http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/McClish/Henry/WardenJr/1938/VALIDITY-OF-THE-RESTORATION-PLEA.html
THE
VALIDITY OF THE PLEA FOR RESTORATION
By
Dub McClish
A
CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE BOOK:
“ILLUSIONS
OF INNOCENCE”
Introduction
Illusions
of Innocence is the title of a book written by Richard T. Hughes and
C. Leonard Allen. It is subtitled, Protestant Primitivism in America, 1630–1875,
and was originally published and copyrighted in 1988 by University of Chicago
Press. In 2008, the copyright and publication rights were assigned to Abilene
Christian University (ACU) Press for the paperback edition.
Dr.
Hughes is the Boyer Fellow/Distinguished Professor of Religion at Messiah
College (“rooted in the Anabaptist, Pietist, and Wesleyan traditions of the
Christian Church” [Messiah College]) in Grantham,
Pennsylvania. Before assuming his post at Messiah, he was a Distinguished
Professor in the Religion Division at Pepperdine University and directed its
Center for Faith and Learning. He has authored and/or co-authored several other
books, including Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ
in America (1996) and The American Origins of Churches of Christ (2002).
Dr.
C. Leonard Allen has held professorial posts at Biola University (an
interdenominational, faith-only, dispensational premillennial, “Evangelical”
school that requires its faculty to adhere to its doctrinal platform [see
Biola]), Fuller Theological Seminary (almost a doctrinal twin of Biola
University, requiring the same adherence [see Fuller]), and Abilene Christian
University (not far behind either of the above). He has authored and/or
co-authored several books besides the one under review, including The
Cruciform Church (1990) and Distant Voices: Uncovering a Forgotten Past for a Changing Church (1993). Dr. Allen is Editorial
Director of Leafwood Publishers, which is apparently a close ally with ACU
Press. He presides over an advisory board that includes such notable liberals
as Lynn Anderson, Max Lucado, Darryl Tippens, John Allen Chalk, and Leroy Garrett.
Some Preliminary
Impressions
Both
Hughes and Allen are obviously intelligent and scholarly men, and both of them
are able wordsmiths. They bear well-earned reputations as doctrinal apostates,
not “liberal” in the “classic theological” sense of “modernism,” but most certainly
in the Biblical sense. They appear to be historians who have read and
researched widely. The titles of most of their books demonstrate their penchant
for “restoration” history. If Illusions of Innocence is exemplary of the
others, their persistent agenda is evident: to so interpret and/or revise
history as to depict the Lord’s church as just one more man-originated
denomination in the larger religious cesspool of denominationalism.
The
authors lay out the subject matter of this book in the following divisions:
· Restoring
First Times in the Anglo-American Experience
· The Constraints of “True Antiquity”: John Cotton and the New England Way
· The Quest
for “Soul Liberty”: Roger Williams and Puritan
Dissent
· The Ancient
Landmarks: Baptist Primitivism from the Separates to James R. Graves
· From Freedom
to Constraint: The Transformation of the “Christians in the West”
· Soaring with the Gods: Early Mormons
and the Eclipse of Religious Pluralism
· Freedom
from Dogma: James S. Lamar and the Disciples of Christ
· From Primitive
Church to Protestant Nation: The Millennial Odyssey of Alexander
Campbell
· A Civic
Theology for the South: The Case of Benjamin M. Palmer
· Nature,
Innocence, and Illusion in American Life
· Epilogue:
Beyond Innocence and Illusion in American Life
The
book contains a considerable amount of American church history, from colonial
times and well into the nineteenth century, as the subtitle indicates. While I
find this history interesting, I do not at all agree with some of the
interpretations placed upon it or the conclusions drawn from it.1 Hughes and Allen express themselves in clear
and readable style.
The
authors copiously annotated the 296-page book with 698 endnotes (55 pages),
many of which are information/comment notes besides the documentation notes. A
thorough index completes the volume.
