Category: Restoration History

Posted in Doctrine, Restoration History

The Sinfulness of Denominationalism

Posted on by Mac Deaver

My mother was raised to be a Baptist. The man who became her husband and my father taught her what the New Testament calls “the gospel” (Rom. 1:16). My mother learned the gospel, and she obeyed the gospel (2 Thess. 1:7-8). When I was growing up we would visit my mother’s kinfolk in East Texas. So, I became acquainted with denominationalists called Baptists. Many of my relatives in East Texas were in Baptist families. My father was a preacher for the churches of Christ, and the churches of Christ claimed to be non-denominational. I am this day a preacher for the churches of Christ, and I maintain that I am preaching for the church authorized by the Lord and about which we read in the New Testament. I have been a preacher and teacher of the gospel for over fifty years. I claim that the Lord’s church has been restored. But what do I mean?

The church of New Testament authority was never lost completely. The Bible teaches that once established, it would never go out of existence on the earth completely even if human history failed to take notice of it (Dan. 2:44; Matt. 16:18). However, it might cease to exist in a specific geographical place or places, and the people there lose sight of it. If they would be saved by the gospel that produced that church, they would have to recover the original message for themselves. In the early part of the 1800s on the North American continent, a movement began which in time was referred to in history books as the “Restoration Movement.” It was a massive human effort to get back to original religious ground. But, let me be clear. I do not claim to be simply a part of an historical “movement.” Jesus did not die for a movement! I claim to be a member of the Lord’s church—the one you read about in your New Testament.

But, I gladly admit that I am historically indebted to men who came out of doctrinal darkness and man-made churches in an attempt to “restore” in our land what had been lost. Men raised in denominations began to see, because of their intensive look into Scripture, that what they were reading in their Bibles did not completely harmonize with what they had been taught in the denominations. They were looking for saving truth found in their Bibles, and many of them found it. But today in America at a time when many have turned completely against all religion and God, many religionists remain in partisan religious groups established by men on earth without connection to the authority of Scripture. They remain in a spiritual condition but without knowing what the Bible calls “the gospel.” They remain deeply attached to particular religious points of view perhaps because of sentiment or because of some other reason. After all, a particular denominational perspective provided the spiritual atmosphere in which they were raised. It is unfortunate that some people will choose family over Christ, even though Jesus Christ said that if we do that, we cannot be his disciples (Matt. 10:34-39; Luke 14:25-27). Divine saving truth certainly must be chosen above any physical relationship on this earth, as important as human relationships are. God designed these relationships; God has given us truth, and he has made it clear that truth—not error—is the informational route to salvation (John 8:31-32; Acts 20:32; 1 Tim. 2:4). Salvation, of course, entails coming to a knowledge of the truth, but one cannot be saved from past sins simply because he knows truth. The Bible teaches that one must believe the truth, love the truth, and obey the truth (Heb. 11:1, 6; Acts 20:32; 2 Thess. 2:10-12; 1 Pet. 1:22; Heb. 5:8-9).

The reason I am writing is that I was sent an article entitled, “The Case for Denominations: Why ‘Restorationism’ Misses the Mark And Why Continuous Reformation is Essential.” It was published November 20, 2024 on a Substack called The Reformed Baptist Layman (https://substack.com/@puritanknight/p-151467645). The unnamed writer (whose handle is @puritanknight) puts forth much effort not only to justify denominational existence but even its essentiality. This is a bold effort, but a terribly misguided one as I will attempt to prove. But I am grateful that the unnamed writer tried to justify the present religious landscape in our world. It gives me a great opportunity to expose the concept of “denominationalism” in print. I will show that the Baptist’s view of the relationship of denominations to Scripture is false and that his concept of the possibility of reformation without preceding restoration is an impossible one. Please bear with me.

The writer alleges the misguidedness of the effort to “restore” the church, while applauding the efforts to “reform” the church. He tries to show that “denominations are not only biblically and historically warranted but why restorationism ultimately misses the mark on what it means to be the church.” His main headings include (1) Denominations: A Biblical and Practical Necessity, (2) The Historical Roots and Purpose of Denominations, (3) An Example from My Own Denomination, (4) Why Restoration Falls Short, (5) The Ironic Denominationalism of Restorationism, (6) Reformation, Not Restoration: Why “Semper Reformanda” Is Essential, (7) Denominations as Guardians of Doctrinal Integrity, (8) Conclusion: Embracing Denominational Diversity in Unity.

It is a well-written article but full of erroneous material. I will now try to explain why the writer’s own approach to Scripture (in his attempt at constant reformation without restoration) is unscriptural and, thus, unwarranted, and that it is logically impossible to defend. A full-blown analysis of every error in the article would necessitate an unnecessarily lengthy response. I will focus only on a few fundamental mistakes based upon which his thesis collapses. Actually, by a clear understanding of a few selected True-False questions, the reader ought to be able to realize the error of justifying “reformation” without first establishing “restoration.” Consider:

1. True/False—According to the Scriptures, there is a definite, identifiable way for a sinner to become a Christian. Answer: True (John 7:24; Luke 13:3; Matt. 10: 31-32; 1 Tim. 6:12; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16)

2. True/False—According to the Scriptures, there is a definite, identifiable description of the early (original) church established by Jesus Christ including its terms of entry, its nature, its purpose, its authorized worship, and its authorized work. Answer: True

3. True/False—Since the church is composed of Christians and only Christians, then if a man does not know or cannot know what is necessary in order for a sinner to become a Christian, then he can never determine what the church of the New Testament originally was, and whether or not it exists today. Answer: True

4. True/False—It is rational to attempt to “reform” something if you do not know what that something is. Answer: False

5. True/False—It is possible to attempt to “reform” something that does not even exist. Answer: False

6. True/False—There is at least one passage of Scripture that predicates salvation on a person’s getting merely close to the truth in his own knowledge. Answer: False

7. True/False—According to the New Testament, the saved are added to the church and compose the church. Answer: True

8. True/False—There is a “pattern of sound words” by which any individual or group of individuals can be properly evaluated as to whether or not he or they are Christians and, thus, a part of the church established by Jesus Christ. Answer: True

9. True/False—Faith (saving faith) only comes from trusting God’s truth, and our religious practices, to be justified, must be based on the Lord’s authority. Answer: True (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:17; 2 John 9-11; 1 Cor. 4:6)

Please evaluate the quotations provided from The Reformed Baptist Layman to which I will refer in the light of the foregoing True-False statements and your answers to them. Some of the True-False statements are true, and some are false. Please carefully consider them until you know that you have answered them according to New Testament instruction that you can cite as proof of the accuracy of your answers. I have not given Bible references for all of the statements. If you are a serious Bible student, surely you can answer the ten True-False statements fairly easily.

Before referencing his article, let me give a definition of “restoration.” This is the word used in your New Testament in Acts 3:21. The Greek word is apokathistami, and it means “to restore to its former state;…to be in its former state….” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 62). Thayer provides examples in Scripture such as restoration to health, sight, dominion, of a disturbed order of affairs, and of a person’s being restored to his friends. The concept of restoration if not foreign to the New Testament.

Now, in his article, the writer says, “Movements like the Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and various Independent Christian Churches, for example, all emerged from restorationist roots but now function as organized, doctrinally defined groups that differ on key issues. These groups may not formally call themselves denominations, but they fulfill the same role by establishing clear boundaries around their beliefs and practices.” Here, the writer wrongly affirms that doctrinal boundaries imply denominational status. That is a false concept. Of course, he does not and cannot prove his claim. If it were a true statement, it would mean that the original church of the first-century started off as a denomination since it had doctrinal boundaries (1 Cor. 4:6; 2 John 9-11; Col. 3:17). Correct doctrinal boundaries of the gospel are what keeps the church from entering the world again.

So, I for one, reject the writer’s view that churches of Christ are necessarily a denomination because we have doctrinal boundaries. If the Lord’s church had no doctrinal boundaries there would be no difference between truth and error or between the church and the world. The writer’s concept of boundaries needs rethinking. And, in the second place, organization does not imply a denomination either. The early church when formed into local congregations had organization that was divinely authorized. It was not a mere humanly devised construct (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9). The inspired apostle Paul predicted to the Ephesian elders that an apostasy was coming and that its initial expression would be located within the government of the local church (Acts 20:29-30). Incredibly, under the heading, “Why Restorationism Falls Short,” the Baptist writer says “restorationism leans heavily on an idealized version of the early church, often overlooking that the apostles themselves established early forms of governance…” (as though God were not the underlying authority). He goes on to say, “Restorationist movements often result in a rejection of church history and the wisdom of past believers who, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, clarified critical doctrines.” So, according to him, what the apostles established was not a permanent pattern, and, centuries later, men (non-apostles) were being guided by God to clarify doctrine because the New Testament didn’t make it clear. Can you believe that?

