Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

Following World War Two a wave of prosperity, unparalled in our recent history, swept over this land. Churches of Christ were able to reach towards objectives which were once as far away as the moon. But in religion, as in other areas of society, prosperity spawns its corresponding problems.

Put a lot of money into the hands of preachers and elders, and human nature will do the rest. Some “career conscious” and persuasive preachers with big plans will go to work on some elders who are better business men than elders, and the next thing you know they will drag in a Trojan horse much too big for the New Testament harness. There will be protests. But such promoters are not easily discouraged, especially when they are promoting with somebody else’s money. Besides they will find a way to alter the harness to fit this nag. Some naive soul may suggest that the Lord designed that harness and that rather than change the harness, why not use a horse that the harness fits. If these protests get loud, and they did, the propaganda machine is set in motion and woe unto the preachers that are making the noise. Such a one is made to look like Judas Iscariot, Jr. He is a “do nothing,” and “anti” and jealous because he is not in charge of it. He must be ignored. “This great work must go on” — like Nehemiah’s statement (Neh. 6:3) — is about as apropos as the “thief on the cross” argument to prove salvation without baptism. Nehemiah was doing what God wanted done. If these fellows will show me scriptural authority for their projects, they will have one more on the wall with them. But they will have to give me more than their word that God wants the church to engage in building and/or maintaining “Youth Retreats,” “Youth Camps,” “Hospitals,” “Colleges,” “Homes for Unwed Mothers,” “Teenage Lounges,” “Preachers’ Retreats,” “Mission Conferences,” “Youth Forums,” “Mission Seminars,” “Tri-State Rallies,” “Faith Corps,” and so on and on and on. And if somebody thinks I dreamed these things I have news for him. Most of these were taken from the Christian Chronicle, a paper published in Abilene, Texas, edited by one of the founders of the Herald of Truth. If you have not heard of all these things just be patient, you will. In fact the church where you worship will be supporting these things-some of them-eventually, or it will bear the stigma of “anti.” Perish the thought!

There are many brethren who, ten years ago, refused to consider the possibility that these innovations would come. The benevolent institutions were alright, they thought. There were some things about the Herald of Truth that needed watching, but, it was doing so much good it must be alright. But you simply cannot set aside Bible authority to let in one thing without opening the door for other things. Now it boils down to this: The people will either swallow one big innovation after another and lead the Church of Christ into the fold of denominationalism, or turn back and meet the scorn and ridicule that some of us have been “enjoying” for years. Which will it be? Several preachers have already gone into the Christian Church. Others who still hold onto the name have frankly admitted that they will not recognize any wall between the Church of Christ and the denominations. I have a great deal more respect for men like Carl Ketcherside and Robert Meyers who express quite frankly their views along this line, than I have for some of the mealy-mouthed fellows who want their people to believe that they are right where they have always been, but who keep a damp finger in the air to see which way the wind blows. We are ON THE MARCH alright — but to where? I am reminded that, “it is not the speed we make, but the direction we take that gets us where we want to go.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 22, p. 345
June 2, 1977

By William J. Imrisek

Words are merely symbols that convey meaning. They may signify objects, actions, abstract or concrete ideas and concepts, emotions and feelings, etc. Good communication depends upon speaking so as to be understood. As the apostle Paul recognized, “If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?” (1 Cor. 14:8-9).

Man’s ability to communicate effectively depends upon his ability to utilize words properly. He must use words that are familiar to his hearer. He must also attach to these words the same meaning that his hearer understands them to possess. When either one of these principles is violated a breakdown in communication occurs, with the end result of a misunderstanding or a complete failure to understand.

I recall an instance several years ago in which I and the one with whom I was speaking were guilty of violating this latter principle. We were talking about the manner and habits of “gophers.” However, as the conversation progressed it became evident that we were not speaking about the same creature. I soon learned that my friend was referring to a tortoise, common in the southern coastal states, which the local people called a “gopher.” But to a homegrown Northerner such as myself the only type of gopher of which I was knowledgeable was a rodent, similar in appearance to a squirrel, which burrows tunnels through the soil of the Midwestern prairies in search of roots and plants for its next meal. In our conversation we were using the identical word symbol, but we were each attaching to it a different meaning. This resulted in a temporary breakdown in communication.