The Thesis
of the Book
The
aim of the authors is to convince the reader that men can never achieve
restoration of any original entity that has been abandoned or corrupted
with the passing of time. To Allen and Hughes, all such efforts must be ever in
process, impossible of realization. All restorers who claim their
efforts as a fait accompli are doomed thereby to become that which they
set out to oppose and escape—the shackles and barnacles of religious creedalism
and self-righteousness. As one would expect such liberals to do, they
principally aim their postulation at the early nineteenth-century endeavors in
our nation to restore the New Testament church—and to those who continue to
herald that plea and who believe the church has been restored.
The
book title implies both their thesis and their conclusion: Restoration is a
mere illusion, and only the innocent (read ”naïve”) attempt it or believe they
can accomplish it. The authors thus sit upon their thrones of superior
knowledge and wisdom, and from elitist ivory towers of academe look with
condescension on those of us who deny both their thesis and conclusion. To
them, we are the simple, gullible, benighted hoi polloi, striving in vain for
an unattainable goal (in this attitude they echo the “ruling class” that holds
the reins of government in Washington, DC). How they must shake their heads
from side to side and cluck with their tongues as they view the sad spectacle
of members of the restored church Jesus established, still showing ourselves
willing to defend her against assaults from without and (as in the case of
Hughes and Allen) from within.
The
following quotations tell the reader all he needs to know about the theological
agenda of the book under review:
To confine
themselves to Bible words without explanation would be to speak where the Bible
speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent and, in so doing, to identify
with the Christian primordium in the fullest sense possible. Or so it seemed.
But in accepting this seductive posture, the “Christians” engaged in a profound
but subtle transformation that would have lasting and even devastating effects.
In the first place, restoration became no longer a means to an end—that end
being freedom—but rather an end in itself…. At this point, it perhaps was
inevitable that some would claim that the Church of Christ had fully restored
the ancient order and now was the one true church outside of which there was no
salvation. These claims would come in due time. (Hughes and Allen, 118–19 [all
subsequent citations are from the same source, unless otherwise indicated]).
[Speaking
of those influenced by Campbell]: Their church belonged to the first age, not
to time or tradition. Those who adopted this posture turned a critical corner
in their movement as they relinquished the original ideal of restoration as
process. Instead, restoration became for them an accomplished fact. In this way
the “Christians” developed a tradition whose very substance was a denial of
their tradition and a history that, ironically, would be characterized for many
years by a keen sense of having no history at all (125).
Some
continued to struggle against the forces of history to keep alive the original
ideal of restoration as process, grounded in hope. But for many “Christians,”
restoration became an accomplished fact. For them, history emerged victorious,
leaving only the rhetorical husks of a grand vision of liberty and union for
all (132).
Some Major
Emphases of the Authors
Two
Puritans Provide “Paradigms”
Early
in the book, the authors review some history of seventeenth-century New England
Puritanism, especially through the careers of John Cotton and Roger Williams.
Cotton, even before fleeing from church authorities across the Atlantic to
Boston in 1634, eschewed the ceremonies, polity, and oppression of the Church
of England and vowed to follow a course of restoration of the primitive church
(33–37). Cotton, failing to distinguish between the covenants, mistakenly
sought to combine civil and sacred authority in his approach, largely after the
model of the Hebrew theocracy (40–46). Despite teaching several Scriptural concepts
for the church, the application Hughes and Allen disparagingly make of Cotton’s
restoration effort is that the restoration impulse causes one to be blinded to
his own finitude and leads to “denying legitimacy to others” (i.e., recognizing
Scriptural boundaries of fellowship) (52). Cotton’s opposition to instrumental
music in worship would likely have been enough to cause Hughes and Allen to
disavow his yearning for primitive purity, had nothing else done so (39–40).
Contrariwise,
they laud Roger Williams’ (Cotton’s contemporary) approach to “primitivism”
(i.e., restoration), which involved incessant calls for toleration and freedom
of conscience (54). He believed that all human attempts at reformation in
religion are fallible and that his contemporaries who sought such reformation
were as subject to errors and judgment limitations as their predecessors
(70–71). Hughes and Allen agree with Williams’ opinion that men often naively
and inflexibly claim a smug “certitude in religious matters,” which often
becomes a “cloak for self-serving ends and a justification for mistreating
others” (77). Compared to the rigid and narrow Cotton (as Hughes and Cotton
judged him), Williams’ belief that restoration must ever be “an open-ended
concept” make him the authors’ hero (77).
