Views: 4<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n It has become popular among numerous religious elitists to guffaw at the very suggestion that the original church has been restored to its pristine state in modern times. Such scoffers utter a resounding \u201cno\u201d in answer to the question of our title, believing that only Neanderthal nincompoops would even entertain the notion. Behind the restoration denials of many of these folk lie two even more fundamental denials. They deny both the need for <\/strong>and the possibility of <\/strong>restoration.<\/span><\/p>\n In actuality, we may answer both \u201cyes\u201d and \u201cno\u201d to this question and be correct in both cases. If one is considering personal holiness and spiritual maturity in the lives of those who constitute the church, we would not be honest in claiming that we have restored such qualities fully so that no room for improvement exists. However, if the \u201cstructure\u201d and activities of the Lord\u2019s people as congregations or churches is under consideration, we confidently answer, \u201cYes, the New Testament church needs to be restored when it has apostatized, it is possible to restore it, and it has been restored <\/strong>in modern times and now exists in a restored condition.\u201d In studying the subject of restoration, it is important for us to distinguish between personal spiritual qualities of individual saints and corporate considerations relating to the church.<\/span><\/p>\n Personal Spiritual \u201cRestoration\u201d Is a Perpetual Process<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The New Testament persistently prompts its readers to godliness and spiritual maturity. First, it sets forth the perfect model of godliness in the person of the Lord Jesus, with the injunction: \u201cHe that saith he abideth in him ought to walk, even as he walked\u201d (1 John 2:6). Second, the text of the New Testament ever prescribes the perfect pattern of righteous behavior and incessantly urges its readers thus to live. Peter\u2019s familiar \u201cChristian graces\u201d provide a fair summary of the whole:<\/span><\/p>\n Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in your virtue knowledge; and in your knowledge self-control; and in your self-control patience; and in your patience godliness; and in your godliness brotherly kindness; and in your brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, they make you to be not idle nor unfruitful unto the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 1:5\u20138).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I must tell you that I still have work to do in all of these areas. Is there a man or woman, a boy or girl, among the Lord\u2019s people who has no room for improvement in such areas of personal growth and spiritual development? Has any Christian husband or wife perfected his or her role? Are there any elders who cannot be better shepherds of the flock? When was the last time you met or heard a flawless preacher? To ask these questions is to answer them. That giant of spiritual strength and maturity, the apostle Paul, still had to say of himself, \u201cBrethren, I count not myself yet to have laid hold…\u201d (Phi. 3:13), and \u201cI buffet my body, and bring it into bondage: lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected\u201d (1 Cor. 9:27). If Paul still had to work toward greater spiritual maturity in the prime of his devoted life as a servant of the Christ, then no one should think he has reached a plateau beyond which he has no need for further growth.<\/span><\/p>\n The remonstrance of those who ridicule the claim of the reality of restoration often focuses upon the personal, human shortcomings of individual saints. Typical (and in the forefront) of those who deride the idea of a restored church is the mockery of Rubel Shelly. In a 1990 speech to the Richland Hills Church of Christ (since renamed, \u201cThe Hill Church of Christ\u201d), the latter-day Shelly averred:<\/span><\/p>\n Which church do you want to restore? Jerusalem, with its lack of evangelistic zeal? Or restore Corinth with its open fornication and drunkenness in church services around communion time? What about Colossae with its heresy? What about Ephesus? What about Laodicea, that church that says, \u201cWe\u2019ve got it?\u201d And He said, \u201cYou\u2019re dead as a hammer and don\u2019t know it.\u201d They said, \u201cWe don\u2019t need anything,\u201d and He said, \u201cYou need everything.\u201d (Music, 296).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Notice his emphasis on apathy, immorality, susceptibility to heresy, and smug lukewarmness\u2014 all of which had to do with personal spiritual failings and flaws in human beings. All such things pertain to the human element in and of the church. Restoring the church has to do with the Divine element\u2014the church as the Lord built it through the preaching of the apostles.<\/span><\/p>\n I remind us that no individual <\/strong>human being\u2014besides our Lord\u2014has attained moral and\/or spiritual perfection, and none ever shall:<\/span><\/p>\n \u2026for all have sinned [an aorist tense form, embracing all who have lived in the past], and fall short [a present tense form, embracing all now living and all who will live] of the glory of God\u201d (Rom. 3:23).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Human imperfections, flaws, and sins are the very reason God had to come in the flesh to save us. Personal spiritual \u201crestoration\u201d is an unending process, even for the best among us.