This same problem can occur when we are studying or expounding the scriptures. We may use biblical terms and think that we are expressing biblical ideas, but unless we are attaching to these terms the same ideas that God attaches to them, we are misunderstanding Him. Thus it is possible for a person to use such terms as “faith,” “works,” “born again,” “saved by grace,” “church,” “bishop,” “priest,” “confession,” “baptism,” “repentance,” and “confirm,” all biblical terms, but attach a different meaning to them than that given to them by their use in the Bible. The result is a failure to understand God as He has spoken.

As a preacher I often encounter this problem when trying to explain to people the type of work that I do. Almost invariably they will respond, “Oh, then you are a pastor.” I must then stop and explain to them that I am not a pastor, but rather a preacher or evangelist. But this usually only confuses them. They have learned to associate the terms “pastor” and “preacher” with the same function. They fail to realize that in the Bible a preacher is not the same as a pastor. Their error lies in giving a biblical term an unbiblical meaning. In this case, it usually results in a perversion of both the work of a pastor (in its biblical sense) and the work of a preacher (in its biblical sense).

The Work of a Pastor

The word “pastor” is found only one time in the New Testament of our English Bibles, this being in Eph. 4:11. And although the function of a pastor is not here specifically identified, it is seen to be distinguished from that of the evangelist (or preacher). “He (God) gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teacher.” Thus, the Bible identifies these two function separately.

Although the word “pastor” is found only this one time in our English translations, the Greek word from which the term “pastor” is translated (poimen) is found fifteen more times in the Greek, and is elsewhere translated in the New Testament as “shepherd.” It describes one who feeds and tends a flock of sheep. It is used in its literal sense in such passages as Matt. 9:36 and Luke 2, 8, 15, 18, 20. Metaphorically, Jesus is referred to as a shepherd (John 10:11, 14; Heb. 13:20). Likewise, it is used as a descriptive term to identify the servants of God who have been given the responsibility to shepherd, feed, and tend the flock of God (Eph. 4:11), the church. We can therefore learn more about who a pastor is by examining the scriptures and recognizing to whom this identical responsibility of shepherding, feeding, and tending God’s flock has been given.

The scriptures inform us that this responsibility has been placed in the hands of men who are called “elders” and “overseers” or “bishops.” For example, in Acts 20:1728 it is said of Paul that “from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them . . . Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock of God over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed (poimaino) the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Here we see that elders (also called overseers) were given the responsibility of feeding or pastoring the church of God. The term “elder,” from the Greek, presbuteros, meaning “aged person” is used synonymously with the term “overseer.” Overseer comes from the Greek, episkopos, and is also translated in the Bible as “bishop” (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7).

Peter likewise tells us that the work of elders was that of overseeing and feeding the church of God. He says, “The elders (presbuterois) which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed (poimaino) the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight (episkopeo) thereof, not by constraint, but willingly” (1 Pet. 5:1-2). We can conclude then that the terms “elder,” “bishop” (overseer), and “pastor” all refer to the same person: “elder” referring to his physical age as well as to his spiritual maturity; “bishop” describing his function of overseeing the church; and “pastor” designating his responsibility to feed and tend the flock of God so that their spiritual appetites will be completely satisfied.

Although the word “elder” signifies seniority in years, maturity, and experience, a man does not become a pastor or bishop by reason of years alone, but rather by right of qualification (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) and appointment (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). It is God’s will that there be elders in every local church where there are men qualified (Acts 14:23). Thus we read about elders in the churches of Ephesus (Acts 20:17), Philippi (Phil. 1:1), and also Jerusalem (Acts 15:4). It will be noted that in each church there was a plurality (always more than one) of elders. No single elder was exalted over another, but they all shared equally in the responsibility given to them. In addition, their oversight was limited to the “flock of God which is among. you” (1 Pet. 5:2).

As Christians we have responsibilities toward these men. They are watchmen for our souls. Therefore, we are commanded to “obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief” (Heb. 13:17).

