Expert: Marvin Howard - 10/24/2007

Question
Hi,

Are the Churches of Christ part of the Restoration movement? What is Restorationism? Who started it and what is it's history? Was it started in the USA? Is it similar to the Congregationalist Church, or the Baptist Church?Tell me whatever you can. Thanks.

-Joshua

Answer
Hi!

Joshua, thank you for the chance to answer this for you. I love the subject of church history, even though it is one of my weakest subjects in my opinion (at least during the era of pre-1793). I will do my best to research this for you. You actually asked several questions. Please allow me to answer these for you separately. However, to be logical, I must rearrange the order.

1. Is (the church of Christ) similar to the Congregationalist Church?

The congregationalists appear similar to the church in some respects. They claim to follow the same God, claim the same savior, and are part of the worldwide delusion that Christ built many churches (contrary to Matthew 16:18 and Ephesians 4:4 in conjunction with Colossians 1:18). Even catholicism has bent to this position in recent years: it is called the “Ecumenical Movement.”

Nevertheless, I submit to you that we are not similar. It is merely an illusion (2nd Corinthians 11:4). I submit to you that congregationalists are not part of a church at all, but are imposters. They pay lip service to God and Christ out of one side of their collective mouths, and call them liars out of the other. There are many differences, almost too numerous to list. The biggest difference is on how to become a Christian. The church insists that we are saved by all the things the Bible says save us. The congregationalists either eliminate or change most of them.

2. Is (the church of Christ) similar to the Baptist Church?

Everything I previously said about the congregationalists can be said of the baptists. Even so, while the baptists disagree with the Bible on how to become a Christian, they also disagree with the congregationalists on the same issue.

As a course of provable fact, every denomination disagrees with the Bible on how to become a Christian. Many of them even disagree with one another on this most important issue. With all the arguments, it is no wonder that a lost and dying world is confused. If one will disregard the various teachings and creeds written by men, and return to the Bible, such confusion dissipates. This brings us to the next logical question.

3. What is Restorationism?

Most people believe that the Restoration was a restoring of the church. Restorationism is nothing more than a return to the Bible; a restoring of man to the original (Romans 16:16) and contiguous (Matthew 16:18) church of Christ. The church itself needed no restoring, contrary to much opinion even within the church. I will explain this further in answer to another question. The Restoration differs greatly from the Reformation. The Reformation began with Luther. Rather than going back to the church (he knew catholicism was in apostasy), he simply tried to change catholicism (if you can say that changing such a monstrous system is simple).

Since Luther, like every other founder of a denomination, retained many of the apostate teachings of catholicism, every denomination teaches some of the same falsehoods as truth. In effect, they call God, Jesus, and the Spirit liars. It is far better to accept the religion founded by Christ, rather than join one created by man out of thin air. I phrase it this way as cloth is at least a visible substance. These people had no cloth or substance from which they could found a religion and claim that it was Christian.

4. What is (Restorationism’s) history?

This question is quite broad. I presume, like most of the modern world that even acknowledges a Restoration, that you heard it began in America with Stone and/or the Campbells in the early 19th century. In America, it actually started earlier than that (by nearly a decade), and even with other men. The Campbells are just the most prominent. I will get to that. That is a recent development in the history of the church; and in Restorationism.

The church and catholicism did not completely part ways until 533 A.D. It was during this year when Justinian renamed himself John II, and declared himself to be “Lord of the church” in place of Jesus. Nevertheless, the split actually began before the end of Scripture. In 1st Corinthians 1:12, we find Paul’s condemnation of the church of Cephas (Peter) which continues today as catholicism. Until this time (533) the church and the apostates were still loosely connected and there was no need for the church to hide, even though sporadic instances of persecution to the death already existed. After 533, the church went into hiding from catholicism (as prophesied in Revelation 12:6) as catholicism became more militant; connected with the Roman Emperors.

The first known, Christian martyr at the hands of catholicism was a Spanish elder/bishop: Priscillianus. He was murdered by the apostates (ironically it was catholicism calling him an apostate or heretic) in 385; some 148 years before the two bodies finally parted ways officially. With the length of communication times in the fourth century (hampered by modes of travel across great distances), and the fact that this death occurred only 4 years after the Nicene council (where catholic doctrine was first codified from 325 to 381) was dismissed, we cannot be sure exactly which doctrines of catholicism he fought. However, since the false doctrines were relatively few (as catholicism had not fully digressed and is actually still digressing), it is likely that it was all of them.

We know that Priscillianus was evangelistic in nature from history. After the split, Germany was highly catholic, as evidenced by this being the point of origin of protestantism, specifically Germany being the home of Luther, a one time catholic priest). Whether Priscillianus founded a congregation of the church of Christ in Trier (where he died in western regions of the Rhineland or modern day Germany) prior to his death cannot be proven, though it is highly likely as other, later congregations came from somewhere.