<\/span><\/p>\n Almost twenty years ago, I wrote the following words in addressing some of these Shelly contentions, which words still fully reflect my convictions:<\/span><\/p>\n I know of no one who would deny that the human element of the church has always been and will ever be imperfect. It is not possible for even the most dedicated believer to live above sin absolutely. One who claims to do so is a liar (1 John 1:8). Members of the church of God will always be fallible creatures ever in need of pressing on \u201ctoward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus\u201d (Phi. 3:14).<\/span><\/p>\n However, when we consider the Divine element of the church (the way the Lord ordained, planned, and built His church), that is another matter altogether. The Divine element relates to the way the church is to be organized, the way it is to worship, the way men may enter it, and what its work and nature are (McClish 518\u201319).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n To point to the failures in the personal lives of Christians as evidence that \u201cthe church\u201d has not been restored is beyond absurd. Such is comparable to denying that a fully restored automobile is not actually restored because some of its passengers are drunk. I suspect that those who thus argue know that their contention is a ruse, but they have nothing else to offer considering Scriptural teaching and prevailing evidence that contradict it.<\/span><\/p>\n Let us turn now to the question of restoration as it pertains to the design, framework, and pattern the New Testament sets forth for the church.<\/span><\/p>\n Is Restoration Necessary or Possible?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Before we more directly address the actuality <\/strong>of restoration, we must address the question of whether or not it is possible <\/strong>and\/or necessary <\/strong>to effect such. Many in the church now deny both. If they are right, then actuality of restoration is a moot question.<\/span><\/p>\n To deny the principle, plea, possibility, and actuality of restoring the church requires a broadside against Scripture-based and time-tested Biblical hermeneutics. It is no wonder then that they seek release from all Bible authority by repudiating what they call \u201cpattern theology.\u201d They view what they style as the \u201cold hermeneutic\u201d of applying Scripture by means of observing its direct statements, accounts of action, and implications with equal repugnance and disdain. They have nothing but ridicule for the concept of prohibitions based upon Scriptural silence. While decrying what they call our \u201cproof-text hermeneutics\u201d that expose their error, it is noteworthy that they eagerly\u2014and hypocritically\u2014run to and with a passage when they think it supports their contention.<\/span><\/p>\n Let us now briefly address the dual-pronged denial that restoration is either necessary or possible. By several avenues of proof, we may certify the falsity of all such caviling.1<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n The argument of the passage is from the lesser to the greater, and may be stated as follows: Since God was so concerned with the minute details of the inferior institution (i.e., the tabernacle), He is therefore much more concerned <\/strong>that the superior institution (i.e., the church) be built to his specifications. Denial of this explicit Scriptural truth\u2014God has a pattern for the church, and He expects men to follow it\u2014is the basis of all denials relating to restoration <\/strong>(i.e., possibility, necessity, actuality). Liberals believe God has left \u201cstructural\u201d matters pertaining to His church \u201cwide open.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n After the Jerusalem church began on Pentecost (and the Holy Spirit did call <\/strong>those obedient believers \u201cthe church\u201d [Acts 5:11; 8:1, 3; 11:22, et al.]), by what means did churches spring up elsewhere? By what means was the church in Antioch recognized as and called such (11:26; 13:1; 14:27)? Are we to suppose they had nothing in common (e.g., entrance requirements, worship, organization) with the Jerusalem church to cause the Holy Spirit thus to designate them? And what about those religious bodies the Holy Spirit designated as churches \u201cthroughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria\u201d (9:31) and \u201cthe seven churches that are in Asia\u201d (Rev. 1:4), to say nothing of all of those established by Paul and Barnabas on their initial preaching trip into Asia Minor (Acts 14:23)? How could they be thus recognized and identified without certain marks of identity?<\/span><\/p>\n Over the past several decades, from time to time, brotherhood news sources have publicized the discovery of indigenous congregations after the New Testament order in various parts of the world. These believers had no previous contact with or knowledge of others who believed and practiced as they did. They simply researched the New Testament and formed congregations on the basis of what they found. Such cases are proof that there is a pattern for the church, said pattern is discernible, and it is possible to apply this pattern and reproduce the original. They allowed the seed to germinate in their hearts, and it brought forth after its kind, resulting in New Testament congregations.<\/span><\/p>\n Scriptural and logical evidence abounds to convince unbiased hearts that God and His Son demand <\/strong>restoration of the church Jesus built when apostasy and corruption overtake it. Since Deity has never demanded the impossible of men, we must therefore conclude that restoration of His church is possible.<\/span><\/p>\n Is Restoration of the Church a Reality?