These men rule not as lords or dictators over God’s church, but as servants, leading us by their instruction (Heb. 13:7) and their example (1 Pet. 5:3), correcting us as faithful watchmen, and feeding us with the wisdom and instruction which is from God (Acts 20:28). We must respect these godly men and give them the honor which is due to them (1 Tim. 5:17). These are the men that the Bible refers to as pastors, bishops, and elders.The Work of a Preacher

But I am not a pastor. I am a preacher. And as a preacher I do not have the oversight or rule over the church of God. Rather, as a member of the local church I must also submit to the elders as those that have the rule over me, and I must not seek to usurp their authority. I must give them the honor that is due to them, and I must maintain the proper distinction between the function of a pastor or elder and the function which I must fulfill as a preacher.

Inherent in the work of the evangelist or preacher is the proclaiming of the good news of Jesus Christ. He must proclaim the word of faith whereby souls might be saved (Rom. 10:13-17). He must bring this message to the lost so that they might learn of it, believe, and be baptized (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Eph. 3:8-10).

He also has a reciprocal responsibility to those who have had their sins forgiven to “teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Jesus) have commanded” (Matt. 28:20). He must “put the brethren in remembrance of these things” in order to be “a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:6). He must be a defender of the gospel (Phil. 1:17), ready to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). His life must be a reflection of the gospel which he preaches, and he must be an example to the believer as well as to the unbeliever (1 Tim. 4:12; Titus 2:7-8). He labors for the Lord among the lost and among the saved, and stands accountable to his Master (1 Cor. 4:1-5).

The distinction between a pastor (or elder) and a preacher (or evangelist) is seen not only in the function which each must perform but also in the qualifications which each must possess. Inherent in the definition of the term “elder” is that he be an older man. An evangelist, however, may be a younger man, such as Timothy (2 Tim. 4:5; 1 Tim. 4:12). Likewise, among the qualifications for an elder is that he be the husband of one wife and have children who are faithful to the Lord (1 Tim. 3:2, 4, 5; Titus 1:6). But a man who is a preacher need not be married or have a family. The apostle Paul referred to himself as a preacher (1 Tim. 2:7). Nevertheless, he was unmarried (1 Cor. 7:8). Thus, although he was a preacher, he was not qualified to be a pastor.Conclusion

Many have erred in believing that a preacher is inherently a pastor. They are guilty of an unbiblical use of the word “pastor” and, more often than not, have placed upon the preacher a function and responsibility not given to him by God. The preacher is not the shepherd or pastor of the local church. This responsibility rightly belongs to those men who are qualified and appointed, men whom the Bible calls elders and bishops.

In order to understand God we must understand Him as He has spoken. We do not have the right to redefine His. words. Such would be dishonest.

Let us be careful lest we have misunderstood God by mishandling His word (2 Tim. 2:15). Words are important. They are the means by which God has chosen to communicate His will to man. To fail to understand God as He has spoken is to fail to understand His will.

Truth Magazine XXI: 22, pp. 343-344
June 2, 1977

By Brooks Cochran

One of the key words .in the epistle of 1 John is “fellowship.” The word in Greek is “koinonia.” Many think of church socials or “dinner on the ground” when they heard the word used. But John uses the term to carry the thought of a deep and mutual sharing.

“Fellowship” is defined as: “communion, . . . sharing in common.”(1) “The intimate bond of fellowship which unites Christians.”(2) “The fellowship of Christians with God and Christ, 1 John 1:3, 5-7, which fellowship, according to John’s teaching, consists in the fact that Christians are partakers in common of the same mind as God and Christ, and of the blessings arising there from.”(3) “To have fellowship with God, . . . with the Christian brethren.”(4)

In this article it will be our purpose to show from the epistle of 1 John what is required of a Christian if he is to be in fellowship with God and Christ. We will also discuss some of the results of being in fellowship with God and Christ.

In 1 John 1:6, 7, John gives the conditions for fellowship: “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (N.A.S.B). Thus, in order to be in fellowship with God, a Christian must “walk in the light.”

“Walk in the light” is a rather simple command to obey, but there is more to it than meets the eye. In order to fully understand what is involved in such a command, a study of the words “walk” and “light” will help.

“Walk” is used in the figurative sense to “signify the wole round of the activities of the individual life.”(5) In the Greek, “If we walk,” (eau peripatomen) is a condition of third class “with ‘ean’ and present active subjunctive.”(6) Thus the “walk” under study is one that is continual, “keep on walking.”