Cotton
admittedly “did not get it right” in failing to distinguish between the Old and
New Testaments, combining church and civil functions, and perhaps in other
ways, but it does not follow that all men who pursue restoration must fail to
“get it right.” In discrediting Cotton’s efforts, they violated a basic
hermeneutical principle: One cannot justly use the abuse or misapplication of a
principle to invalidate the principle itself. To attempt such is to employ the
Fallacy of Diversion. The principle of restoration must be judged on its actual
merits, rather than upon abuses or misapplications of it. Cotton’s aim of
restoration was not at fault, but his misapplication of it was.
It
was Roger Williams (not Jesus or Paul) who declared, based on his observations,
that all restoration attempts must be flawed because all men are fallible.
While all men are fallible (Rom. 3:23), it does not necessarily follow that all
efforts in the grand work of restoration must thereby be flawed.
Not
surprisingly, our authors praise Williams’ criticism of those who evince
“certitude in religious matters,” for they are of the liberal, relativist,
perhaps even postmodern set that despises doctrinal “certitude,” in spite of
incessant Scriptural emphasis upon it (Mat. 7:15–23; 15:6–9; Luke 8:11; Acts
20:28–31; Rom. 6:17–18; 16:17–18;1 Cor. 1:10; 4:17; Gal. 1:6–9; Eph. 4:4–6;
Phi. 1:16–17; 1 Tim. 1:3–4; et al.). It appears that they agree with one of
their fellow-liberals (and Allen’s former fellow professor at Abilene Christian
University), Carroll D. Osburn, and his brand of doctrinal “certitude”:
There
should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who differ on whether more
than one cup in communion is acceptable, whether the communion bread is to be
pinched or snapped, whether one can eat in the church building, whether funds
can be used from the church treasury to support orphan homes, whether the
Lord’s Supper must be taken every Sunday, or whether instrumental music is used
in worship. There should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who
believe that Christ is the Son of God, but who differ on eschatological
theories such as premillennialism, ecclesiological matters such as
congregational organization, or soteriological matters such as whether baptism
is “for” or “because of” the remission of sins (90–91).
Likely,
Hughes, Allen, and Osburn (and many of their associates) would all have fit in
well with Roger Williams had they lived in Colonial times.
Our
authors manifestly agree with Williams’ idea that “doctrinal certitude” often
covers self-justifying agendas that sanction mistreating others. First, we see
in this statement the accusation of self-righteousness. Second, we see the
charge of mistreating others, likely a reference to refusing to fellowship
those who are not in fellowship with Deity. Hughes and Allen just cannot imagine
that there might be some folk who seek only to be righteous (not self-
righteous) as the New Testament defines righteousness.
Neither
can they abide the idea that to be righteous by New Testament definition
involves honoring the limits of fellowship set by the Holy Spirit. Not everyone
who merely claims or wishes to be in the church of Christ is in it, but only
those whom the Lord adds to it when they are saved (Acts 2:47). Those who are
in the church are not to be “unequally yoked” (i.e., involved in fellowship)
with unbelievers, those in iniquity, or those in darkness, but we are to be
separate from them (2 Cor. 6:14–17). We are not to partake of or have any
fellowship with “unfruitful works of darkness” (Eph. 5:7, 11). Righteousness
involves our refusing fellowship even to brethren who cause division through
false doctrine (Rom. 16:17–18) or who become involved in immorality (1 Cor.
5:1–11). We cannot remain righteous while bidding Godspeed to false teachers,
for their error then becomes our error (2 John 9–11).
Hughes
and Allen represent a large coterie of “progressive” brethren who disdain and
ignore such heavenly mandates, thereby allowing them to embrace denominational
associates in their irenic ecumenism. They clearly feel far more affinity with
them than they do with us.