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Ours is not the first era to have its restoration deniers and detractors. Benjamin Franklin (descendant of the Colonial statesman) was one of the powerful voices of the nineteenth century who preached and practiced going back to the old paths\u2014restoring the church that had suffered hundreds of years of apostasy and corruption. When the missionary society and instrumental music elements arose, he boldly opposed and exposed both, recognizing that there was no place for them in the \u201cReformation\u201d (their term for the restoration). He addressed the digressives who had given up on the plea and were calling it a failure:<\/span><\/p>\n It is true, also, that \u201cGod\u2019s word, as the only rule of faith and practice, is as much set at naught by the religious world today as it was fifty years ago,\u201d and more, too; and there is nothing so unpopular with the masses of the people, and some called brethren<\/strong>, as precisely the apostolic way; and the Reformation is not a failure, either.<\/span><\/p>\n Our reformatory movement was right and is still right. It needs no modification but needs to be faithfully and honestly carried out…. It went back to the Divine fountain to find the truth…. It went back to the Bible itself…. It went back to the religion of Christ itself…. This was no failure. The attempt was to go back to the Lord Himself; to His own Book, His own religion; and those who attempted this, and did it<\/strong>, made no failure. They found the Lord, His Book, and His religion, and found the salvation of the Lord. There was no failure in all this (emph. in orig.) (Headington 96\u201397).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In 1968, after I had preached a sermon in which I identified faithful churches of Christ at the time with the church set forth in Scripture, a young man came by to see me. He was the son of one of the families in the congregation and was a student at Abilene Christian College (now ACU). He was all but incredulous at my audacity, arrogance, and bigotry (as he perceived matters) in daring to make such an identity. He left my study disgusted that anyone would be so narrow-minded and self-righteous as to thus affirm. He voiced what has become the prevailing view of tens, if not hundreds of thousands in the church over the past four decades. I was unable to penetrate his emotion-based contention with either Scripture or logic. He left even more upset than when he came. My convictions remain the same now as they were then, for Scripture and reason will allow me no other option.<\/span><\/p>\n At the time this young man came to my study, the same Rubel Shelly, quoted earlier in a statement radically denouncing the concept of restoration, was staunchly advocating the validity <\/strong>of the plea for restoration (he began revealing his liberal bent in the early 1980s).<\/span><\/p>\n Further, he was not reticent about declaring that the restored church exists today. Forty years ago (almost to the day as I write these words), the Gospel Advocate <\/em>published an article by Shelly relative to the question with which this chapter deals (in fact, the title of Shelly\u2019s 1971 article was identical with the title of this chapter). It is impossible to misunderstand him:<\/span><\/p>\n I categorically deny the notion that the restoration plea is invalid. I also deny that the goal of restorationism is yet unrealized. The New Testament church, the body and bride of Christ, does exist in the twentieth century, and I am a member of that body <\/strong>(emph. DM) (Shelly 793).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As he answered in his statement, so I answer\u2014agreeing with him in toto (except to update his statement from the twentieth to the twenty-first century).<\/span><\/p>\n Bases of the Claim of Present-day Restoration<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Having affirmed that the restored church presently exists, it is now time to examine the bases for the affirmation. The Shelly-type heretics now prattle on about their repentance regarding the sermons they had once preached (in their immature pre-apostate days) on the \u201cidentifying marks of the church,\u201d and they promise never to do so again. I submit, however, that it is impossible to conceive of it apart from such marks. I aver that such brethren deny that there are such specifications in an effort to justify their ecumenical plotting and planning. In fact, we may ponder in what sense the church can exist at all apart from certain recognizable characteristics peculiar to it.<\/span><\/p>\n While the church is indeed a spiritual institution in nature, its nature does not preclude the existence of outward, visible traits that define and distinguish it from all other institutions. And yet, anti-restoration liberals apparently hold some such view, holding \u201cthe church\u201d to be some sort of vaporous, invisible entity\u2014without shape or form and most certainly, without borders.<\/span><\/p>\n In fact, Shelly and his fellow-liberal and co-author, Randy Harris, argued as much in their 1992 book, The Second Incarnation<\/em>. According to them, we must ignore Acts and the epistles if we would learn anything about what the church is or should be. We are not to look to Jerusalem, Antioch, Philippi, or anywhere else on the New Testament map for an actual model for the church. Rather, they insist that we learn all about the church in the Gospel accounts. Jesus Himself is the only \u201cparadigm\u201d (a synonym for pattern<\/em>, by the way) for the church (Shelly and Harris).