die. In a world of constant flux and change, the Bible reveals to mankind how to live the best life on earth. We need to restore respect for the authority of Jesus as revealed in the Bible.

Disrespect Shown For The Bible

A different type of disrespect for the Bible is shown by various groups. Here are some who are showing disrespect for the authority of God expressed in the Bible.

1. Atheism. Atheists are generally working under the banner of “humanism” today. The Humanists “find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural” and, therefore, believe “that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species” (Humanist Manifesto H). Atheists blaspheme God and deny His word.

2. Modernism. Modernists deny the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible. There is wide divergence among modernists regarding how much of the Bible must be discarded. A group of scholars has recently been in conference to vote on which sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible are authentic. Some reject all of the miracles of the Bible; others reject all but a selected few. Some relegate the doctrine of the atonement to the outmoded past declaring that it is too bloody a religion for today’s age. In the realm of ethics, modernists have accepted and promulgated “situation ethics,” an ethical system in which every man becomes a law to himself. This shows a disrespect for the Bible.

3. Catholicism. Catholics profess to believe in the Bible and even claim that the Bible is a Catholic book. However, the Catholics subordinate the authority of God as revealed in the Bible to their church traditions and the ex cathedra word of the pope. One writes,

Christians agree that God’s revelation is found in the Bible. Catholics claim, however, that the Bible is not the only source of God’s teaching to man (Facts of the Faith, Monsignor J.D. Conway, p. 2).

In listing the other sources, Conway listed (1) the writings of the Church Fathers, (2) decrees and acts of the early church councils, (3) decisions of the popes, (4) their Creeds, (5) books of early prayers, ceremonies, and devotions, and (6) archaeological remains. Conway continued, “We believe that only the Church of Jesus Christ has the right and authority to collect, preserve, and teach the Bible. . . . The Church urges Catholics to read and study it, but she maintainings that we cannot take it as our only rule of faith, or read our own meanings into it. We need a teaching authority to interpret it” (Ibid, p. 10).

Hence, the Catholic Church shows a disrespect for the Bible by submitting the authority of the divinely revealed book to the fallible councils of men, church traditions, and ex cathedra statements of a pope.

4. Fundamental Protestants. Inasmuch as I have included many Protestants under “modernism,” I want to show how those Protestants who claim to be Evangelical and Fundamentalist show a disrespect for the Bible. Here are some of the ways:

(a) They show a disrespect by their creeds. The creeds of the various denominations are rules of faith which have authority over the various denominations. These creeds exclude from the fellowship of the denomination everyone who is unwilling to subscribe to its tenets. If these creeds contain more than the Bible, they contain too much; if they contain less than the Bible, they do not contain enough; if they contain the same thing as the Bible, they are unnecessary. Surely no one would claim that uninspired men can produce a better statement of faith than the Lord God Himself. Hence, the creeds of men show a disrespect for the word of God.

(b) Their practices in religion show disrespect for the Bible. Their “clergy” wears titles which exalt them above the “laymen” in violation of Jesus’ prohibition (Matt. 23:9). Their worship is changed and shaped according to the whims Of men, rather than the revelation of God. The Lord’s supper is served once a year, once every six months, or once a month as men might decide which is best. Funds are raised through bake sales, rummage sales, Las Vegas nights, Bingo, or involvement in secular business as men might judge best. Congregational singing is replaced by choirs, professional singing groups, instrumental music, and anything else they might desire to chose. The work of the church varies according to what men might judge best, ranging from church supported hospitals, orphans homes, colleges and soup lines to recreational activities such as church softball leagues, trips to amusement parks, fellowship halls, church owned gymnasiums, etc. Such activities show disrespect for the authority of God as revealed in the Bible inasmuch as they undermine the concept that the church revealed in the Bible is a pattern for all men of all ages.

(c) Inner illumination shows a disrespect for the authority of God. Many Fundamentalist preachers believe that the Holy Spirit of God gives them revelation separate and apart from the word of God. Anytime such a person has a strong feeling about anything, his subjective feelings become the voice of God in his life. As these preachers are “led by the Spirit,” they teach things contrary to the revelation of God in the Bible. They tell men to speak in tongues, be baptized in the Holy Spirit, and to seek the leadings of God outside of His revelation in the Bible. The doctrine of illumination of the Spirit undermines the authority of God in the Bible and shows a disrespect for the Bible.