Luke informs us of the first appointment of elders (Acts 14:23). Paul and Barnabas, at least, were the ones who did the appointing. Paul was an apostle (Rom. 1:1), and Barnabas was an “apostle” by the extended definition of that term (Acts 14:14), and he was one of the prophets or teachers at the church in Antioch (Acts 13:1). At any rate, the first elders were appointed by apostolic authority! Our Baptist writer needs to rethink his position on first-century church organization. And he certainly needs to rethink his position on what “inspiration” of men and Scripture means (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 2:12-13). He has absolutely no right to claim that first-century church organization was initiated without the Holy Spirit, and he certainly has no right to claim that in later church history some believers were guided by the Holy Spirit to clarify critical doctrines. What confusion. His concept of Bible “inspiration” is not mine.

I admit that the writer has a right to “denominate” me (name me, identify me). In this sense the original church in the New Testament was “denominated” or called or referred to in various ways such as the (1) church local (the church at Ephesus, Corinth, etc.), (2) church universal (church; Matt. 16:18), (3) church regional (churches of Galatia, Asia, Judea, Macedonia; Gal. 1:2, 22; Rev. 1:4; 2 Cor. 8:1), (4) congregational collective (churches of Christ; Rom. 16:16), (5) church compositional (Heb. 12:23), (6) congregational collective/compositional (1 Cor. 14:33); (7) church ethnic (Rom. 16:4). But the writer of the The Reformed Baptist Layman cannot produce a passage of Scripture where an inspired writer ever referred to the church that the Lord established as a denomination in the sense of a religious sect that composes a part of the church universal along with other religious sects (e.g. Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Lutheran Church, etc., which is the very concept that the writer attempts to justify). He tries to uphold something outside the authority of Scripture. He cannot find the “denominational” use of the word “church” in Scripture, and, thus, thinks that men today should reform what is not even allowed by Scripture. The writer’s total non-comprehension of Bible authority here is telling. This lack of understanding on this point is why he seems to be troubled by restorationists using the terms “biblical” and “unscriptural.” He simply does not know how the Bible authorizes men today to do anything. Along with his faulty epistemology, this is a terrible fundamental error.

The Baptist writer claims, “The idea of rejecting denominational differences and returning to a ‘pre-denominational’ or ‘restored’ state of the early church has gained appeal among some Christians…While the goal of pursuing purity in worship and doctrine is admirable, restorationism is a flawed approach that oversimplifies the complexities of biblical teaching, historical development, and the reality of human fallibility.” Oh, really? Think about this:

The Baptist writer just told us that “restorationism” has appealed to some Christians without telling us, in fact, according to the New Testament, who is a Christian! He is working on the assumption (that I do not for a moment grant) that denominations are clearly composed of Christians. Jesus did not die to purchase a denomination (or all denominations). He purchased his church, and his church in the first-century was composed of those who obeyed the same truth, meeting the same conditions (Acts 20:28). All who entered the church entered by birth of water and Spirit, and it was the only way into the church (i.e. kingdom, John 3:3-5). Consider every kingdom-entry account in the book of Acts, and you will find that everyone entered the church in the same way. And if anyone, since the New Testament was completed, has entered the church, according to Jesus’ remarks to Nicodemus in John 3, he has entered in the same way.

Now, according to the writer, what makes it impossible to have a workable restoration of the original gospel and church? He lists three things: (1) “the complexities of biblical teaching,” (2) “historical development,” and (3) “the reality of human fallibility.” I kindly ask: is any of these even relevant to the discussion? Is he trying to say that because of these three things or because of any one of these three things that we cannot discover the original gospel and church? If so, then he has become an epistemological agnostic. That is, he has unknowingly embraced a knowledge theory that disallows humans to know objective truth. And as one who has embraced such a theory, he might as well give up on even trying to “reform” his church. Why? It is because he is denying the actual possibility of humans finding absolute and objective truth! I will show that his agnosticism regarding knowledge disallows even reformation. This has not dawned on him as yet.

The writer never proves his contention that restoring the church is impossible, nor that denominationalism is even Scriptural. He never presents a formal argument to justify his conclusions, and his implied arguments are unsound (thus non-dependable). He provides his own view of how things are and how things should be, but he never proves the correctness of his view that reformation is better than restoration, and he certainly never even attempts to show that reformation, as such, is even possible. And yet, he would have all of his readers to accept his idea of the impossibility of restoring the church.

How are Baptists and Methodists and Lutherans, etc., supposed to settle religious differences according to Scripture? Is there any guidance to be found? Are humans simply in the preposterous condition of having to discuss differentiating religious opinions by a more fundamental opinion? That is not the way that the New Testament describes the human condition as it relates to the authority and knowability of Scripture. The New Testament tells us to settle religious differences by “proof” (1Thess. 5:21; Rom. 12:1-2). The Baptist writer claims that “the goal of pursuing purity in worship and doctrine is admirable,” but that such effort constitutes a “flawed approach” of Bible handling. So after all is said and done, those who are trying to be Christians in the various denominations and who are trying to constantly “reform” their church can be faithful while at the same time not adhering to “purity in worship and doctrine.” This is an outrageous claim.

Remember, according to the writer we cannot restore the original gospel and the original church because of (1) “the complexities of biblical teaching,” (2) “historical development,” and (3) “the reality of human fallibility.” These are his three impediments to coming to an actual knowledge of the original gospel and the original church. So, the Bible is too complex, and historical development has so removed us from the original scene, and the fallibility of man is such that we simply cannot “restore” or “recover” the truth!

Dear reader, can you believe that? I notice that the Baptist writer never in the article places great value on the truth and knowing it. He is a religionist for sure, but Christians are those who practice “pure religion” (James 1:27). James did not know, evidently, that the goal of pure religion was impossible!

Furthermore, the Baptist states that the idea of “restorationism” has appealed to some “Christians.” Of course, the writer never in the article identifies exactly who a Christian is. How does he know that the ones to whom the concept of restoring the church (rather than merely reforming it) are Christians? According to his article, I declare that the writer does not know who a Christian is, and that he does not, then, understand what the church is.

The Baptist writer assumes his case. If the church universal is composed of Christians and only Christians (cf. Acts 2:47; Heb. 12:23), then the writer has to know what one must do (if anything) or how it is exactly that a person becomes a Christian in order to claim that “restoration” has appealed to “some Christians.” The concept appeals to me. Would he admit that I am a Christian? If so, why would he admit it? How would he know it if there is no way for men today to get to original, absolute, objective saving truth? Why does he assume—or what gives him the right to claim—that some who accept restorationism are Christians? And, yet, this very fundamental truth (how it is that one becomes a Christian) has been the center of controversy for years. Much disagreement has resulted over this controversial topic and led to the formation of various religious groups that came to compose the denominational world.

I am not trying to be unkind, but the writer positions Christianity on a foundation of sand. He never provides a definition of who, in fact, a Christian is, so he cannot conceptually identify the church universal as described in Scripture. He is trying to justify the existence and even the essentiality of a superstructure that is built on a foundation that is itself unauthorized by the New Testament. The Scriptures do not authorize competing religions. The Lord established only one church, and there has always been only one way into it (Matt. 16:18; John 3:3-5; Eph. 4:1-6). The Scriptures warn against perversion of the gospel and divisiveness over it (Gal. 1:6-7; 1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 2:1-4). At the same time, the New Testament teaches that the church will inevitably face factions (or heresies) so that the approved of God will be made manifest (1 Cor. 11:19).

Interestingly, the Baptist writer in his article refers to 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 and claims that critics of denominationalism have misapplied it. But, given his epistemological agnosticism regarding the alleged non-knowability of original truth, how does he know what the passage teaches? Second, if we allow him to stand in self-contradiction to his agnostic implication, he admits that the division condemned by Paul is within a congregation and not between various religious bodies. That is true. Paul attacks the division because it is sinful. Men were grouping themselves behind mere men. Paul shows that the One behind whom all of them should stand is the One who died for them, and the One into whose name they were baptized. However, the same principle prohibiting such division within the church would also certainly forbid the establishment of any OTHER church! Paul showed that Christ is not divided (v. 13). No other church has ever come into existence with Bible authority behind it. If we claim to be Christians, we must make sure that we have done what the New Testament requires for church (i.e. kingdom) entry, and that we are abiding by all of the principles in the New Testament that regulate continual existing spiritual fellowship between the Father and Jesus Christ and us (1 John 1:3, 7; 2 John 9-11).

And, while rejecting the very concept of restoring the church as a “flawed approach,” he suggests (but never proves) that denominations use the process of “Semper Reformanda” or “always reforming.” And he claims that “This principle offers a more robust, grounded approach to Christian faith, encouraging believers to grow in doctrinal understanding within accountable, organized communities.” How does the writer know this? He simply asserts his “approach” to understanding Scripture is a more “grounded” approach to Christian faith. Grounded in what? Is it more grounded in knowable revelational truth or more grounded in non-knowable revelational truth. Is it grounded in knowable truth or in human opinion? If it is grounded in non-knowable revelational truth or opinion, then he has no basis to claim that it is more grounded at all! If it is grounded in knowable revelational truth, then why can’t there be other knowable truths that we can find in Scripture as well as the one that seemingly gives him his authority to use the “Semper Reformanda” approach to Scripture? Jesus said that it is necessary for one to “abide” in his word in order to know truth, and it is only by that truth that the one who abides in it can be free from his sinful captivity (John 8:31-32).