The ideas of sprinkling in place of immersion and infant baptism were first put forth in 150 A.D. (at least 54 years too late to be Scriptural). It was not made official doctrine in catholicism until about 400, when it gained enough popularity and practice. Priscillianus was killed just 15 years before it became official; while it had already become widely accepted. That Priscillianus rebaptized people (while still in Spain) showed that he did not accept their rhontism (sprinkling/pouring/aspersion) as baptism.

From 385, we next come to the years 415 to 428. Instead of Spain and Germany, we find the same practices and beliefs in England. The catholic bishop Germanus complained that Cassian was ignoring the edicts of catholicism, and preaching “heresies” (which were actually the truth from Scripture). Take special notice, we have historical proof of churches of Christ (at least by practice) in opposition to the doctrines of catholicism, now in 2 (if not 3) different nations in Europe, 100 years or more before the prophesied split in 533. Nevermind that the whole world learned of pure (non-catholic) Christianity in Romans 1:8.

Even though the “Church” of England (later including American episcopalianism) began in 1534, it retained much of catholicism. Catholics viewed it simply as a schism on par with Eastern Orthodoxy, rather than full blown apostasy. This allowed England to remain a hotbed of Christian activity and even survive the extermination of Christianity throughout the rest of Europe.

One point which must be understood and remembered is that “church of Christ” is not actually a name. Rather, it is simply a description. The church is nothing more than a term meaning, “the called out.” The church is comprised of the people that are called out of the world. The “church of Christ” is simply those people who are called out of the world, and belong to Christ. Its use as an identifiable designation only came about to distinguish the church from the myriad, false religions that claim to be the same thing.

Also, you must remember that the church was in hiding from catholicism. They, being predominate (though wrong), wrote the history. Their history is rife with groups of people who they thought to be apostates. Many of these groups actually spoke the truth, even though it differed from catholicism.

For these reasons, the history of the church is hard to trace. We did not always refer to ourselves solely as “churches of Christ.” Since there was no common designation, catholicism used their power of the pen to label us as many different things, believing they had eradicated their problem (the true church). These designations were based upon the false charges aimed at the church. They could not conceive that they failed and that we would “pop up” again in another location. The catholics thought they were the original church. They did not expect to find us already present. The catholics therefore believed they were dealing with several different problems. Additionally, the catholics lied about charges of false doctrine in their power grab to gain quick convictions and sentences of death. Therefore, much of that which was leveled against us is different in each location. They used whatever false charge they thought would work best in any given location. These made us appear to the world to be several, smaller splinter groups. Congregational autonomy (the Scriptural way of church organization) makes it hard to prove otherwise, especially at earlier times in history.

The earliest point in time (outside of the Bible) where congregations, who referred to themselves specifically as “churches of Christ,” can be found is in the year 1052. Catholics at that time referred to us as “Anabaptists,” or in other words, “rebaptizers.” (Note: This is not to be confused with a branch of the baptists, which came later, though they chose that designation for themselves.) The location is central Germany; specifically named is Lorraine (later Alsace-Lorraine). There are “several congregations” of the churches of Christ who are renounced by archbishop Cambrai of catholicism. They practiced and taught the same doctrines that we practice in the church today. If there were several congregations already in 1052, then they obviously started much earlier. This is why I believe that in spite of the heavy catholicism in the area that Priscillianus must have started at least one congregation there prior to his death.

Between 1118 and 1518 the catholics and the German Emperor took turns (depending on who was in power) martyring Christians as they were discovered. About 4,000 (all throughout Central Europe) died as a result of persecution during these four centuries. Thus, the churches of Christ in Alsace-Lorraine are partially responsible for the influence that led Martin Luther to break from catholicism. Specifically, even though Luther likely never heard of their teachings (else wise he would have left catholicism to become a Christian rather than try to change catholicism), Luther did object to the way the Christians were murdered by catholicism. In fact, Luther was even suspected by catholicism of being “in close connection with the heretical churches of Christ in Alsatia (the region of Alsace).” This (along with the practice of indulgences) caused him to question the catholic faith, and later seek to change the things he knew to be wrong (although he missed many, yea the majority). The result was his 95 theses in 1517. Nevertheless, the churches of Christ in Europe, because of protestantism, now faced persecution from two sources; both catholicism and protestantism.

The year 1146 brings evidence of churches of Christ, in full fellowship with the churches of Christ in Lorraine, located in The Netherlands.

Next, between 1518 and 1538, we find evidence of churches of Christ in the Palatinate (a region also on the Rhine River, now a part of Germany), Austria, Moravia, and in the center of Germany. In 1525, we find evidence of churches of Christ in Yugoslavia and Switzerland.