5. Liberal brethren. Our liberal brethren and those in the Christian Church show a disrespect for the Bible in the things which they have introduced into the worship and work of the church. The Christian Church preachers have departed from the word of God, committing themselves to the principle that the “silence of the Bible authorizes.” Hence, they have introduced instrumental music in worship, church supported missionary societies, recreational activities, celebration of unauthorized holy days, and many other things. Our liberal brethren are not far behind. They have perverted the work of the church by involving the church in various works of the social gospel, such as church supported colleges, hospitals, unwed mothers homes, homes for the aged, and orphan homes. They have also involved the church in various recreational activities ranging from “Family Life Centers” (gymnasiums) to “fellowship halls.” They have distorted the organization of the church to funnel funds from thousands of churches through one centralized office in the sponsoring church arrangement. These practices of liberalism opened the floodgates for many other forms of apostasy and are moving the liberal churches of Christ into the mainstream of twentieth century Protestant denominationalism.

How To Restore Respect For The Authority of the Bible

How can men restore respect for the authority of the Bible? The answers are not so complex.

1. Atheism. The atheist must believe in God and accept the Bible as God’s revelation to man.

2. Modernism. The modernist must accept the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible. He must accept the record of the Bible miracles, believe the doctrines taught in the Bible, and submit himself to the ethics demanded in the Bible.

3. Catholicism. The Catholic must dethrone the pope, councils, and Catholic tradition. Then, he must accept the Bible as the only revelation of God to man. He must accept the fact that he can read and understand it for himself (Eph. 3:3-5) and then commit himself to obeying it.

4. Fundamental Protestants. Those who already accept the inspiration of the Scriptures, miracles, and many fundamental doctrines of the Bible must elevate the Bible above their human opinions. ” . . . it belongs to every individual and to every congregation of individuals to discard from their faith and their practice every thing that is not found written in the New Testament of the Lord and Savior, and to believe and practice whatever is their enjoined” (Christian Baptist, abridged ed., D.S. Burnet, editor, p. 133).

They must discard their human creeds and claims to special revelation from God (e.g., illumination of the Spirit), submitting themselves to the word of God.

5. Liberal brethren. Like the other denominations, the Christian Churches and liberal churches of Christ must be willing to discard from their faith and their practice everything that is not found written in the Bible. Giving lip service to the authority of the Scriptures while introducing many unauthorized items into the worship, work, and organization of the church is no different from what the denominations do who pay lip service to the Bible while clinging to their creeds. The authority of the Bible will be respected again when men are willing to make these commitments.

Conclusion

If we truly respect the Bible as the revelation of the mind of God to man, we will read and study it. We will believe it. We will obey it. We will preach it to others. So long as we leave the Bible on our coffee tables to collect dust, we need not preach to others about their need to restore respect for the authority of God as revealed in the Bible.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 322, 356-357
June 5, 1986

By James R. Cope

The difference between policy and principle may properly be considered the basic difference between the “Protestant Reformation” begun in the Sixteenth Century and the “Restoration Movement” of the Nineteenth Century. The word policy often conveys the idea of human wisdom, sagacity or shrewdness in the management of affairs. Whereas the word principle, derives from the Latin princeps, principis, whence come the English word , , prince,” meaning “first” or “chief”; hence, “a fundamental truth; a primary or basic law, doctrine, or the like.” Policy may change when in fact principle is “a settled rule of action; a governing law of conduct” (Webster). Compromise is a way of life with persons who consider truth and right as policies. With men of principle, truth and right are never negotiable!

Following the ascension of Christ except for the direct impartation of miraculous powers by the Holy Spirit upon the apostles (Acts 2:1-4), the first Gentile converts (Acts 10,11), and the apostle Paul (who claimed that he was “not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles,” 2 Cor. 11: 5), we are unaware of anybody, anywhere, at any time receiving the Holy Spirit miraculously apart from the laying on of an apostle’s hands. This being the case, miracles ceased with the death of the last person endowed miraculously through the medium of an apostle’s hands. This, then, is our reason for appealing to the apostles’ teaching rather than post-apostolic creeds and practices of apostate bodies.

