Wednesday, June 24, 2020

RESTORATION VS. REFORMATION


View the video of this epistle at the link provided here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVGa4ZwzqXo


The Need of Restoration
Recently, I was asked when I thought the church went off the rails so badly that it needed to be restored to apostolic orthodoxy. I am not sure I gave a clear answer then; but since the time of that discussion I have given the topic much thought. Today, I can answer that question with a clear statement that is historically correct. But before I do, permit me to preface my answer with this: The Lord Jesus Christ has always had a people holding fast to the apostles teaching of the mighty God in Christ and water baptism in the name of Jesus (other nuances associated with 20th century Oneness Pentecostalism may be particular to that century), though, at times, their number has been very few.

When the majority of people calling themselves "Christian" forsook the biblical single immersion water baptism into the single name of Jesus in favor of triple baptism into the triune titles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then, that majority ceased to be the church of the Lord's apostles, thus not apostolic.  Just when this happened is shrouded in mystery. There is historical record of Pope Stephen (catholic bishop of Rome in the mid third century: consecrated May 12th, A.D. 254) declaring water baptism into the single name of Jesus as being valid orthodox baptism even if performed by heretics, when he wrote in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage on the subject. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 3, Page 82. Also see pages 365, 366: “Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.”) What we do find, however, is that by the late 4th to early 5th centuries the part of the Lord's church calling itself "catholic" (I use the term “catholic” in its generic  sense [“universal”]; I am not referencing what has come to be called the Roman Catholic Church.) had made baptism into the Trinitarian titles a requirement for fellowship in "their" orthodoxy. But their "orthodoxy" was not "apostolic orthodoxy." 

It seems that the trend of replacing the single name formula of Christian baptism with the triple baptism and triune names corresponded closely with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. This trend seems to have originated in North Africa. The reasons given by the historical records for forsaking the single name formula in favor of the triune one are basically two in number: 

1. The development of the new doctrine called the Trinity, as I have already said. The new formula of Father, Son and Holy Ghost was chosen to accommodate the plurality of persons in the Trinitarian Godhead.  

2. Anti-Semitism. Jesus is a semitic (Hebrew) name. The name in Hebrew is “Yohowshua.” Water Baptism is a legal transference of the person being baptized over to the property of the one named in the baptismal formula. The perception of requiring a Gentile to become the property of a Jew was considered anti-productive to worldwide evangelism. (See the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Abingdon Press, 1962, Volume 4, page 711 under “Trinity”.) 

 In both of the above reasons there is an observation that needs to be made to help us understand how such a move was possible: As a cursory study of patristic writings will reveal, the Christian world of the 2nd and 3rd centuries was very anti-semitic, and for what seems to be a good reason. The very first great persecution brought upon the Lord’s church was Jew on Christian. It was the Jews that killed Stephen and James; also, Paul (via the Romans), to say nothing of Jesus. It was none other than Christ, Himself, in the Apocalypse, that references the Jewish religion as the “synagogue of Satan.” Jesus, also, (in the book of Revelation) identifies Jerusalem as Egypt, Babylon, and the Great Whore that rides the Beast, who was drunk on the blood of the saints. With this anti-semitic position permeating the thought processes of the ancients, the Apostolic Fathers, and those after them, had closed themselves off from the Jewish culture. It is from the Jewish/Hebraic thought that one is made aware of the importance of the name of an individual. It is from the Hebrews that we learn that the name of a person carries (embodies) the very essence of that person. The Christian leaders of the 2nd and 3rd centuries missed this important aspect of biblical doctrine, because they where shut out from any hebraic interaction. Robbed of this knowledge there was no watchman on the wall, so to speak, that cried against the move to expand (and that is indeed what it was - an expansion) the name of the Jewish Jesus to include the three different modes of the Deity they knew He embodied. They were unaware, because of the partition placed between themselves and the Jews, that by removing the saving name from the saving act of water baptism they had robbed the Christian faith of the true biblical and apostolic water baptism altogether. 