“Light” is what the Christian must continually walk in. Further, Christians are to only walk in the light in which the Father is. But what light is it that the Father is in? The apostle in 1 John 1:5 declares that “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” “The affirmation, ‘God is light,’ is not the same as ‘God is the light’ or ‘God is a light,’ but simply God is light, such is His essence; He is of the character of light. The word ‘light’ sums up the divine character on the intellectual side, as ‘God is love,’ similarly describes the fulness of His moral nature. He is the ‘author’ of light (James 1:17); its creator (Gen. 1:3); He is bathed in perpetual light (1 Tim. 6:16); and the marvelous light in which Christians are to walk is His (1 Peter 2:9).”(7)

Another question raised by the command to “walk in the light,” is the manner of the way in which to do it. In other words, “How does a Christian walk in the light?” In order to answer this question, a study of certain verses of scripture will help.

In John 8:12 Jesus declared that He was the light of the world and that the one who followed Him would not walk in darkness, but in light. Too, it is of interest to note that Jesus and God are both pictured as being in the light. So what is true of the Father concerning light is true of the Son. Later in John 8:31 Jesus said that if a person abides in His word, then they were His disciples. There must be some relation between “walking in the light” and abiding in the word of Christ.

John, in chapter 12:44-48, pictures again the contrast of “light” and the “word.” For in verse 44, Jesus said that the one who believes in -Him also believes in the Father. He then goes on to say that He came as “light into the world.” Thus the one who accepts the Son accepts the Father. The question is then asked, “How is this done?” Jesus answers this in verses 47 and 48; to accept His word is to accept Him. To reject Him is to reject the word and it is this word that will be the standard of judgment at the last day.

So when a person “walks in the light,” he is in a sense conducting his life in accordance with the commandments laid down in the word of God. There are many admonitions in the New Testament that tell the Christian how he is to conduct himself as he “walks in the light” (Eph. 4:1; Col. 1:10; 2:6; 1 Thess. 2:12). When a person ceases to walk in the law of God he is said not only to be in darkness, but also “without God” (2 John 9, 10).

Attention now needs to be directed towards what happens to a person as he “walks in the light.” In order to do this more effectively, we will look at the results in the negative and then in the positive.

There are only two places a person can walk, either in darkness or light. If one chooses to walk in darkness then he has chosen the path that is the opposite of light. He is walking in a path that shuns fellowship with God. “Those who ‘walk in darkness’ are not only sinful in conduct; their disposition is one of hatred and envy.”(8)

By choosing such a path the individual must accept three consequences of such a walk: He must deny the reality of sin (1 John 1:6,7), He must deny his responsibility for sin (1 John 1:8,9), and He must deny the fact of sin in his own life (1 John 1:10).(9)

Finally when we or any person choose the darkness “‘we lie,’ ‘we deceive ourselves, ‘we make Him a liar;’ and we are false, that is, to our knowledge; we persuade ourselves that falsehood is truth; we dare to set ourselves above God. And again: ‘we do not the truth,’ ‘the truth is not in us,’ ‘His word is not in us;’ we do not carry into act that which we have recognized as our ruling principle; the Truth, to which conscience bears witness, it is not the spring and law of our life; we have broken off our vital connection with the Truth when it comes to us as ‘the Word of God’ with a present, personal force.”(10)

For the person that “walks in the light” there are two things that happen to him; he has fellowship with other Christians and the blood of Christ will cleanse him from all sin. Remembering, of course, that all of this depends on his continual “walking in the light.”

The phrase,. “have fellowship with Him” of 1 John 1:6 changes in verse 7 to “have fellowship with one another.” The two phrases are virtually synonymous. Just as men are at war with God, they are at war with one another, so men reconciled to God are reconciled to one another.

To be in fellowship with God forms a bond (see chart below). Such a bond helps the Christian overcome some of the problems he faces in life (Gal. 6:2; 1 Cor. 12:26,27).

God & Christ

Apostles (1 Jn.1:3)

Christian + Christian + Christian

The second blessing of being in fellowship with God is knowing that the blood of Christ will cleanse one of his sins. Not only must one “walk” continually, but he must “confess” his sins continually. If he does, the blood will constantly cleanse him of the defilement and condemnation of sin.

Thus we have seen that John uses the term “fellowship” to convey the relationship a Christian has with God and his brethren in Christ, as long as he abides in the light (the Word of God).