Meaning Of “Restoration”

To restore is to give back or bring back to the first or previous state. Abimelech “restored” to Abraham Sarah, his wife (Gen. 20:14); Nehemiah urged his fellow-Jews to “restore” fields and houses to their deprived brethren (Neh. 5:11).

Illustrative of the “restoration principle” as applied to rule or government was the apostles’ question to Jesus following His resurrection, viz., “Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:1-6) Obviously the apostles were thinking about a return of the power and prominence fleshly Israel had exercised over other nations in the glorious days of David and Solomon and also fleshly Israel’s escape from the Roman domination of Israel in their own time. It is in this sense that we use the words “restore” and “restoration” in this treatise regarding the “bringing back” of “spiritual Israel” in its faith, practice, attitude toward and respect for the form of government, revealed in Christ’s apostles and their contemporaries as they were directed by the Holy Spirit in their oral and written communication. They used the words with which the Holy Spirit supplied them to convey whatever idea God wanted taught.

Biblical Basis of Restoration

Apostle Paul makes the foregoing observations unmistakably clear when he says, “We received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (1 Cor. 2:12,13). Since words are vehicles upon which thoughts ride by reading what men inspired by the Holy Spirit in the First Century wrote, we of the Twentieth Century can understand the mind and will of God now. Every written communication argues the factuality of one person’s mental ability to understand the thoughts of another. Unless, therefore, it can be -established that God has changed His will since the completion of the New Testament we necessarily conclude that whatever God willed for man to believe and practice from the apostolic writings then the same God wills nowl If not, why not? Jesus declared, “Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my word shall not pass away” (Mk. 13:31).

In the “Parable of the Sower” Jesus said, “Now the seed is the word of God” (Lk. 8:11). It follows, therefore, that there never has been or ever will be any person converted to Christ or developed In the image of Christ apart from the pure word of God, the gospel of Christ, described by the apostle Paul as “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). The gospel, preached by the apostles, produced new persons identified as “Christians” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). Those converts to Christ were Christians only and only “Christians” with no sectarian or denominational designations characterizing much of the present religious world professing allegiance to the Bible as God’s word. Those non-denominational Christians constituted the only “assemblies” or “churches” ever originating from the apostles’ teaching and were identified by apostles as “the churches of Christ” or “the church of God” (Rom. 16:16), also called “the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:29).

Restoration Practices

The collective (congregational) activities of these Christians were exceedingly simple. These “saints” called such by the apostles, and also described as “sanctified” in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 1:1,2) — as a result of the apostles’ teaching, assembled on the first day of the week to break bread (observe the Lord’s Supper, Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:20-33), not to “socialize.” In this assembly, each disciple according to his financial ability, contributed cheerfully of this material means toward relief of the poor saints and the support of gospel works (1 Cor. 16:1,2; 2 Cor. 8,9; Phil. 1:3-5; 4:14-18). Assemblies also were edified through their mutual study of the Scriptures and by singing and praying and exhorting to love and good works (Acts 2:42; Eph. 5:18,19; Col. 3:16,17; 1 Cor. 14:15; .Heb. 10:21-25).

Each assembly had its own overseers (bishops), also known as pastors (shepherds) and elders and deacons (servants) (Phil. 1:1; Acts 20:17-35; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-9; 1 Pet. 5:14).

There is no reason to think that there was any earthly super-structure of government, or even association restricting any two or all of these congregations under one human head or group to be or do anything collectively! Some 153 years ago, well did Alexander Campbell, a preacher of great influence in the religious world, observe,

The societies called churches, constituted and set in order by those ministers of the New Testament, were of such as received and acknowledged Jesus as Lord Messiah, the Savior of the World, and had put themselves under his guidance. The ONLY BOND OF UNION among them was faith in him and submission to his will. No subscription to abstract propositions framed by synods; no decrees of councils sanctioned by kings; no rules of practice commanded by ecclesiastical courts were imposed on them as terms of admission into, or of continuance in this holy brotherhood. In the “apostles doctrine” and in the “apostles’ commandments” they steadfastly continued. Their fraternity was a fraternity of love, peace, gratitude, cheerfulness, joy, charity, and universal benevolence. Their religion did not manifest itself in public fasts nor carnivals. They had no festivals – no great and solemn meetings. Their meeting on the first day of the week was at all times alike solemn, joyful and interesting. Their religion was not of that elastic and porous kind, which at one time is compressed into some cold formalities, and at another expanded into prodigious zeal and warmth.