Outright
liberals are by no means alone in disdaining and disrespecting these and
similar Biblical injunctions.2
Identifying
the Original Aims of Campbell and Stone
According
to Hughes and Allen, the principal aim of the early nineteenth-century
restorers was not the restoration of the original church (as if this were an
untoward ambition), but it was the pruning of human creeds and practices that
burdened Protestantism and the unification of all of the churches (107). The
“restoration” idea developed only as a means of reaching that two-fold goal,
they proffer. Only later, they aver, did restoration become the end, rather
than a means to the end (119). The factors that produced this new priority had
“lasting and even devastating effects,” according to Hughes and Allen (118).
Admittedly,
Alexander Campbell’s writings in the 1820s and early 1830s reveal that his
expectation of the millennium involved the denominations’ disavowing their
sectarian creeds and names and uniting in a “purified” church to preach the
Gospel. The resultant conversion of most of mankind would be the dominance of
the Lord’s law among men for a thousand years. Campbell apparently believed
that through his unification effort—by means of restoration—the Gospel would
eventually end civil governments and the millennial rule of Christ would
prevail (172–73). This millennial concept explains the name of the second
periodical he founded—The Millennial Harbinger.
Let
us grant that the original aims of these men were purification (i.e., freedom
from creedalism) and unification of religion. Let us grant also that the
restoration concept was originally secondary. Granting both invalidates neither
the restoration aim nor principle. Those early pioneers did not abruptly
recognize and depart from all of the errors that had so long bound them and
generations before them. As they studied the Bible, they arrived bit by bit at
true conclusions regarding New Testament doctrine and practice. They were as men
in the deep darkness of a cavern who only gradually begin to see their way
illuminated as they approach its entrance. We should then not be surprised that
the concept of restoration as an end did not occur to those spiritual
trailblazers immediately.
Nor
should it surprise us that the dual aims of purification of and unity in
religion would naturally produce in these men the ideal and pursuit of
restoration. After all, peeling away all of the layers of unauthorized,
man-produced names, creeds, and practices would (and did and still does) render
restored New Testament churches. Likewise, only when congregations are content
to exist apart from man-imposed dogmas can they enjoy Biblical unity (1 Cor.
1:10; Eph. 4:1–6). The significant point is that, wherever these men began in
their spiritual pilgrimage, they ended with the noble and Scriptural plea to
restore primitive Christianity.
Hermeneutics
and the Restorers
As
one would expect of liberals, Hughes and Allen are not big fans of the
hermeneutical principles the restorers so laboriously hammered out—particularly
those influentially enunciated by Campbell. He viewed the New Testament alone
as the law or “constitution” for the church (terms and concepts that infuriate
liberals to this day). From this premise, our authors note, he logically
deduced that its approved examples are as binding as its explicit commands and
that Scriptural silence “was always prohibitive.” Further, he declared that the
Bible is a book of facts, rather than one of mere “opinions, theories, [or]
abstract generalities.” One therefore only need gather all the Bible says on a
given subject inductively to ascertain completely what the Bible teaches
thereon (117).
Hughes
and Allen aver that the inductive approach to arriving at Biblical Truth the
restorers took, led by Campbell, came from two sources: (1) Scottish “Common
Sense Realism” (117, 153–156, et al.) and (2) the “Baconian Method” of
scientific investigation, named for the English philosopher, Sir Francis Bacon
(1561–1626) (124, 153–159). The former incorporated Baconian principles in its
premise that all men are possessed of sufficient “common sense,” enabling them
to deduce correct conclusions when they had inducted sufficient evidence. The
application of these principles to Bible study
proved almost revolutionary, particularly in breaking the shackles of Calvinism. By
them, Walter Scott, the evangelist and close associate of Campbell, was able to deduce the Scriptural and logical progression of the elements
of the “plan of salvation” (his so-called “five-finger” plan) (159–60).
Liberals of our time enjoy ridiculing as “five-steppers” those who still preach
this imminently Scriptural five-point plan. By the same logical and Biblical
approach, those brethren deduced the five acts of worship in our assemblies.