The writer’s article asserts that people must be content with making assumed religious improvement without having the possibility of restoring the original gospel or church. In fact, and incredibly, he denies that the New Testament even presents a clear view of the original church! So the goal of “restoration” is impossible, but, according to the writer, reforming that church is possible. This is absurd. How can he possibly know that he is “reforming” something that is never presented clearly, according to him, in the Scriptures anyway? This makes no sense at all.

His “reformationism” without previous “restorationism” amounts to an irrational effort at an impossible goal. And this so-called “principle” (“always reforming”) while denying the possibility of actually restoring, is not a principle from Scripture. It is a wrongly embraced opinion which is incorrect. Furthermore, since it is an opinion that is contradictory of Scriptures, it rises above the category of mere opinion to that of a false doctrine in conflict with the teaching of Christ and the writers of the New Testament. The writer’s view contradicts the Scriptural view that we today must know the truth (not merely get closer and closer and closer to it) in order to be saved by the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). It is a statement of man-made confusion. The New Testament makes it clear that salvation is based on a knowledge of saving truth (John 8:31-32; Acts 20:32; 1 Tim. 2:4). There is no New Testament authorization of a technique of always reforming and never becoming a Christian, or of always reforming, but never knowing what the church actually is. No one can assume that all or that any of the denominations are composed of Christians, if the writer’s view of the impossibility of discovering original truth is correct. What a confusion the Baptist writer imposes on his readers.

It is insightful that our Baptist writer presents “human fallibility” as one of the difficulties confronting the very idea of restorationism, but he nowhere uses the concept of human fallibility as an impediment to reformation. It is interesting that even though we are human and are fallible, we can knowingly reform religion successfully, according to him (“always reforming”), but we cannot restore the original religion! Evidently, that is asking too much of fallible men. Of course, the writer offers no proof. And our response is: If we with our fallibility can knowingly reform religion, we can with that same fallibility restore pure religion! And that is what is attempted in restorationism.

If the first-century church was at one time lost sight of by most people, and if the first-century original gospel was lost sight of by most people, then either (1) there is a divine obligation imposed on humans today to locate that church and that gospel, or (2) there is no divine obligation imposed on humans today to locate that church and that gospel. Now which is it? If there is no obligation to locate the original church and gospel, then men can be saved (if saved at all) without knowing the original, inspired, infallible, all sufficient truth, and any attempt at reforming anything is absolutely unnecessary! But, if there is such an obligation, then the denominations in their alleged “always reforming” approach, without recovery of first-century truth, have fallen short of complying with that divine obligation.

The writer asserts that “…unity in the church doesn’t mean the absence of organized identity or theological boundaries. True unity is found in shared essentials, not necessarily in structural uniformity or the rejection of denominational identities. Ironically, restorationism’s insistence on non-denominational purity has shown that doctrinal clarity and boundaries are necessary to preserve truth, even if that means forming groups with distinct beliefs and practices.” What confusion!

So, correct unity is found in shared essentials. But who decides what is essential and what is optional? The Bible provides these different categories. But, according to the Baptist writer, men today cannot get at original absolute truth. So, the “shared essentials” that produce “true unity” are only reformed essentials as determined by men, and not by the pure gospel of Christ. And when the writer says that “doctrinal clarity and boundaries are necessary to preserve truth,” he contradicts himself again. He claims that we today need denominations so that we can have “doctrinal clarity…to preserve truth.” If we cannot discover in the biblical text the pure gospel and the pure church, how in the world can we discover that we now have “doctrinal clarity” and, thus, truth? Our Baptist writer is at odds with himself in his own theory of “reformation.”

There are many more false assertions made, but there is little point just here in exposing them. His theory stands exposed, as is. His view of the church is that it is made of Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.

But the picture provided in the New Testament is a church composed of congregations adhering to the same gospel, such as the church at Jerusalem, the church at Ephesus, the church at Corinth, the church at Antioch, the church at Philippi, the church at Smyrna, etc.

These churches were originally composed of people who believed the same gospel message, who obeyed the same truth, and became Christians and only Christians. They all entered the kingdom by birth of water and Spirit (John 3:3-5). All of them! Of course, as predicted by Paul, an apostasy was coming (Acts 20:28-31). We read of its first stage in the second-century literature. By the time of its full development, Roman Catholicism was in place. The reaction in time was an attempt at reforming the Catholic Church by Martin Luther and others. Such an effort was resisted. Luther was excommunicated. But as the Scriptures became more and more available to the masses, protester groups developed in reaction to the obvious heresy of Catholicism. And while it was clear to some people that Catholicism was not original Christianity authorized by Scripture, it was not so clear to many as to what was essential in order for a man to become a Christian. But progress was made in breaking with the apostate Catholic Church.

In the mind of the Baptist writer, the Lord’s church is composed of people in different religious groups who uphold different doctrines and religious traditions disagreeing even on how one becomes a Christian and how one may be allowed to enter that particular denomination. The groups fellowship (sanction) each other without anyone’s having to know for sure exactly what gospel truth is, and, therefore, without knowing how to prove who is a Christian and how one becomes a Christian. Our writer is groping in the dark, when the light is available! And sadly, given our writer’s epistemology, he can never know the truth because, in his view, his fallibility will always prevent it.

Posted in Instrumental Music, Restoration History, Worship

“Play On, Miss Bertha”

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Roy C. Deaver

[Note: This piece was written by my grandfather, Roy Deaver, many years ago, giving some of the sad history of the school that would in time become Texas Christian University (TCU) in Fort Worth–Weylan].

These words are sad words—some of the saddest ever uttered in all Restoration history. The dictionary says that “sad” means “…to be associated with sorrow.” Some words are sad because of their inherent connotations. Some words are sad because of the circumstances out of which they came. Some words are sad because of the consequences which they brought.

On Monday, September 1, 1873, in the pioneer village of Thorp Spring, in Texas, Thorp Spring college came into being. This year—1973—is the centennial year. In celebration, the ex-students of Thorp Spring Christian College held a reunion “on campus” July 21 and 22. At the time, I was in a gospel meeting at nearby Morgan Mill, and was privileged to attend the reunion. Brother Don Morris spoke on Saturday afternoon, and brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr. was the speaker on Saturday night. Because of my own preaching engagement I did not get to hear brother Wallace, but I did get to hear brother Morris. Brother Morris spoke on “Add-Ran and Its Heirs.” His lecture was tremendous. It will become an exceedingly valuable document in Restoration literature.

Brother Morris spoke at length about unscriptural organizations in Texas, and the consequent divisions among brethren. He spoke of the steps which led to the formation of the “Texas Christian Missionary Society” in Austin, Texas, 1886.

Brother Morris then discussed the introduction of mechanical instruments into Christian worship. He mentioned that the instrument was introduced “…first in congregations in Dallas, San Marcos, Waco, and Palestine.” He continued as follows:

“But the place at which the introduction of the organ received most attention was, without doubt, Thorp Spring, in Add-Ran College. The occasion was a gospel meeting in February, 1894. The speaker was B. B. Sanders, and the song director, E. M. Douthitt. These two often worked as a team and were known to use the instrument in worship. Before the meeting began, there was much discussion—on and off the campus of Add-Ran—about whether the organ would be used. As the meeting began, a crisis at Add-Ran was developing. It proved to affect the church throughout the state.

On February 20, 1894, the climax was reached. Before the service began, Joseph Addison Clark—the father and pioneer—and his wife took seats at the front of the auditorium. Their son Addison Clark, the president, arose to begin the service. Joseph Addison Clark arose, walked toward the pulpit, took a paper from his pocket, and presented it to his son. It was a petition. The petition was signed by the elder Clark and more than a hundred others, who asked that the organ not be used, on the ground that it was not authorized in the New Testament. Addison read the petition, conferred briefly with his brother Randolph, and then announced that he had promised the students that the organ could be used in the meeting and that he could not go back on his word. He turned to the organist and said, ‘Play on, Miss Bertha.’”

At this point, brother Don Morris was not able to continue for several moments. He wept audibly, and most of the audience wept with him. Brother Morris continued:

“As the organ and singing started, Joseph Addison arose with his wife and led the opposition out of the auditorium. He was a gray bearded man, seventy-eight years old, with a cane. About 140 people, according to Randolph’s son Joseph Lynn, followed the elderly Clark out of the building. Many in the remaining congregation wept. My father, who was a student that year, was present, and he told me many times about Uncle Joe Clark—how he appealed to the audience not to use the organ and how he led the group out of the auditorium.”

Brother Morris closed his great speech as follows:

“…we of Churches of Christ today are the real heirs of the first years of Add-Ran and of the gospel taught in the first Texas churches. This is true because today we continue in the slogan first used by Texas pioneers and the Campbells before them: ‘We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.’ This principle has been followed by the Thorp Spring Church from the beginning in 1873 until now. And we believe that this is the true pattern for church organization, for purity in worship, and for all things religious. To use this pattern is more important than excelling in numbers or affluence. We look to the New Testament as the guide in restoring the Lord’s church, and we pray that He may bless us as we attempt to follow it.”