Luther was a threat. When he founded his “church” in 1520, catholics knew they had a problem. Churches of Christ were mistakenly lumped together with them. Catholics were running scared, and killing everyone (Christian and protestant alike). Catholics were no longer satisfied with killing Christians as they were accidentally found; now they were actually hunted. In Alsace-Lorraine alone, out of nearly 100,000 members of the churches of Christ, about 42,000 were burned for not renouncing Christianity in favor of catholicism. This massacre occurred from about 1525 to 1536. Circumstances were similar everywhere. The result was the near extermination of the church in Europe.

By 1595, The Christians in Alsace-Lorraine numbered merely 1,000. Most congregations had been extinguished. Congregations in Moravia, though severely depleted in membership, managed to flee to Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, and Crimea. By 1799, Eulogius Schneider (a catholic priest) beheaded the last three martyrs for not participating with Napoleon in the French Revolution. Of special note of this date, it is 23 years after the American Revolution (1776) and only 6 years after 1793 (which is 1260 years after the break of the church with catholicism).

The one good thing that came from the resulting Reformation was the desire for religious freedom. This was first realized in The United States. This allowed the church to emerge from its hiding exactly 1260 years after it had entered the Dark Ages in 533. This brings us to your fifth question.

5. Was (Restorationism) started in the U.S.A.?

The answer to this is dependent upon your definition of Restorationism. You see, Restorationism actually occurs every time one person is added to Christ’s church, rather than picking one of their choice from a list of others. This has been going on since the Pentecost following the resurrection. No one person started Restorationism.

If you consider Restorationism by its actual definition (individually), then no, Restorationism did not begin in America; it began in Jerusalem. If you consider Restorationism as congregations (post catholicism) wearing the designation “churches of Christ,” then no, Restorationism did not begin in America. Besides those congregations mentioned in Scripture (Romans 16:16), there were congregations in Europe more than half a millennium before there was a United States of America.” However, if you are referring to the “Restoration Movement,” where people left false religions en masse for Christianity, then yes, Restorationism did begin in America. I believe this leaves us with but one of your questions remaining.

6. Who started (Restorationism)?

Even though I gave you history in Europe during previous answers, that was minor. Nevertheless, I determined to save this question for “The Restoration Movement,” as it happened in America. As I stated earlier, I believe this is the actual, main thrust of your questions.

I can only begin your research for you. In all the information I already gave you, I only used 3 sources I know to be sound. There are many more. I will list these for you at the end of my answer, along with a few more to help you get started with this. Rather than giving circumstances and locations for each of these fathers of “The Restoration Movement,” I am going to name them and list the year they began their work toward this end. I will allow you to research them to see the circumstances of each.

Before I do, I want to remind you of my repeated references to the years 533, 1776, 1793, and 1799. In 533, Justinian declared himself “Lord of the church,” in place of Christ (completing catholicism’s break and forcing the true church into hiding). In Revelation 12:6, the church was prophesied to remain in this hiding condition for 1260 prophetic days. In 1776, the American Revolution began, giving religious freedom to us. In 1793 (1260 years after catholicism split), just 17 years later, the church was to emerge from hiding. In 1799 (just 6 years after the church’s emergence from its prophetic hiding), the church in Europe died (and is now awaiting us to carry them the Gospel, and religious freedom). With these thoughts in mind, take notice of the first year on the list of “Restoration Movement” fathers.

James O’Kelley – 1793
Abner Jones – 1801
Elias Smith – 1802
Thomas Campbell – 1809
John Mulkey – 1809
Christian Herman Dasher – 1819
John Taylor – 1827
Alexander Campbell – 1826
Wade Barrett – 1832
Jesse Londerman Sewell – 1842

Each of these was independent of the others. The first year of the “Restoration Movement” matches the prophecy of Revelation 12:6. There is no way this is all coincidence. The “Restoration Movement” and the modern day churches of Christ are foretold in the Bible, where it also states there is only one church. Where does that leave the other institutions that claim to be different churches?

Joshua, you see, the churches of Christ are not part of “The Restoration Movement,” that movement is part of the churches of Christ. Once again I thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you. I pray this study of history has proven beneficial. It has for me. I sincerely hope that you now have the knowledge of Christ’s church that you might become convinced to respond to Him; if you have not done so already. Here are the links to my sources and a few more to help you study further. You may need to copy and paste these addresses if hyperlinking is not yet allowed in this format. For those sites with multiple pages, I cannot exhort you strongly enough to examine all the material contained therein. This is especially true of the site, “Traces of the Kingdom.”

http://www.evangelismupdate.com/ARTICLES/grimm_article.htm

http://www.traces-of-the-kingdom.org/

http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962/ChurchHistory.html

http://www.geocities.com/braswellcoc1/archive25.html

http://www.geocities.com/braswellcoc1/archive26.html

http://www.therestorationmovement.com/

http://www.piney-2.com/RMPiney.html

In His Service,
Marvin Howard
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962
http://360.yahoo.com/preacherman_1962