Truth Magazine XXI: 22, pp. 341-342
June 2, 1977

By Mike Willis

For the last two years, controversy has filled the issues of this periodical regarding ,a new heresy, one which has been variously called the new unity cult, the grace-unity heresy, etc. Those of you who do not take many of the periodicals might not know just how widespread this heresy has gone. Since I have been editing Truth Magazine and been receiving the magazines with which we exchange papers, I have been appalled at the number of magazines advocating the grace-unity heresy. Here is a partial list of those papers: Mission, Restoration Review, Integrity, The Ensign Fair, Outreach, and the Firm Foundation. I know that there must be some papers teaching this doctrine which I have inadvertently overlooked.

Because some of our readers did not like the way in which the recent controversy was handled, they dropped their subscriptions and have acted as if the issues were merely personality clashes which had been escalated into brotherhood issues. My brethren, I do not ask that you agree with how we have handled this controversy; I only ask that you wake up to the fact that another apostasy is in progress. The issues at stake in this controversy are greater than those at stake in the institutional and sponsoring church controversies. Whereas those controversies denied one aspect of the work and organization of the church, this one concerns itself with the very foundation on which the church is built-its basis of authority.

Recently, some among us have written articles in which they speak very critically of the restoration principle. Here is how one author spoke of it:

“But I have become alarmed at the tendency of many brethren to begin using what is known as the `restoration principle’ in a creedal sort of way. One influential brother wrote a while back that `Churches of Christ will live or die, prosper or decline, in accordance with what they think and do about the restoration principle: Well  isn’t it our good fortune that someone has finally identified the one principle that will determine the fate of sincere Christians across the land! How ignorantly we had heretofore thought that the important thing was how people responded to the gospel. What a pity that those Christians across the globe who have never heard of a restoration ‘principle’ or ‘movement’ do not have access to this vital pronouncement; those poor saints will just have to settle for the New Testament.”

This good brother, who, by the way, is one of my personal friends, either does not understand what we mean when we speak of the “restoration principle” or does not stand where we stand. My friend, express it how you may, what is meant by the term “restoration principle” is the very basis of authority for the New Testament church.

Reformation, Revelation or Restoration?

So far as I know, there have only been three concepts of authority ever posited for the church. They are the three mentioned in our heading: reformation, revelation and restoration. Let us look at these three:

1. Revelation. The doctrine of continuous revelation maintains that one cannot have the New Testament church unless the miraculous gifts and continuous revelation are restored in the church today. The final appeal for authority in such a movement is not the New Testament but the modern day revelations. Such persons as Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, Jr., Mary Baker Eddy, etc. are people who believe in continuous revelation. Those who have been involved in the charismatic movement are a part of the group which believes in continuous revelation.

2. Reformation. This principle states that we need not and cannot go back to the primitive church of the first century. Where an apostate church exists today, the members have an obligation to reform it. There is no need to restore the New Testament church, one only needs to reform the existing churches. Of course, to reform an apostate church, one would have to go back to the New Testament to learn what must be wrong with the apostate church and how it can be reformed. Hence, this principle is inseparably connected with the restoration principle.

3. Restoration. The restoration principle maintains that we must plant the first century truth in today’s world in order to establish New Testament churches. It is based on the affirmations that the Bible is the full and final revelation of God to man on earth and that to the extent men have departed from the New Testament church to this extent they need to go back to the New Testament to find and restore that which has been laid aside by the traditions of men.

The restoration principle asserts that the Bible is a blueprint or pattern which must be followed by men of all ages. Men have not been left to pick and choose exactly what they will believe and practice in the church today. Rather, God has forever settled such matters and revealed them to men in the Bible. The “restoration principle” is a twentieth century term which completely expresses a biblical idea, namely, that men must have authority for everything they believe and practice. Those who are speaking very critically of the “restoration principle” either do not understand what it is saying or do not agree with the biblical principle which underlies it.

The restoration principle is not the gospel. However, the restoration principle says that we cannot know what the gospel is unless we go to the text of the New Testament. No one can prove what the gospel is without proof texts. When men preach a different gospel, which in reality is another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), they have apostasized. The only scriptural theological method is to go back to the New Testament to learn what the gospel is.Is The Restoration Principle Biblical?