And RIGHT NOW, more so than ever before in my lifetime—there are IN THE CHURCH those who are saying: “MISS BERTHA, PLAY ON!” May God help us to have the faith, the conviction, the courage of Joseph Addison Clark.

Posted in General, Restoration History

Reflections on a Handwritten Letter

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Roy Deaver to Wilma, 1947
Roy Deaver to Wilma, 1947

When God wanted a message sent to Belshazzar, he did not type on the king’s Facebook wall. Rather, “the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace” (Dan. 5:5, ESV). It was a post to be remembered! And, surely the “writing tablet” Zechariah reached for to let people know his son’s “name is John” (Luke 1:63) did not have a keypad or lithium battery—contrary to how we now think of a “tablet.” Every book in the Bible began as a handwritten document. “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand” (1 Cor. 16:21).

Long before I was born my grandfather, Roy Deaver, penned a handwritten letter in 1947 to his wife and sons back home, while he was away preaching a gospel meeting. I would not see the letter until 2014—seven years after his death. It existed all the while, just not in view. So, to read it for the first time recently was almost to hold a piece of his life in my hand:

“We had five preachers present Monday night—a Nazarene preacher last night. I took a swat at him on modern miracles—Don’t know if he’ll be back or not…I had lunch on the Bennet ranch yesterday. I rode a Big Black stallion yesterday afternoon—chased a rabbit, started to stop the horse, broke a rein, he got excited and took off. Not having any way to stop him, I jumped off. Got scratched up a bit and I’m still getting thorns out. He has a white stallion that has never been saddled. I would like to ride him, but my insurance isn’t paid up.”

He was 24 years old, with courage in both pulpit and pasture. Since we do not often send or receive them anymore, perhaps it is useful to reflect on the significance of a letter handwritten.

Handwritten letters get read. We throw away junk mail in a heartbeat. We delete spam messages in bulk. If email from a friend is lengthy, we might skim for the gist of it. But, if that same friend sent the same words on paper in his own hand, we would read it in its entirety. The content is identical, but the delivery very different. In a day when there is too much information on our screens to absorb, and we become adept skimmers surfing from site to site for a useful morsel, our attention span suffers. Reading someone’s handwriting forces you to slow down. The words are not perfectly formed in Times New Roman. Some may even take a minute to figure out. Personality shines through, without the need for emoticons. You realize every letter’s curve and every imperfection are there because, at a particular moment, someone’s hand was on that piece of paper.

Handwritten letters get saved. Granted, not everyone who might send a letter is someone whose words you treasure, but a written note is more likely to be put away and read again than an email. A typed letter might get saved, depending on whom it is from, but it still lacks a quality in handwriting. Writing by hand tells the recipient he is worth taking time to address in your own unique script, even if it is more time consuming than typing. It takes longer to grow corn than to pop corn. An email is something to get out of your virtual inbox as soon as possible. Reply. Delete. But a letter in an envelope, that is something to slip in your jacket pocket for later reading in a quiet hour. Text messages do not get handed down to the next generation.

Handwritten letters arrive with their own special aura. Grabbing a stack of mail out of the box, you immediately notice that lone envelope that is addressed by hand. Even from a stranger, you will read it because it was addressed to you by hand. As you unfold a page filled with carefully crafted words, it already has the appearance of eloquence—justified or not—simply because it is so unusual. Handwritten words weigh more than the paper on which they rest. They can weigh more than digital words. In a day when most written communication starts as a computer generated font, handwriting stands out from the ordinary. Handwriting forces you to use real English, and that is a good thing. Emails and texts are conducive to abbreviation and carelessness—a thinly veiled effort to strangle proper grammar. Write with ink and suddenly an “LOL” or “TTYL” seems out of place, undignified, unnecessary. Good English opens new vistas for self-expression that go unexplored now. You might even come to frown on the ubiquitous smiley face.

Writing this kind of letter is a lost art, an art stolen by the nimble fingers of technology. So, if you want your words to stand out from what people are used to seeing all day every day, try long hand. You can convey a message in pixels on a screen. But, put ink to paper and you have something personal and tangible. Something that just might find its way to kinfolk years after you have gone, leaving in their hands the small trace of a life worth knowing.

Posted in Restoration History

Thomas Campbell’s Desk

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Solomon told it right when he said, “Of making many books there is no end” (Ecclesiastes 12:12). The number of books extant today would dwarf any library Solomon ever saw or imagined. As a preacher, my religious library has grown with time, including hundreds of volumes of greater and lesser value (though it is still small compared to many). Some I would hate to part with. Others just occupy shelf space. In younger days, I was driven to build up a library, thinking that more books translated into more advantage to a preacher. These days, it is only occasionally that a book is added to the collection and I am more motivated to actually read what is on the shelf, rather than be on the lookout for something new to place on the shelf.

Good books can aid immeasurably in Bible study, depending on the caliber of their content, and assuming they are read with a discerning eye, educated in the Scriptures. Though an advocate of helpful books, I was, nevertheless, struck by an observation that Alexander Campbell made about his father:

“In my boyhood, when entering into his study, in which he had a large and well-assorted library, I was wont to wonder on seeing, with a very few exceptions, only his Bible and Concordance on the table, with a simple outfit of pen, ink, and paper. Whether he had read all these volumes, and cared nothing more for them, or whether he regarded them as wholly useless, I presumed not to inquire, and dared not to decide. But such was the fact” (Memoirs of Elder Thomas Campbell, p. 271).

Isn’t that what it ought to come down to? For all that can be said in favor of things like commentaries (bad examples of which can do much harm), there is nothing to take the place of a man alone with his Bible. It is easy for our perceptions to be colored by something read elsewhere, and we may end up missing what the Bible actually says because we have been helped into a misunderstanding by an unhelpful book (or article, preacher, etc.). Whatever benefit we reap from other sources, we will always need open Bibles, prayerful hearts, and minds keen to learn exactly what God wrote. And, perhaps, the church would be in better shape if, along with having his honesty of heart, more of our preachers had desks like Thomas Campbell’s.

 

Posted in Restoration History

An Incredible Tale of Influence

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

One man can have lasting effect on multitudes, even after death. Nicholas Brodie Hardeman was a premier preacher, debater and educator in the first half of the twentieth century. In Nashville’s Ryman Auditorium, he preached the gospel to multiplied thousands, the sermons from which can still be read. He debated truth’s cause, to great effect, with prominent digressives and denominational preachers. He trained preachers in a college named for him. My grandfather, Roy C. Deaver, studied at Freed-Hardeman College in the 1940’s and, after graduating, stayed an extra year to study Hardeman. A half-century later, I would graduate from Freed-Hardeman University. What becomes monumental with time can begin with a modest tale of Christian influence, and Earl West relates just such a remarkable story (Search for the Ancient Order, vol. 4, pp. 155-156).

In 1890 an Alabama preacher named J. A. Minton goes to Milledgeville, Tennessee. His preaching career is young at the time (West describes him as “one of those relatively obscure preachers who just floated around burdened with the desire to preach the gospel, save souls, and establish congregations”). Minton begins preaching in an empty store. He meets the town’s wealthy physician, who subscribes to no religion, and is certainly not a Christian. With Minton’s effort, the doctor learns the gospel. Minton baptizes him into Christ, along with several of his family. The doctor’s name is J. B. Hardeman, who has a sixteen-year old son, Nicholas Brodie, who, thanks to Minton’s converting his family, will, himself, obey the gospel that fall when he enrolls at West Tennessee Christian College (being baptized by a professor, R. P. Meeks). N. B. Hardeman grows into a great Bible student, holding rapt attention with a gentleman’s presence, a scholar’s demeanor, and a polished orator’s style in presenting heaven’s simple message that had saved his father, Dr. Hardeman, back in Milledgeville.

But all contact between Hardeman and Minton is lost. Minton, whose work had brought the Hardemans to Christ, moves west, where he acquires land and meets financial success. He buys a hotel in Sayre, Oklahoma, the town where he preaches. Sadly, as division within the Lord’s body wreaks havoc, Minton sides with the Christian Church (which embraced unauthorized practice, such as instrumental music in worship).

In June 1948 Hardeman travels to Sayre to preach a meeting. He stays in the hotel owned by Minton and the two get reacquainted. It has been fifty-eight years since Minton visited a small Tennessee town and taught the gospel to Hardeman’s father. The now-aged preachers reminisce on times long past. In 1890 Hardeman was sixteen and not even a Christian. Minton was already preaching. In 1948 Hardeman is a college president training future preachers, and has a storied career in the kingdom. His influence has eclipsed Minton, who has cast his lot with the digressives Hardeman so strongly opposes. Then again, would any of Hardeman’s success have happened had Minton, as a young roving preacher, not stopped in Milledgeville and begun teaching in an empty store over half a century earlier?