<\/span><\/p>\n As essential as it is for us to try to replicate the life of our Lord in ours (1 John 2:6, et al.), this fact has no bearing on the nature, structure, or substance of the church. Even to speak of \u201cthe church\u201d apart from its identification properties is absurd. To attempt to find the church apart from its outward manifestations is as foolhardy (and impossible) as expecting the police to find a stolen car without knowing its make, color, year of manufacture, license number, or how many doors it might have. Given the liberal view of the church, how might one ever know if he had or had not found it or whether he was or was not in it? But when did such little details ever matter to liberals?<\/span><\/p>\n Consider the following bases for the claim of present-day restoration:<\/span><\/p>\n From all the above, it follows that the inspired record of what the disciples did as churches <\/strong>of the Lord\u2019s people demonstrates exactly what the apostles obligated them to do. It also follows that the decrees of the apostles set forth these arrangements and obligations for the church in perpetuity, for the Lord\u2019s will was not to be altered in the least (1 Cor. 4:6; 11:2; Gal. 1:6\u20139; 1 Pet. 4:11; Rev. 22:18\u201319, et al.). These practices verily constitute \u201cidentifying marks\u201d of the church presented to us from Acts 2:41 through Revelation 3:22, regardless of all the caterwauling, bawling, screaming, whining, and shrieking the liberal crowd wants to do about it.<\/span><\/p>\n When we study closely the congregations, as set up by the apostles, we find the following:<\/span><\/p>\n Simply put, the foregoing practices are all external, visible marks of identity of the New Testament church, denials of liberals notwithstanding. When people in this or any other time obey the terms of pardon first issued on Pentecost and then practice these characteristics, they most certainly constitute the church, even as in the first century.<\/span><\/p>\n It is not self-righteous or self-serving, but simply factual, to say that faithful churches of Christ here and now constitute the restored church. Does this mean that every building that has Church of Christ <\/em>on it houses a restored church? No, no more than slapping a Cadillac emblem on a Ford makes it a Cadillac. It is quite clear that the day has long since passed when one could rely upon such signs alone. However, the fact that many congregations have strayed into apostasy and have continued to employ a Scriptural designation in no way contradicts the reality that faithful churches yet exist. I have told audiences in unnumbered sermons over the years that the New Testament church exists today, and I am a member of it, as they also can be. So say I again.<\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n One will not read very long or very much of what the anti-restoration folk write before discovering the foundation of their denials. As liberals, they chafe at restriction or confinement of what they believe and\/or practice (after all, a basic meaning of liberal <\/em>is \u201cfree from restraint\u201d). They do not want anyone\u2014including God and His Son\u2014telling them what they may, may not, must, or must not do or say. When one gets down to it, liberalism is merely thinly disguised universalism; liberals cannot bear the thought that the Lord will hold men accountable for what they believe and practice in religion. They cannot visualize the Lord\u2019s saying, \u201cI never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity\u201d (Mat. 7:23) to those who professed belief in Him while ignoring or rejecting His Word (v. 21).<\/span><\/p>\n That which the current-day liberals in the church (and all professed believers on the outside, I assume) deny, I am pleased to affirm. I have not the slightest hesitation to answer our title\u2019s question: \u201cYes, the New Testament church has been restored and exists in a restored state in this modern world.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Works Cited<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Headington, J.A. and Joseph Franklin. A Book of Gems or Choice Selections from the Writings of Benjamin Franklin. <\/em>Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1879.<\/span><\/p>\n McClish, Dub. \u201cThe Body of Christ: Not a \u2018Pilgrim church\u2019.\u201d Jesus Christ, the Gift of God\u2019s Grace and the Object of Man\u2019s Faith<\/em>. Ed. Curtis A. Cates. Memphis, TN: Memphis School of Preaching, 1992.<\/span><\/p>\n Music, Goebel. Behold the Pattern<\/em>. Colleyville, TX: Goebel Music Pub., 1991.<\/span><\/p>\n Shelly, Rubel. \u201cHas the New Testament Church Been Restored?\u201d Gospel Advocate<\/em>. Ed. B.C.\u00a0<\/span>Goodpasture. December 16, 1971.<\/span><\/p>\n Shelly, Rubel and Randall J. Harris. The Second Incarnation: A Theology for the 21<\/em>st <\/em>Century Church<\/em>. West Monroe, LA: Howard Pub. Co., 1992.<\/span><\/p>\n Endnote<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [Note: <\/strong>I wrote this MS for and I presented a digest of it orally at the Contending for the Faith Lectures, hosted by the Spring, TX, Church of Christ, February 22\u201326, 2012. It was published in the book of the lectures, The New Testament Church and Counterfeit Churches, <\/em>ed. David P. Brown (Contending for the Faith, Spring, TX)].<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution:<\/strong> From thescripturecache.com<\/em>; Dub McClish, owner and administrator.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 4[Note: This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts page.] Introduction It has become popular among numerous religious elitists to guffaw at the very suggestion that the original church has been restored to its pristine state in modern times. Such scoffers utter…<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n