The very idea of the New Testament gospel of Jesus Christ being a convenant insists that it is a blueprint or pattern which must be followed in all ages. The Bible calls the New Testament revelation a “covenant” (Heb. 8:6-13; 9:15-17; 12:24; 13:20). A convenant is a binding agreement between two parties; once the covenant has been fixed, it cannot be altered or tampered with in any way. Paul said, “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: though it be but a man’s covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto” (Gal. 3:15). Hence, God’s revelation is fixed forever. It cannot be changed to fit each existing period .of history; He has one pattern for all time.

The job of revealing this covenant to man was that of the apostles and prophets. They could teach only “whatsoever I (Jesus) have commanded you” (Mt. 28:20). Hence, the early church was required to continue steadfastly in the “apostles doctrine” (Acts 2:42). What these apostles revealed was to be handed down from one generation to another (2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2). God’s pattern was fixed and final for all men of all time.

Every commandment in the New Testament which forbids apostasy or warns against false doctrine presupposes that there is a blueprint or pattern which every Christian is expected to follow. There could be no warnings about falling away from the truth unless the truth was fixed forever. All of these verses, therefore, assure us that there is a pattern or blueprint which must be followed: 2 Jn. 9-11; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Cor. 4:6; Rom. 16:17-18; etc.

These and a number of other principles learned from the scriptures force me to the conclusion that the authority for the church is fixed forever and final. James Alexander Haldane, once said, “If we carefully observe the express precepts delivered in the New Testament, the practices of the churches mentioned with approbation, and what is said respecting the abuses which so early crept in, through slight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lay in wait to deceive, we shall find a complete system, calculated to answer every purpose which Jesus had in view in the institution of churches” (A View of the Social Worship and Ordinances Observed By the First Christians, p. 52). This, my dear friends, is what is meant by the “restoration principle.”

Deniers of the Restoration Principle

I have before me a number of quotations from men who deny the validity of the restoration principle. Each of them are ultimately left without a chart or compass as they pass through the sea of life. They have abandoned the authority of the New Testament and have nothing left to use to determine what is right and what is wrong.

Some among us are either upset with the terminology or the principle of restoration. If it is the terminology, let them suggest something which is superior which does not have the same kinds of objectionable features in it. If it is the principle to which they object, let them come right out and say what principle of authority they recognize. I defy one to sustain a biblical principle without using restoration theology. When such a person sets out to prove that the restoration principle is wrong, he no doubt will appeal to the Bible. What he is in essence doing is trying to restore something he feels is lost from Bible. Hence, he would be using the restoration principle to prove that the restoration principle is wrong. I greater inconsistency I cannot imagine.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to quote some of the they hear the word used. But John uses the term to statements from Alexander Campbell as he described carry the thought of a deep and mutual sharing what is intended by the restoration principle:

“A restoration of the ancient order of things is all that is necessary to the happiness and usefulness of Christians. No attempt ‘to reform the doctrine, discipline and government of the church,’ (a phrase too long in use,) can promise a better result than those which have been attempted and languished to death. We are glad to see, in the above extract, that the thing proposed, is to bring the Christianity and the church of the present day up to the standard of the New Testament. This is in substance, though in other terms,. what we contend for. To bring the societies of Christians up to the New Testament, is just to bring the disciples individually and collectively, to walk in the faith, and in the commandments of the Lord and Savior, as presented in that blessed volume; and this is to restore the ancient order of things (The Christian Baptist, “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things, No. 1,” p. 128).

“When we have found ourselves out of the way we may seek for the ancient paths, but we are not at liberty to invent path for our own feet. We should return to the Lord.

“But a restoration of the ancient order of things, it appears, is all that is contemplated by the wise disciples of the Lord; as it is agreed that this is all that is wanting to the perfection, happiness, and glory of the Christian community. To contribute to this is our most ardent desire — our daily and diligent inquire and pursuit. Now, in attempting to accomplish this, it must be observed, that it belongs to every individual and to every congregation of individuals to discard from their faith and their practice every thing that is not found written in the New Testament of the Lord and Savior, and to believe and practice whatever is there enjoined. This done, and every thing is done which ought to be done” (Ibid., “A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things, No. 2,” page 133).

This, my friends is what is meant by the “restoration principle.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 22, pp. 339-341
June 2, 1977