Minton listens to Hardeman’s preaching in Sayre and concludes, “I have heard many of our best preachers from time to time, but I am compelled to say I have never heard a preacher superior in ability to N. B. Hardeman.” After his short stay in Sayre in Minton’s hotel, Hardeman leaves. However, within months he receives a letter from Minton with good news the latter has “left the Christian Church and now belonged to the church of Christ.” J. A. Minton had helped save N. B. Hardeman’s soul. And Hardeman had now returned the favor.

Posted in Doctrine, Restoration History

Flawed from the Beginning

Posted on by Mac Deaver

By Mac Deaver

For years I have been greatly interested in what is called The Restoration Movement of the 1800s. As a young student, I loved to read of the great men who called others back to a more serious consideration of the Scriptures and to see more clearly the then current religious scene that had been created through years and years of Bible neglect. And I still think that current members of the church owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to so many religious pioneers who have gone before and who were willing to break with never proved religious tradition and to break rank with those who proved to be non-Christians after all, but who claimed such status before God and man.

However, as we learn in the study of the period, not all those who came to be endorsers of and even participants in the “movement” understood clearly what a person had to do to become a Christian, and while some learned exactly what was essential , others who were involved did not. In fact, as we shall soon see, in this brief piece, the “movement” was flawed from the beginning. The movement was based on a cracked foundation that could not support the hoped for superstructure. And while it has had lasting effect to our good day in America, there were some concepts from the beginning that characterized some of its most prominent leaders that necessitated its limitation by division within because of its initial failure to divide from many without!

But before I continue, let me stress that the effort to “restore” New Testament Christianity was indeed a movement in the sense that there was an historical effort in time that was socially influential and that attempted to call men back to the Bible. It was an effort to call men back to original ground, at least allegedly so. To restore the “ancient order” of things was the goal because the then current religious division was deemed so intolerable by some, and that division seemed to make any religious progress most difficult if not impossible. And so a harmony or unity of all “Christians” (those who professed faith in Christ and obeyed him in such things as they understood) was sought and advocated upon a basis less divisive and less complex. A committed return to a more simple basis of spiritual fellowship was the desired item in the hearts of those longing for an end to the unending division within the “church” as the church was being viewed.

Now, the idea is only possible (much less essential) if original ground can be located. If the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the obligatory truth regarding (1) how one enters the kingdom and (2) how one remains in the kingdom cannot be located, articulated, practiced, and successfully defended, then such an effort at “restoration” is wholly misguided because it is impossible to restore what cannot be found. But as we shall see, the working assumption that original ground could be located on the one hand (1) included some necessary concepts that on the other hand (2) were expressly excluded from the process of restoration. In fact, from the beginning there was an unrecognized conceptual self-contradiction offered as the right approach to the restoration of that original sacred ground. And so the “movement” was an attempt to restore what it was, in fact, impossible to restore given the way that it was going about the very business of restoration. If original ground were located, it would have to be found by going against some of the very foundational ideas upon which it was being launched.

Of course, it is very easy for me to criticize someone living in the 1800s who was for the first time beginning to see differences between what he found in his New Testament and religious doctrine that he had been brought up to believe in some denomination. And I certainly do not want to appear as an ungrateful recipient of great learning that took place during that time and within that movement.

But, I am more interested in (1) finding and in knowing that I have found what they were trying to restore themselves (the purity of original Christianity) than in (2) merely admiring a certain way of self-imposed looking, the effect of which would have to prevent one’s seeing clearly at all.

Let me begin the task of identifying the cracks in the foundation of the movement by first pointing out a few facts that must be faced by anyone who approaches the Scriptures in the effort to find the truth. Consider the following True-False statements:

T F 1. It is possible for a man to find all the truth necessary to his becoming a Christian and to find all the truth necessary to his remaining a faithful Christian.

T F 2. It is possible for a man to find only some of the truth necessary to his becoming a Christian and to find only some of the truth necessary to his remaining a faithful Christian.

T F 3. It is impossible for a man to find any truth necessary to his becoming a Christian and to find any truth necessary to his remaining a faithful Christian.

T F 4. It is possible for a man to find all the truth necessary to his becoming a Christian but only to find some of the truth necessary to his remaining a faithful Christian.

T F 5. It is possible for a man to find only some truth necessary to his becoming a Christian but to find all the truth necessary to his remaining a faithful Christian.

Now, these statements need a clear and careful answer. In the light of Scripture, #1 is the correct statement. Statements #2 through #5 are false (John 8:31, 32; 1 Tim. 2:4; Heb. 6:1; Eph. 5:3-14). And this truth would, at first, seem to have been grasped by the initial promoters of the restoration idea.

Now, let us consider several more relevant True-False statements that have to do with the very prospect of restoring the ancient order of things.

T F 1. Since Christians are the only components of the church, and since the first True-False statement above is correct, then we know that it is possible to locate in Scripture what is required of men today in order for them to be added to the Lord’s church (Gal. 1:6-10).

T F 2. Since we know that all men today must obey the same gospel in order to be added to the church, then we know that the church is composed only of those who have done the same thing in order to enter (Eph. 4:1-7).

T F 3. Since the church is composed of only those who have done the same thing (obeyed the same gospel) in order to enter, then spiritual fellowship is only rightly extended to those who have obeyed that gospel and thus who have entered (1 John 1:3; 2 Cor. 6:14-18).

T F 4. It is possible for a person to claim to be in God’s favor and a devoted follower of Christ while never having become a Christian at all (Rev. 2:9; Matt. 7:21-23).

T F 5. It is possible for a Christian to cease being a faithful Christian (Gal. 5:4; 1 John 2:19).

Now, while it is true that Christians are under obligation to love all men (Matt. 22:37-40), we have never been under obligation to treat even most men as Christians. For most men simply are not, and most men do not even claim to be. And, even more to the point, most men do not even desire to be. However, while doctrinally, the matter is fixed as to who is and who is not a Christian, a problem arises when –

  1. a non-Christian seeks to extend spiritual fellowship to another non-Christian when both parties claim to be Christians and yet neither one is.
  1. a Christian seeks to extend spiritual fellowship to a non-Christian in spite of the Christian’s knowing that the non-Christian is clearly a non-Christian.
  1. a Christian seeks to extend spiritual fellowship to a non-Christian because even though he knows on the one hand that the non-Christian is not a Christian, he knows that the non-Christian at least claims to be a Christian, and the Christian considers it more loving to endorse the non-Christian in his sin than to deny his claim. After all, the Christian isn’t God!
  1. a Christian seeks to extend spiritual fellowship to a non-Christian because the Christian himself no longer is sure of the essentiality of obedience to the gospel in order for a person to have a rightful claim to Christian status. He has now subscribed to a doctrine of “grace” that by redefinition allows him to fellowship those who make the claim to be Christians on the basis that, after all, who is he to say they are not. Again, truth has now become “unclear” truth when compared to a “clear” claim especially since the truth has no feelings to be hurt by rejection but the personal claimant surely does?

Note: At this point it may not bother him because it never dawns on him that if “grace” is actually extended to one who claims to be a Christian but who has not, in fact, obeyed the gospel, for all he knows then, that same “grace” may be extended to anyone who does not even claim to be a Christian. If a formerly viewed false claim has now become a possibly true claim because of a redefinition of grace, then why is a claim necessary (for the divine extension of grace) for the reception of grace at all? If one does not have to know and obey the truth in order to be saved, then no clear claim about anything is necessary to salvation at all! With his redefinition of “grace,” he is in no position to deny the salvation of all men since he knows that God desires that universal salvation (2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4). Historically, truth has often been sacrificed on the altar of friendship and false claim. But if the non-Christian can’t prove the accuracy of his own claim to be a Christian, and if the Christian does not care about the absence of justification for the non-Christian’s claim to Christian status, then the truth does not matter to either the Christian or the non-Christian! Is such a spiritual fellowship worthy of a search and then support? What is the value of such a fellowship or of a “movement” that might embrace it?

Now, let us proceed by considering some things early on declared by two prominent men in the early days of the American Restoration Movement. And as I consider these quotations, I do so with a view toward establishing the point that there were at least three cracks in the original foundation of restoration effort or three flaws from the beginning. And for the purpose of this article, I mean by “beginning” 1809 when Thomas Campbell wrote the Declaration And Address. And the “cracks” that I will identify are (1) a faulty hermeneutic which was an attempt at the time to get rid of all human opinions as impediments to the rightful extension of spiritual fellowship to all Christians in the denominations, but which hermeneutic unwittingly created (2) a situation in which it was impossible to maintain the correct distinction between faith and opinion, and (3) a willingness to extend spiritual fellowship to people who were not complying with the nature and purpose of baptism as they came to understand it.