Since water baptism is the sacrament that places one into Christ—thus, into His church—one who has not the water baptism of the apostles cannot claim apostolicity, and by lacking such credentials forfeits inclusion in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Misplaced Animus
Mostly, for the last 150 years the Oneness Pentecostal movement has been carrying on a running fight with the Roman Catholic Church. This has been a strange one-sided fight, because the RCC has not been fighting back. The massive energy and treasure that has been expended in this struggle has been grossly misplaced by the Oneness camp, and would have been better focused on our true antagonist: Protestantism.

Our struggle against the Roman Catholic Church is really a comical event, when one thinks about it. The image that comes to mind is that of the tiniest of birds flying about an enormous elephant while beating it with its tiny wings thinking the beating is in some way damaging the pachyderm.  

 Actually the attacks, no matter the courage and ferocity of the little winged creature, fail to even amount to an annoyance.

 Our real antagonist is not the Roman Catholic Church, with whom we at times have called the Antichrist, but the groups calling themselves Protestants. Especially antagonistic to Oneness Pentecostalism are those of Reformed Christianity ( Continental Reformed, Presbyterian, Evangelical Anglican, Congregationalist, and Reformed Baptist denominational families. A list of all Reformed denominations in North America are given in a foot note at the end of this essay.). The hard truth is: We Oneness Pentecostals have much more kinship with the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church than we do the Protestants who broke from their Catholic mother. 

In all truth, often times, the Protestant objections to Oneness Pentecostalism are the same objections leveled at the Roman church. We have not spent time considering it but think about it now. The blood between the Oneness Pentecostal ethos and that of the Catholic, both Western and Eastern, is thicker than one might think. Consider these seven similarities (others exist): 
1. Sacramental: Both the OP and the RCC embrace water baptismal regeneration whether we call it that or not—Reformed Protestants do not; many OPs confess the Real Presence of the Lord’s body and Blood in the Eucharist, as do the RCC—Reformed Protestants do not; both OP and the RCC believe in the sacramental value (efficacy) of Laying on of hands to consecrate and pray for the sick—Reformed Protestants do not.
2. Confirmation: Both the OP and the RCC affirm the necessity of confirmation of the believer apart from their confession of faith and his/her baptism; with the OP confirmation is speaking in tongues at the time of Holy Spirit infilling (this most always involves the laying on of hands); with the RCC it is when the bishop lays hands on the believer to receive the Holy Spirit—Reformed Protestants do not. 
3. Symbolism in Worship: Both the OP and the RCC employ symbols in worship; central to both are the of holy anointing oil and the bread and wine of the Eucharist, said symbols are infused with a sacramental connection to what they are symbols of—The Reformed Protestant has no such belief.
4. Freewill: Both the OP and the RCC acknowledge the freewill of both the Angels and mankind and place some responsibility upon the person that would be saved to exercise that free will— Reformed Protestants do not.
5. Angels: Both the OP and the RCC believe in the ministry of Angels—it is not clear that Reformed Protestants do.
6. Supernatural Spiritual Gifts: Both the OP and the RCC believe in the continued operation of the nine supernatural gifts and the need of signs  and wonders in the present-day church—Reformed Protestants do not, they are Cesationist.
7. Authority of Clergy: Both the OP and the RCC recognized the authority of the bishop (pastor) as being absolute over the spiritual affairs of the saints under his care—Reformed Protestants do not.

The Oneness Pentecostal movement must stop and ask a soul searching question: Where did the animosity toward the Roman Catholic Church come from and how did it get such a hold on Oneness Pentecostals?