The order of their assemblies was uniformly the same. It did not vary with moons and seasons. It did not change as dress nor fluctuate as the manners of the times. Their devotion did not diversify itself into the endless forms of modern times. They had no monthly concerts for prayer; no solemn convocations, no great fasts, nor preparations, nor thanksgiving days. Their churches were not fractured into missionary societies, bible societies, education societies; nor did they dream of organizing such in the world. They knew nothing of the hobbies of modern times. In their church capacity alone they moved. They neither transformed themselves into any other kind of association, nor did they fracture and sever themselves into divers societies. They viewed the church of Jesus Christ as the scheme of Heaven to ameliorate the world,- as members of it, they considered themselves bound to do all they could for the glory of God and the good of men. They dare not transfer to a missionary society, or bible society, or education society, a cent or a prayer, lest in so doing they should rob the church of its glory, and exalt the inventions of men above the wisdom of God. In their church capacity alone they moved (Christian Baptist, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7).

The foregoing represents “The Restoration Principle.” “The seed is the word of God” (Lk. 8:11). The pattern for the formation of New Testament churches and the power to restore them to the same order of government, work, and worship that existed in the First Century is found in the New Testament. The only obstacle presently preventing such d6restoration” is the application of the apostolic principle of “seed sowing” “in good and honest hearts!” Such a procedure in reality is more than restoration. It is a reproduction of the New Testament order! If not, why not?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 321, 358
June 5, 1986

By Randy Harshbarger

As our Savior came to the end of His ministry on earth, He gathered with His disciples in the city of Jerusalem to observe the Passover Feast. This feast was a reminder to the Jews of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, under the mighty arm of God. Moses instructed the people to kill a lamb and apply the blood to the doorposts of their houses, thus averting the death of the first-born as the Lord passed through the land of Egypt. Jesus chose bread and fruit of the vine as memorials of His body and blood. Matthew’s account says: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take eat; this is my body. And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins” (Matt. 26:26-28). The bread Jesus used was unleavened. For seven days leaven was removed from the house, with strong warning to the Jew who contaminated himself or his house with it (Ex. 12:15, 19,20). Jesus, of course, did not break the Law (Heb. 4:14-16; 1 Pet. 2:21). The fruit of the vine was simply the product of the grape.(1) The slain lamb of the Passover Feast was typical of the salvation made possible by Jesus’ death or as He said, “. . . this is my blood. . . which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Paul later told the Corinthians: “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7).

New Testament Christians partook of the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1,2). The day for eating the Supper was bound, but the time of day was not. The eating of the Lord’s Supper was one reason for their coming together. In the midst of Paul’s warnings regarding abuses of the Supper he said: “When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). They were supposed to be partaking of the Lord’s Supper, but were doing something else.

Paul gives strong admonitions relating to the manner in which Christians should eat the Lord’s Supper. A great danger is in partaking but missing the true significance of the Supper. Paul said: “For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body” (1 Cor. 11:29). Partaking of the Lord’s Supper is more than just eating and drinking, which was something the Corinthians evidently did not properly understand; they did not receive Paul’s praise or approval (1 Cor. 11:17).

Christians must partake of the Lord’s Supper, remembering Christ (1 Cor. 11:24,25). We remember when Christ instituted the Supper. We remember His great sacrifice on the cross. We discern or make a distinction between the Supper and a common meal. A “communion” (1 Cor. 10: 16), involves motive, intent, mind, will, heart, and intellect. Our minds must go back to the time Jesus instituted the Supper, with its intended purpose and great significance for us as Christians.

In 1 Corinthians 11:28 Paul said: “But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.” The Christian must examine himself before and while he partakes. We must not treat the Supper in a light hearted or trivial manner. We must look within and approach the Lord’s Supper with the proper mind with regard to the Lord, His death, and the accruing benefits that belong to Christians. The Lord’s Supper is a proclamation of the Lord’s death; it is a reminder that the Lord died, but is coming back some day (1 Cor. 11:26; Acts 1:11; 2 Pet. 3:12). In loving memory of our Savior, with great hope and fervency of heart, we focus on the One who died for all!