In the Declaration And Address, Thomas Campbell stated that he was not trying to create another human creed as a term of communion. What he was proposing was a route to “original ground” so that men in his day could “take up things just as the apostles left them” (Historical Documents Advocating Christian Union, edited by John Allen Hudson, p.107; hereafter this book will be referenced as HD). Thus, his goal in providing the thirteen propositions listed in the Address were based on the view that the apostles had left some things for us that needed to be recovered in thought and practiced in life. And these things needed to be distinguished from other things so that religious reform could indeed take place. All of the various additional doctrinal positions that had been taken over the centuries and which had accumulated as divisive creedal statements that kept equally sincere brethren in segregate communities simply had to be removed from human thinking if the unity required in Scripture was going to be achieved.

But how did Thomas Campbell come to the conclusion that there was an obligatory unity that Christians were obligated to practice? Whence came this understanding? How did he come to the conclusion that there was a kind of unity that Christians were under obligation to practice? How did he know that the obligation to uphold that unity lasted longer than the first century? And why did the Address seem to him to be important as an applied way of getting rid of the accumulated human decrees that stood in the way of the unity of Christ?

The Declaration And Address didn’t just fall from the sky. It was a document that originated in the mind of Thomas Campbell. Well, let us ask ourselves some questions as to the nature of that document as it first existed in thought in his mind. And let us be specific. Let us think about his goal of trying to get back to original ground, sacred ground not spoiled by wrong human thinking.

T F 1. The view that Thomas Campbell and all other men should only do what is authorized by Christ as revealed in the New Testament is itself a mistaken and unintended part of the accumulation of mere human opinions that stand in the way of the unity of Christ.

T F 2. The view that Thomas Campbell and all other men should only do what is authorized by Christ as revealed in the New Testament is a part of “original ground” discoverable by human reason but without the exertion of opinion.

Or let us word the two statements a little differently and make our point more simple:

T F 3. The view that Thomas Campbell and all other men should only do what is authorized by Christ as revealed in the New Testament is itself a mere human opinion.

T F 4. The view that Thomas Campbell and all other men should only do what is authorized by Christ as revealed in the New Testament is itself a matter of biblical faith.

Dear reader, now think about those four True-False statements very carefully. And with regard to the first and third statements, surely Campbell did not mean to be binding another mere human opinion on others in his attempt to get rid of the then current problem of binding human opinion on men as a basis of establishing and maintaining religious fellowship. He would certainly have no right to bind his own personal opinion that “original ground” should be recovered if such were merely an opinion, while at the same time deploring the use of human opinion as the means of establishing spiritual orthodoxy. So, we would take it that statement #1 is false and that statement #3 is false. Thomas Campbell’s view that “original ground” should be desired and that by it alone men could maintain the unity of Christ is a part of “original ground” or to express it another way, it is a part of biblical faith itself and certainly is not a matter of mere human opinion. So, statements #2 and #4 are true.

Paul’s words to the brethren at Colossae establish the correctness of the foregoing conclusion. “And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17). Truly, to do things in the name of Christ is to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:28, 29; cf. 4:12). And this is the very thing that was Campbell’s goal. It was a noble goal, but his process for accomplishing it was flawed. Now, just what do we mean?

Proposition #3 in the Declaration And Address is too restrictive in its statement of what constitutes the pattern of authority whereby Scriptural unity can be obtained and maintained. Campbell in trying to reach a position that would prohibit the constant dividing up into various religious camps said that “nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted, as of Divine obligation, in their Church institution and managements, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament Church; either in express terms or by approved precedent” (HD, 108). His words “expressly enjoined” are what we call “direct statement” and his “approved precedent” are what we call “approved example.” But Campbell left out the third category or way that the Bible authorizes. He left out what in our day came to be called “necessary inference,” but which later was more appropriately identified as “implication.” Campbell intentionally omitted that route to the record.

We can appreciate his reluctance since he was trying to avoid the mental route that had caused him so much pain. He well knew the agony of wrong inference when men drew conclusions not provable by Scripture and bound these conclusions on others. That is what had created the warring denominational camps. But rather than make the distinction between (1) inferring what is actually implied as can be established by logical argument, and (2) inferring what is not implied (thus merely drawing a conclusion not implied by the Bible which conclusion is then a mere human opinion), Campbell simply attempted to leave the whole process of “inference” out of ascertaining the pattern of authority. The pattern would consist of (1) direct statement and (2) approved example only.

In Proposition #5 we have the wonderful statement that “Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the Church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament” (HD, 110).

But when we come to Proposition #6, we see Thomas Campbell’s fear of inference as a category or route to Bible authority. Read it carefully in full:

“That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church’s confession” (HD, 110).

Notice, please that while Campbell was honorably trying to prevent the continued application of human authority as binding on men as an appendix to or substitute for divine authority, in the very way that he was attacking “opinion binding,” he went too far by undermining the very procedure that he was, in fact, already employing. In looking at human reason the way that he was and in describing it the way that he did, he was creating unintentionally an impossible and self-contradictory task for himself and others. Consider carefully, please, that on the one hand (1) Campbell allows for the fact that when inferences and deductions are “fairly inferred,” the conclusions reached may be called “the doctrine of God’s holy word,” and yet on the other hand, (2) Campbell says that those conclusions, though a part of God’s holy word, are the product of human wisdom rather than divine power. Do you see a problem just here, dear reader?

If the principle that Campbell is upholding in his proposition #6 is the product of “fair inference” from Scripture premises, then although it may be a part of God’s holy word, it cannot be bound on anyone as divine authority since it is the product of Campbell’s own human reasoning and, therefore, is a part of human wisdom rather than the product of divine power. Therefore, Campbell’s own view which was reached by inferring what the Bible was implying (about substituting human authority for divine authority in his day) was a conclusion that (though correct and a part of God’s holy word) had no “place in the Church’s confession.”

Rather than stress the absolute necessity of correct reasoning (cf. 1 Thess. 5:21: Rom. 12:2), he attacked human reason, in the act of deduction, as leading to “the wisdom of men.” The truth of the matter is that it is only by the correct use of human reason that a person can come to comprehend that he is under the binding authority of the New Testament at all!

So, I ask, how in the world could the appeal in the Declaration And Address (to those viewed by Campbell as Christians) have any rightful place in their thinking? If his conclusion that there should be a rediscovery of “original ground” was rightly inferred from what the Bible implied, then (although correct and a part of God’s holy word according to Campbell himself), it still stood in the “wisdom of men” rather than in the “power and veracity of God.” According to Campbell, if these “Christians” couldn’t see the accuracy of the plea and thus the need of the plea for “restoration,” then the plea could not be “formally binding” on them, because he said that fairly inferred conclusions drawn from Scriptural premises cannot be “formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so.” Therefore, unless the other “Christians” in the denominations were convinced that Campbell’s call for restoration was good and needful, and if they were convinced of the need to participate, they would be following the “wisdom of men” rather than the “power and veracity of God” in submitting to a principle that Campbell learned by proper deduction from Scripture premises.

Therefore, it is clear that the first “flaw” from the beginning was a hermeneutical (interpretational) flaw that appeared by way of Campbell’s unintentionally attacking “implication” as a way of learning what is binding upon men.

And since that error was advocated in the Address, that meant that there was no clear way for Campbell to make a clear distinction between (1) matters of faith and (2) matters of opinion although he was trying desperately to get rid of the notion of binding mere human opinion on anyone. If conclusions “fairly inferred” were still evaluated as standing in “the wisdom of men” rather than in “the power and veracity of God,” then there could be no precise distinction drawn between “God’s holy word,” learned by “fair inference” and mere human opinion both of which are products of a man’s mind.

In our day, when it comes to the matter of “ascertaining Bible authority” (that is also the name of one of my father’s well-received books), we have said that the Bible authorizes by (1) direct statement, (2) approved example, and by (3) implication. Of course, implication and approved example are both derived from direct statements, but the three categories are correct as identifications of literary function or the ways that we learn what we must do, what we may do, and what we must not do. And by the three routes to authority, we find our obligations, our options, and our prohibitions.

In Campbell’s words “fairly inferred” refer to a conclusion rightly deduced from Bible premises. “Fair inference” would be correct inference from Bible implication. That is, we fairly infer when we correctly infer what the Bible actually implies. These doctrines thus inferred can be, then, stated as conclusions of valid syllogisms. They become a part of a sound argument. And a sound argument is a valid argument with truthful premises. The argument is, therefore, dependable. The conclusion of a sound argument is true. If we infer what the Bible does not really imply at all, we draw a conclusion that is simply an opinion, and there is no sound argument whatever that can be constructed in its defense.

All doctrinal controversy can rationally only be settled by the appeal to a sound argument. And this is an obligation stated in Scripture. This is what the very notion of “proof” entails! According to Ruby’s Logic, An Introduction, the “law of rationality” is the principle that “We ought to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence” (Ruby, 131). Jesus always complied with that law or regulative principle of human reasoning. And Paul made our deference to that law a matter of biblical obligation in at least two passages of Scripture. He told the brethren at Thessalonica to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good,” (1 Thess. 5:21), and he told the saints in Rome, “And be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2).