When
change agents began issuing the call in the 1980s for a “new hermeneutic,” it
was not because they had something better to offer—as they still do not. No,
their effort was only an assault on and effort to demolish the “old
hermeneutic.” They knew they had to dispense with it to advance their agenda of
moving the restored church into the fullness of denominational identity. Thus,
they have steadily attacked, mainly through appeals to emotional factors and
elitist scorn, the familiar Command, Example, Necessary Inference (CENI)
approach to Bible hermeneutics, exegesis, and interpretation. In recent years,
brethren have more precisely identified these same basic tools for arriving at
authorized practices as Direct Statement, Accounts of Approved Action, and
Implication (DSAAAI). Additionally, liberals hold especially repugnant the
principle of the prohibitive nature of Scriptural silence, first voiced among
the restorers in 1809 by Thomas Campbell in the western Pennsylvania farmhouse
of Abraham Altars. As we shall see, in despising and ridiculing the
hermeneutics of the restorers, liberals such as Hughes and Allen (and their
liberal cohorts) are actually deriding the Bible and its inspired writers
themselves (not that it matters to them).
The
inductive method: Perhaps 2,500 years before Bacon, the
inspired psalmist stated the basis of the “inductive method” of Bible study:
“The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever” (Psa. 119:160,
emph. DM). Paul made essentially the same point when he wrote: “All scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be
perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16–17, KJV, emph.
DM).
Paul
further advocated the inductive/deductive approach to Scripture in his
admonition to the Thessalonian saints: “Prove all things; hold fast that
which is good” (1 The. 5:21, emph. DM). Only by examination of “all scripture”
is one able to possess its various facets that will provide the understanding
and instruction to make him “perfect” (“complete,” ASV) before God. Only by the
induction of the totality of the Word on a subject may one deduce the fullness
of Scripture teaching on that subject. This rule is the essential preventive of
arraying one passage against another and refusing to harmonize all of them on a
given subject, resulting in “proof texting” and the consequent doctrinal errors
of that practice. From this very failure have come such horrendous perversions
as “grace-only” and “faith-only” salvation errors.
Direct
statements and approved accounts of action: Neither Campbell nor
his fellow- restorers “invented” or “borrowed” the concept of heeding New
Testament commands or responding properly to its direct statements, for its
words clearly require such of us (e.g., Mat. 7:1–4, 15, 28:19–20; Acts 2:38;
10:48; 22:16; 1 Cor. 16:1–2; Phi. 2:12; et al.). Nor was the need to follow
examples or accounts of approved action that span the ages in their application
part of a man-made system of interpretation (e.g., John 13:14–15; Acts 5:29;
Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 10:1; 2 Cor. 9:1–2; Phi. 2:5–7; Jam. 5:10; 1 Pet. 2:21; 1
John 2:6; et al.).
Implication:
Moreover,
if Biblical obligations are not established by implication as well as by
explication, then none of the Bible’s explicit statements applies to us today.
This statement is true because none of the Bible’s statements were spoken or
written explicitly to us, but only to those who lived when they were spoken or
written. Only by implication are we able to know that such things as the
following (among many others) apply through the age:
1. Everyone
living today is under the anathema of God if he preaches any “other” Gospel (Gal. 1:8–9)
2.
We
still have the obligation to preach the Gospel to the whole world (Mark 16:15)
3.
Baptism
is necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16)
4.
If
we bid Godspeed to false teachers we share in their guilt (2 John 10–11)
5.
We
are to all “speak the same things” and be of the “same mind” and “the same
judgment” in obligatory matters (1
Cor. 1:10)
Those
who insist upon explicit statements alone for Biblical authority fall into a
trap of their own creation: There is no explicit statement that says those
living since the first century are accountable only to explicit statements in
the Bible.
Saul
of Tarsus doubtless understood by implication from the words of Ananias
that his sins had not been forgiven before he was baptized to wash them away,
although Ananias did not say so explicitly (Acts 22:16).
Hebrews
8:4 correctly concludes that Jesus Christ, our High Priest in Heaven, could not
be a priest on earth. However, the writer did not thus conclude from an
explicit iteration of Scripture, but he inferred as much from the fact he had
earlier noted: “For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to
which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests” (7:14). Campbell
and his cohorts correctly concluded
that Jesus words,
“He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved” (Mark 16:16), excluded by implication infant “baptism”—and
they gave it up. So it went with various other human traditions and sectarian
practices. The simple fact is that to deny the force of implication is to
advocate irrationality.