False Views Regarding The Lord’s Supper

Luke 22:19 says: “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” Matthew 26:28 says: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.” Roman Catholicism abuses what is obviously figurative language on Christ’s part, and suggests that the bread and fruit of the vine literally become the flesh and blood of Christ. This is the doctrine of transubstantiation. Jesus employed the figure of speech known as a metaphor. A metaphor is “a figure of speech in which a word or a phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them.”(2) For example, in Matthew 16:6, Jesus said, “. . . beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” The disciples, after Jesus’ explanation, understood that they should beware of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, with its leavening effect. Just so, when Jesus took the bread and the fruit of the vine, and said “this is my body” and “this is my blood,” He said these are representative of my body and blood. Roman Catholicism asserts that when the priest says the mass over the bread and wine, they literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus. It is important to understand what Jesus said and meant, but we must be careful not to find more than was intended.

Consubstantiation, while closely akin to transubstantiation, argues that there is a real physical presence of Christ in the bread and wine.(3) “The idea is that Christ’s body and blood flow or mingle together with the bread and fruit of the vine. This is a slight difference from transubstantiation, but for all practical purposes is essentially the same and is met with the same arguments.”(4) The doctrine of consubstantiation is often traced to Luther, and while it was a major emphasis in his “reformation,” both consubstantiation and transubstantiation can be traced beyond Luther to Cyprian.(5)

Catholicism also says that when one partakes of the “eucharist” (their term for the Lord’s Supper), if he has a penitent attitude, his venial sins can be remitted.(6) But, Jesus said that His blood was shed “unto remission of sins.” We are redeemed by His blood, and we partake of the Lord’s supper remembering that great sacrifice on the cross. We are saved by His blood, not by His Supper.

Edward T. Hiscox, in his manual for Baptist churches said: “As to the time, place, and frequency of the ordinances, no Scriptural directions are given. These are left optional with the churches. They are usually observed on Sundays, but not necessarily. As to the Supper, our churches have very generally come to observe it on the first Sunday of each month.”(7) New Testament Christians came together every first day of the week to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Their purpose for coming together was to break bread! Baptists use 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 to justify taking a collection every week but will not follow Acts 20:7 in regard to the Supper. In recent years, discussion as to the binding authority of New Testament examples has lead some to the conclusion that the Lord’s Supper may be eaten on the Lord’s Day, but Acts 20:7 does not require Christians to do so, nor does it limit the day Christians may eat to the first day of the week.(8) It is easy to see that the controversies surrounding the Lord’s Supper are many. It is also sad that so much trouble and heartache has occurred among God’s people over this great memorial.

Conclusion

Let us as God’s people, appreciate the importance and privilege of observing the Lord’s Supper. On the first day of the week, let us be thankful, as we remember the Lord’s death, proclaiming the Lord’s great sacrifice on the cross. With great anticipation let us look to that future reward of heaven. Let us remember the seriousness of the Supper as we keep alive the great, precious memory of our Savior. Let us worship God “in spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:24).

Oft we come together, Oft we sing and pray

Here we bring our off’ring On his holy day.

May we keep in mem’ry, All that Thou hast said,

May we truly worship As we eat the bread,

May we all in spirit All with one accord,

Take this cup of blessing, Given by the Lord.

Help us Lord, Thy love to see, May we all in truth and spirit worship Thee.

Endnotes

1. Dick Blackford, The Lord’s Supper: A Study Guide for all Christians (Owensboro, KY: Life Line Lessons, 1979), p. 10.

2. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 722.

3. (NOTE: No corresponding reference documentation included in original document.)

4. Blackford, op cit., pp. 33-34.

5. Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1972), pp. 75-76; Hubert Cunliffe-Jones, A History of Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1978), pp. 176-178.

6. Blackford, op cit., p. 45.

7. Edward T. Hiscox, The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1903) p. 20.

8. M.R. Hadwin, The Role of New Testament Examples as related to Biblical Authority (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1974), pp. 46-53.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 341-342
June 5, 1986