But as brother Thomas B. Warren taught us long ago, since none of us (and this applies to Thomas Campbell as well as to Thomas Warren and all men living today) can find his own name written in the Bible, he cannot learn that he is even under Bible authority without rightly inferring what the Bible implies! We cannot even recognize our connection to and the necessity of submitting to Bible authority without correctly inferring what the Bible implies! Although the Bible provides our obligations, options, and prohibitions, it reaches us or connects us to those ways of ascertaining Bible authority only or completely by way of implication. That is the one and only route that provides our connection to the binding authority of Holy Writ!

Since the Bible was originally addressed to others (none of us living today were even born when even one book of the Bible was written), we can only come to recognize that we, too, like the original audience are under Bible authority only by or exclusively by inferring what the Bible implies. And if this conclusion “fairly inferred” cannot be bound on anyone because it is simply a part of the wisdom of men rather than the product of the veracity and power of God as described by Thomas Campbell, then no man living today is under Bible obligation to do one single solitary thing! And this would also mean that no one living in Campbell’s day including Campbell himself was under Bible authority at all. That is how crucial the mistake made by Thomas Campbell was. Given the way that he was describing “fair inference” and “deduction,” he could not clearly distinguish between faith and opinion at all when it came to matters of binding obligation.

His idea of getting rid of binding human opinion in the religious arena was indeed correct! But the way he described the process whereby he thought that such could be achieved made it impossible for one to even be under divine authority to do such a thing.

And perhaps, because of the way that he confusedly and unintentionally blurred the distinction between human opinion and biblical faith, that at least partially explains why it is that he and later his son, Alexander, were so very willing to spiritually fellowship denominational people, including preachers, who did not share the “restoration” viewpoint. This is the third “flaw” that I want to mention.

When we read of the way that Thomas and Alexander Campbell related to other religious people in their day, we see that they were willing to spiritually fellowship them even though they were practitioners of denominationalism and not necessarily supporters of the idea of recovering original ground. The Campbells had come out of the Presbyterian church themselves. But their break with that group with all its historical internal division, did not mean that they would, however, refuse to recognize as faithful Christians those from whom they were now somewhat religiously estranged. And as their comprehension of certain Bible truths grew, even though they remained very ecumenical in their regard to the sects, yet their knowledge growth brought them into a closer affiliation with other religious people who had learned the same truth.

For example, following the Campbells’ learning that “baptism” was, in fact, in Scripture “immersion,” the little Brush Run church across the West Virginia line in southwestern Pennsylvania became organizationally connected to the Baptists. After writing out a statement which entailed a rejection of human creeds as a basis of fellowship, and declaring their willingness to become a part of the Redstone Association if they would be allowed to uphold what they were convinced the Bible taught, the Brush Run church then joined that Baptist association in 1813 (West, Search For The Ancient Order, Vol. I, p. 61). Alexander wrote to a relative in 1815,

“For my own part I must say that, after long study and investigation of books, and more especially the Sacred Scriptures, I have through clear convictions of truth and duty, renounced much of the traditions and errors of my early education. I am now an Independent in church government; of that faith and view of the gospel exhibited in John Walker’s Seven Letters to Alexander Knox, and a Baptist so far as regards baptism. What I am in religion I am from examination, reflection, and conviction, not from ‘ipse dixit’ tradition or human authority” (West, pp. 61, 62).

Later, while Alexander Campbell was working with the Wellsburg church, that congregation joined the Mahoning Baptist Association (West, pp. 66-68). So, while the Campbells were advancing in their understanding of Scripture, and while they were making headway in teaching the non-denominational nature of early Christianity and the necessity of unity among Christians, they still recognized Christians among the sectarians groups.

And later, in 1837, Campbell received a letter from a woman in Lunenburg, Virginia, in response to which Campbell again revealed his attitude toward the sects, and which attitude bothered some of his own brethren who thought that Campbell was surrendering ground gained in the reform effort. The woman from Lunenburg had been surprised by the fact that in Campbell’s periodical, Campbell had recognized “the Protestant parties as Christian” (Campbell, Millennial Harbinger, September, 1837, p. 411).

In response, Campbell first proposes the following:

“In reply to this conscientious sister, I observe, that if there be no Christians in the Protestant sects, there are certainly none among the Romanists, none among the Jews, Turks, Pagans; and therefore no Christians in the world except ourselves, or such of us as keep, or strive to keep, all the commandments of Jesus. Therefore, for many centuries there has been no church of Christ, no Christians in the world; and the promises concerning the everlasting kingdom of Messiah have failed, and the gates of hell have prevailed against his church! This cannot be; and therefore there are Christians among the sects” (Campbell, 411).

So, the basis on which Campbell rests his view that there must be Christians in the sects is that unless one is willing to grant that contention, then he must admit that in history the church at some point ceased to exist! But I ask the reader, is that true? Why would that admission necessarily have to follow? Isn’t it possible that Christians could have existed ever since Pentecost in the world without their getting involved with and amalgamated with some denomination. Even if history ignored the existence of non-denominational Christians in its record (given their small numbers), does anyone today have the right to claim that the church simply stopped existing in history unless one admits that it existed in combination with Catholicism and Protestant denominationalism or among Jews, Turks, and Pagans? Such simply does not at all follow. Campbell merely asserted what he could not prove.

It is the case that Christians, following the apostasy predicted by Paul, did not for a long time have the force of a massive societal movement, but their non-mention in the historical record of the continuing apostasy does not prove their non-existence. To be viewed as non-worthy of mention is not the equivalent of proof of their non-existence. Consider that outside the Bible there is very little mention of Jesus during the first few centuries from secular historians following his resurrection. And some today deny that he ever lived, but such is no proof of any currently alleged non-existence. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are historical documents from antiquity. They establish the historicity of Jesus. I used to ask my students the following question: How long must you be dead before your “not having been” here becomes a real possibility? We are not here trying to beg any question. We are simply saying that real historical existence, while it can be denied, can never be disproved. Too, the non-existence of the church in one country would not argue conclusively for the non-existence of the church in every country. The fact that the Bible did not exist in many languages for a long time during the days of the apostasy did not mean that it was not here at all. And simply because the Bible had not existed in an English version before a certain date could not mean that it did not exist in some other language or languages before the first English version appeared. If the Bible presently exists in one language, then it has always existed in some language tracing back to the original.

Then, too, Campbell thinks that if we claim that there are no Christians in the sects, we have also to claim that there are no Christians among the Catholics (Romanists), the Jews, Turks, and Pagans. In other words, if there are no Christians among the sects, there have been no Christians in the world for many years! But it is certainly conceivable that one could argue for the existence of some Christians among the sects while denying that any Catholic or Jew or Turk or Pagan had ever become a Christian. And Campbell says that if we deny that all others have become Christians, that we are claiming, therefore, that there are “no Christians in the world except ourselves, or such of us as keep, or strive to keep, all the commandments of Jesus.” Well, is that a false claim? If “ourselves” refers exclusively to those in America, it would be a false claim. If it refers to those known only to Campbell, it would be a false claim. But if it refers to all those who “keep” (not just strive to keep) the commands of Jesus any and everywhere, the claim is correct. And it is beyond successful contradiction.

On the one hand Campbell (1) strove for recovering original ground, (2) did not intend to start a new religious group or church, (3) attempted to get Christians among the sects to unify on that recovered ground. He plainly stated that he was not striving for the unification of the sectarian groups as such. He was appealing to those among them who were Christians to come out and unify on the restored basis of divine doctrine, but he (4) spiritually fellowshipped the denominationalists who did not agree with him doctrinally. This made the very idea of “restoration” seem suspect. If on the one hand he was distinguishing between “Christians among the sects” (thus calling them out from among those in the sects who were not really Christians) that might have a certain Scriptural appeal to it. It would seem fair to assume the possibility that some people had, in fact, become Christians but who had subsequently joined some denomination. However, since Campbell himself spiritually fellowshipped others who were not willing or who had not as yet “come out” to unify on original ground, that made the Campbells concept of “restoration” suspect and inconsistent.

But then notice what Campbell says in response to the letter from Lunenburg:

“But who is a Christian? I answer, Every one that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will. A perfect man in Christ, or a perfect Christian, is one thing; and ‘a babe in Christ,’ a stripling in the faith, or an imperfect Christian, is another” (Campbell, p. 411).

He goes on to say that both groups are recognized in Scripture and the imperfect Christians are told to be perfect, and he cites 2 Corinthians 3:11. But Campbell’s significant problem is that he is assuming that a person can become a Christian without clearly understanding anything beyond repentance. According to his own words, a Christian is a man who believes that Jesus is the Christ, repents of his sins, and “obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will.” So, given the way that Campbell describes who a Christian is, the following individuals would be Christians:

  1. a man who has faith and repents but does not know anything about baptism;
  2. a man who has faith and repents and knows that he should be “baptized” for some unknown (to him) reason;
  3. a man who has faith and repents and who is “ baptized” for some wrong reason;
  4. a man who has faith and repents and who is “baptized” in the wrong way (by sprinkling or pouring but not by immersion) would be a Christian.