Much of it can be laid at the feet of Protestantism in general; but not all of it. It is true that the Reformers of the 16th century prosecuted a campaign of propaganda against the Roman Church and quite successfully branded it with the sigma of Antichrist and Mother of Harlots, the Whore of Revelation. The Pentecostal Movement, coming largely out of the Methodist movement of the 19th century inherited much of that way of thinking. However, when the Oneness Pentecostals began to form their own organizations separate from the Trinitarian Pentecostals, there was a very real need for historical scholarship against the doctrine of the Trinity. Since the baby Oneness groups had no historical scholars on their rolls, they drafted into their war against the trinitarian camp the writings of Arian scholars. Now these Arian sources, that had been around since the 16th and 17th centuries, wrote much against the Trinity, naming the Council of Nicæa and the Roman Catholic Church as the originator of the doctrine. This was dubious scholarship at best and out and out lies at worse. These Arian type writers had reason to hate Nicæa and all things Nicene because it was there that the full deity of Christ was declared and all who would not confess the full and absolute deity of Jesus were disfellowshipped. That put the Arians outside the pale of orthodoxy. It did not seem to matter that the Arian’s charge (that the Trinity was formulated at Nicæa) was false, the Oneness Pentecostal writers and preachers of the early 20th century bought into the lie. It did not matter that Rome had no bishop at Nicæa, and had no vote among the 318 bishops that were present. To most Oneness Pentecostal preachers and teachers of the 20th century the Trinity was founded at Nicæa in A.D. 325 and the Roman church orchestrated it all. That notion was sad because it was false. The First Council of Nicæa (A. D. 325) was dominated by the Oneness (historically called Monarchian) bishops present. The Creed formulated there was/is a Oneness statement of faith. (See my book, “Godhead Theology, Modalism, the Original Orthodoxy” Amazon.)

Restoration vs. Reformation
Protestants, especially Calvinists, tout the Reformation of the 16th century, while speaking of the Restoration Movement of the 19th century in a disparaging manner. They point to the Restoration movements of the 1800s and herd them all into the same corral for branding as heresies. Their list is quite impressive: Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, and Christian Scientists. But in that category are also such groups as the Church of God of Anderson Indiana (1880s), Disciples of Christ (1832), Plymouth Brethren (1820s), the Wesleyan Church (1843), and the Catholic Apostolic Church (1835). All modern day Pentecostal groups may be added to this list. All these groups claim “restoration” as their motivational focus. We would agree that some of these groups are heretical by Reformed Protestant criteria, but not all. Those groups which denied the deity of Jesus Christ are certainly outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy. The Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Scientists certainly fall into that category.

By the Reformed Protestant church, Restoration is said to be bad, while Reformation is good.  The reason, they tell us, is because restoration assumes that the true church has ceased to exist and must be re-created/remade. Actually, that is not true at all. This is a case of the opposition attempting a transference: transferring the guilt of their crime on to the innocent. It is the Reformation of the 16th-century and the Reformers of that period that produced an innovation in Christianity, in the form of the Protestant church.

We need to put the record straight: Restoration comes from the word "restore." The word "restore" means: "to bring back to the former or normal condition; a putting or bringing back into a former or normal or unimpaired   state. The idea of restoration requires the original to exist in order to undergo a restoring. This was certainly the concepts of the Christian Restoration Movement of the 1800s– Pentecostalism especially.

However, reformation, on the other hand, involves an alternate concept. Reformation is from the word "reform." While "reform" may mean "to make better by removing defaults and defects" it also has within itself the sinister meaning "To form again." Or to “remake.” For example, to a reformist, the original may seem faulty or defective. Certainly this is within the realm of possibility. It is just too obviously clear that the reformers of the 16th century did just that. They reformed (remade) the Christian church. Their's, was not a restoration– where the original was restored. No. Their’s was a reforming of the original. A remaking, if you would. 

This reformation gave us the five solas: 1. Sola Scriptura (“by Scripture alone”), Sola Fide (“by faith alone”), Sola Gratis (“by grace alone”), Solus Christus (“through Christ alone”), Soli Deo Gloria (“glory to God alone”). While the last two seem to be acceptable, the first three are problematic. Sola Scriptura (“by Scripture alone”) does not allow for holy Church tradition, which must be permitted when it is understood that neither the apostles nor their surrogates had the New Testament corpus, yet they did establish the Church without it. So, then, the seat of authority of the Church is in the Holy Spirit as it is found in both the written Word (Scripture) and the living Church (sanctified reasoning and holy tradition) as may be seen in the historical councils. The next two: Sola Fide (“by faith alone”) and Sola Gratia (“by grace alone”) lead to the false understanding that man has no part to play (no responsibility) in his salvation. Both, though Reformed strongholds, fly into the face of the apostolic doctrine of the first century church as recorded by James, the Lord’s half brother, who wrote that the believer is justified by faith and works and not by faith alone (James 2:14-26). The Reformers gave the Christian world a re-reading of the baptismal texts, especially, as part of their attack of the sacraments.