In response to the implications of Campbell’s remarks to the woman from Lunenburg, I would say this: “repentance unto life” per Acts 11:18 does not entail any of the four categories just listed! The cases of kingdom entry in the book of Acts do not allow for such variation as Campbell’s view did. Read the following from the “Lunenburg Letter” carefully, and you can see how that other brethren began to see that they were not looking at “restoration” in the same way that Campbell evidently was:

“Should I find a Pedobaptist more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually-minded and more devoted to the Lord than a Baptist, or one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith, I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians. Still I will be asked, How I know that any one loves my Master but by his obedience to his commandments? I answer, In no other way. But mark, I do not substitute obedience to one commandment, for universal or even for general obedience. And should I see a sectarian Baptist or a Pedobaptist more spiritually minded, more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah, than one who precisely acquiesces with me in the theory or practice of immersion as I teach, doubtless the former rather than the latter, would have my cordial approbation and love as a Christian. So I judge, and so I feel. It is the image of Christ the Christian looks for and loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known” (Campbell, p. 412).

Dear reader, did you understand what Campbell just affirmed? He said that if they were “more spiritually minded, more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah” both a sectarian Baptist and a Pedobaptist (one who believes in infant baptism) would have his “cordial approbation and love as a Christian” more so than that given to someone less spiritually minded but who “precisely acquiesces with me in the theory or practice of immersion as I teach.” WOW!

In the November issue of the Millennial Harbinger under the heading, “Christians Among The Sects,” Campbell briefly responded to some objections received in the light of his response to that letter from Lunenburg (pp. 506-508). One can easily see how that some concluded that Campbell was surrendering ground for which he and others had fought. Campbell, however, didn’t think he was surrendering anything, and if he wasn’t, we see that many who had been striving for “restoration” for years had failed completely to grasp the weakness in the foundation of Campbell’s thought regarding who was and who was not a Christian. When Campbell’s precise teaching on the nature and purpose of baptism was grasped and practiced by others, they took it as a point that was necessary to be understood in order to become a Christian. Campbell evidently thought that was going too far.

So, we see that early on there were flaws in the thinking of some who were most engaged in the effort at “restoration.” There was a (1) hermeneutical flaw regarding the place of deduction in discerning the pattern of authority, (2) an epistemological flaw, therefore, that did not allow for clear distinction between matters of faith and matters of opinion, and (3) there was the willingness of some involved in the formative period of “restoration” thought to spiritually fellowship other religious people who had never obeyed the gospel, which rendered the whole effort at restoration suspicious. It is a wonder that unity was maintained as long as it was.

Posted in Restoration History

The Point We Seek to Make

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Roy C. Deaver (1922-2007)

It was in 1938, in his gospel meeting with the 2nd and Whaley Street Church in Longview, Texas, that I first became acquainted with the great, respected, much-loved N. B. Hardeman. It was here that he conducted a great gospel meeting, with C. M. Pullias (our local preacher) leading the singing! Yes, the same team that had conducted the great Nashville, Tennessee, Ryman Auditorium meetings! By the time the Longview meeting was over, I had determined in my own mind that someday, somehow, I would become a student in N. B. Hardeman’s classes.

In September of 1940 Wilma Ruth and I made our trip to Henderson, Tennessee. Within a few days I was a student in classes taught by N. B. Hardeman, L. L. Brigance, W. Claude Hall, and Mary Nell Hardeman Powers—the greatest English grammarian I have ever known!

In my first year one of the required courses was the study of the Scheme of Redemption. The text was the monumental book entitled The Scheme of Redemption, written by Dr. Robert Milligan, who at the time of the writing was President of the College of the Bible in Kentucky University — a great scholar in the Restoration Movement. The “Introduction” to the book has the date: May 19, 1868. So, the book has been around for awhile, and it will continue to be around.

It was a study course for which I personally will be eternally grateful. I was and I am and I will ever be truly grateful to have had that privilege of seeing such a majestic unfolding of the glorious “Scheme of Redemption.” Three of the best years of our lives were spent at Freed-Hardeman College, and we are truly grateful.

What’s the point — the present point? The above article is the material contained in pages 276 through 284 in Milligan’s The Scheme of Redemption. The book is hard to come by, and so, I have typed this material that others may read it for themselves. This is the class, and these are the pages which first began to give me — in some measure — an understanding of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It triggered my determination to continue to study the subject. It was here and why and how I began to grasp the concept of an actual, literal, personal, indwelling of the Holy Spirit within the child of God. Who was the teacher? Professor N. B. Hardeman! I am here to tell the reader that in NO WAY did brother Hardeman ever try to “explain away” what Milligan had written. If you want to know what brother Hardeman taught on this subject — HERE IT IS!

And so, it disturbs me no little to hear somebody on the present scene declare that brother Hardeman did not teach an actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I encourage the reader to read– and/or to read again and again his monumental sermons on “The Vine and the Branches” and “The Spirit of Christ.”

At that time (when I was a student, 1940-43), FHC was a two-year college. But after two years I was not ready to leave. I wanted at least one more year, and did remain another year. I had three things in mind: (1) I wanted to do additional work in my Greek; (2) I wanted to take advantage of that fabulous library; and (3) I wanted to study N. B. Hardeman. I wanted to see (at least to my own satisfaction) what made N. B. Hardeman so great! So exceptional! In case you are interested in my conclusion, here it is: (1) It was not the fact that he was a handsome man, always dressed well and looked well — his shoes were always shined! (2) It was not just the fact that he was so exceptionally brilliant and knowledgeable in so many different subject areas. (3) It was not simply the fact that he was a man “set in authority.” Rather, my own conclusion was (and still is) his tremendous ability (without seeming to be aware of it) to produce a student!

He did not have to give orders or make threats. He simply possessed an indescribable way of causing a person to want to be a better student! If he happened to mention the annual overflow of the Nile River, being translated that meant: tomorrow you had better know the lakes and rivers that were in any way related to the annual overflow of the Nile. God bless you, N. B. Hardeman!

 

[Editor’s note: This piece was originally published in the Jan-Mar 2000 issue of Biblical Notes Quarterly, and references another article which is not reproduced here].

Posted in Restoration History

I Left the Meeting Scared

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Roy C. Deaver [1922-2007]

In 1967 I was working with the Brown Trail church in Hurst, Texas. Beginning in 1961, this congregation had developed a very strong interest in evangelizing by means of the mail system. Especially during the years 1965 through 1967 there was a great deal of pressure put upon the Brown Trail elders to investigate what was going on among the people in the “Independent Christian churches.” We kept hearing rumors that there were many among these people who were really concerned about becoming “one” with those of us in churches of Christ. The Brown Trail elders were—to say the least—very skeptical. Yet, they were deeply concerned about getting the gospel message to any and to all.

The elders decided to invite Don DeWelt and Seth Wilson to come to Hurst, Texas to spend two days with them, and with a few other gospel preachers. Brown Trail would pay their plane fare. Don DeWelt was a professor in Ozark Bible College (a college operated by the Independent Christian Church people), and Seth Wilson was Dean of the College.

So, on May 19 and 20, in 1967, the proposed meeting took place. We spent a great deal of time in discussion of the use of mechanical instrumental music in Christian worship. The elders discussed in detail the hermeneutical principles based upon which we were forced to the conclusion that the use of mechanical instrumental music in Christian worship is wrong! It was stressed repeatedly that there simply is no Bible authority for it!

All present listened patiently as DeWelt and Wilson presented their view. They made no special effort to attempt to justify by the Scriptures the use of mechanical instrumental music in Christian worship. It was clearly their view that it simply makes no difference: It is all right to have it, and it is all right not to have it. In fact, Wilson pointed out that he preached for a church which had on the sign in front “Church of Christ.” He stressed that this church where he preached DID NOT USE mechanical instrumental music in worship. “But,” he declared, “not because we are opposed to it—we simply do not have it.” DeWelt emphasized that he had not in any sense changed his mind about mechanical instrumental music in worship.

These men clearly and strongly felt that there could be (and that there ought to be) unity simply upon the basis that it makes no difference—whether we do or whether we do not. In their thinking, it was not necessary for them and their brethren to regard the use of the instrument as being sin.

I left that meeting on the last day as scared as I have ever been in my life about the church of our Lord. It had become crystal clear to me that these men had not changed their thinking one particle, and that they had absolutely no intention of changing their thinking. On this point, we had been terribly misinformed by many who had insisted that we meet with these men. The thing which scared me was this: They had not changed their position at all, and had no intention of doing so. BUT, THEY KNEW THAT THEY SAW AMONG US A WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT THEM (FELLOWSHIP THEM) WHILE THEY CONTINUED TO HOLD THEIR VIEWS INDICATED! It frightened me then, and it frightens me now to know that on this point, they were right.

Why can’t brethren wake up? Why is it that many cannot be warned? These men (and those who follow their leadership) are not interested in unity based upon plain Bible teaching. They are not about to give up the instrument. But, as liberalism takes its toll, they know that many in churches of Christ are willing to accept them ON THEIR TERMS.