 The true circumstances of the time of the Reformation (16th century) where: Europe was awakening to strong feelings of nationalism, each state and its Prince desired political independence from Rome.  The problem was, the Roman Church controlled the population of Europe, and indeed the world, through the sacraments. To be denied the sacraments would mean sure damnation. The local priests controlled the sacraments, and Rome controlled the local priests.  The reformers, whether they were cognizant of it or not, were freeing the population from the need of Rome, by giving them a religion free from the sacraments. Through remaking a Christianity that would be free from the sacraments, and free from duly appointed clergy to administer them, the people were given into the hands of the earthly Princes who could then successfully break from Rome. The "Reformed" Christian faith, which needed no priest nor sacrament, was a remaking of Christianity. A Christianity that had never existed before.

A like reformation movement may be found within Judaism. The reformation of Judaism attempts to make rational thought compatible with historical Judaism, by stressing its ethical aspect and not requiring strict observances of traditional orthodox ritual. We see little, if any, difference between the Reformation within Judaism and the Reformation that took place in Christianity in the 16th century. Both have their roots in the humanist movement of thought. (John Calvin was originally trained as a humanist lawyer before being enlisted into the Reformation by the Frenchman William Farel.)

Thus, the  Reformation Movement, and not the Restoration Movement, is the sinister player upon the pages of Church history.

The Work of Restoration
The major outpouring of the baptism of the Holy Spirit at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century (not only in America, but around the world) was unprecedented in all of history. It began a restoration back to the apostolicity of the first century. While single immersion baptism into the single name of Jesus has always been present within Christianity at some place in the world, as well as the Pentecostal experience of tongues and the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, one may point to the Spiritual awakening at the beginning of the 20th century as a watershed moment in church history, when Christians at large began to long for and return to the experience and doctrines of the original church which existed before the great falling away foretold in Scripture (2 Thess 2:3), and indeed experienced by Christianity at large. 

Today, there is not a denomination within Christianity that does not have its Pentecostal element that is holy leaven working its way throughout its host in order to RESTORE the faith back to its original state (Matt 13:33; Joel 2:23-25).

Apostolically Speaking
☩ Jerry L Hayes 
 List of Reformed denominations in North America
Associated with the Dutch Reformed (Gereformeerde Gemeenten (Dutch)) churches in the Netherlands.
The PCA is the second largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States, after the PC(USA). Its motto is: "Faithful to the Scriptures, True to the Reformed Faith and Obedient to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ."
The Presbyterian Church in Canada, formed in June 1875, as a union of 4 Presbyterian groups in the Dominion of Canada (created in 1867); These "Continuing Presbyterians", did not join the United Church of Canada in 1925, of Presbyterians, along with Methodists, Congregationalists, and Union Churches.
Most Presbyterian churches adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith, but the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in order to embrace the historical expressions of the whole Reformed tradition as found in the United States, has adopted a Book of Confessions which includes the Westminster Confession of Faith.
One of the most conservative of all Reformed/Calvinist denominations, the PRCA separated from the Christian Reformed Church in the 1920s in a schism over the issue of common grace.
The majority of the original Reformed Church in the United States, which was founded in 1725, merged with Evangelical Synod of North America (a mix of German Reformed & Lutheran theologies) to form the Evangelical and Reformed Church in 1940 (which would merge with the Congregational Christian Churches in 1957 to form the United Church of Christ) leaving the Eureka Classis serving as a Continuing church of the Reformed Church in the United States until 1986, when it was dissolved to form the Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States
The Reformed Church in America (RCA) is the oldest Dutch Reformed denomination in the United States, dating back from the mid-17th century
Although most churches in the Southern Baptist Convention cannot be described as Reformed, the Baptist Faith and Message is open enough to allow for Reformed Baptist churches. These Reformed Baptist churches generally also affirm the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. The Founders Ministries is a group of Southern Baptists that assert that the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention had placed the denomination within the Reformed tradition. Additionally, the SBC has been increasingly influenced in the 21st century by New Calvinism.
The United Church of Christ was formed in 1957 as a union bringing together the majority of Congregational churches in the US, the (German) Reformed Church in the United States, the (German) Evangelical Synod of North America (a body descended from the Reformed-Lutheran Evangelical Church of the Prussian Union), and the Christian Connection (a restorationist movement).
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)