Speaking
out on Scriptural silence: Change agent liberals seem all but obsessed
with their detestation of the “silence principle” (“silenephobia”?) involved in
Biblical hermeneutics.
The
Bible authorizes only by what it says, never by what it does not say—by its
statement, not by its silence. Therefore, Biblical silence has a prohibitive
force. Liberal brethren have turned this principle on its head, joining the
denominations in their cry that Biblical silence grants permission and freedom
to speak and act in religion: “Liberty begins where Scripture stops.” Their
credo is, “If the Bible doesn’t explicitly forbid it, we can teach or practice
it.”
The
same liberals who wish us all to abandon this rational and Biblical principle
in our study of the Bible expect their doctor to employ it when he writes them
a prescription and their pharmacist to use it every time he fills a
prescription. A liberal, after listing his book order by phone, would judge the
phone-order person to be irrational if then asked, “Please list all of the
books you are not ordering.” The liberal’s judgment of that person would
be right, and we are right thus to judge liberals as “irrational” who demand of
God that He explicitly list everything He has not ordered or authorized.
Inspired
writers revered the silence of the Bible, even as they did its statement. At
the conclusion of the Jerusalem confrontation of faithful brethren with the
Judaizers, the apostles and Jerusalem elders composed an inspired letter to go
to the Gentile churches. In that letter they stated that those who had gone
forth, binding circumcision on Gentile saints, did so without authority. The
ground upon which they so stated was not “because we forbade them to thus go forth
and teach,” but because “we gave them no commandment” (Acts 15:24). Their
silence was neither liberating nor permissive, but constituted a forceful
prohibition.
Jehovah
apparently expected Aaron and his sons to understand the significance of His
silence. When He rained fire upon Nadab and Abihu because they “offered strange
fire” before Him, it was not because they violated an explicit injunction against that sort or source
of fire.
Their
sin was in offering fire “which he had not commanded them” (Lev. 10:1–2). It
was a fire unauthorized because God had not spoken concerning it. These
men presumed upon God’s silence, and He was not pleased. The Hebrews letter
argues from silence in more than one instance. In its first chapter, the writer
used God’s silence twice to establish the superiority of the Christ to any of
the angels (vv. 5, 13). The passages referring to the Lord’s tribal membership
and His lack of qualification for earthly priesthood (7:14; 8:4) mentioned
earlier illustrate not only the principle of implication as noted. They also
forcefully demonstrate the significance inspired men attributed to the
prohibitive force of Biblical silence.3 Jesus’
lack of qualification for the earthly Aaronic high priesthood (8:4) lay not in
any explicit proscription by the Holy Spirit. Contrariwise, He was disqualified
on the simple ground of Moses’ silence. Note it again: “For it is evident that
our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing
concerning priests” (7:14, emph. DM). Silence most certainly equals
interdiction in this case.
If
God expected men to respect His silence (as seen in the case of Nadab and
Abihu), if inspired men respected the prohibitive force of Scriptural silence,
and if they established obligatory prohibitions based on that silence, we
ignore this emphasis in our approach to the Bible at our own eternal peril. The
dirty little secret is that liberals well know that only when men respect the
silence of the Bible as much as they do its statement can the church of our
Lord be reproduced in its purity when it becomes corrupt. They further know
that it can be maintained in its purity of doctrine and practice once it is
restored only by continued adherence to this principle. By destroying respect
for Biblical silence, liberals know they will be getting rid of the principal
key to any restoration. Herein lies the concerted assault of liberals against
this Scripture-based principle of hermeneutics over the years.
Is
Restoration Possible?
As
earlier discussed, the Hughes-Allen thesis affirms that restoration of pristine
Christianity is an exercise in futility (they and their liberal comrades
apparently do not even believe it is desirable, much less possible). They mock
the idea that “restoration” can ever be anything more than a process or a
pursuit—always an unattainable ideal at best. (Their averment in this regard
parallels their contention that the Truth of God’s Word is something for which
we must always be searching, but at which we can never arrive. To claim
otherwise is “presumptuous” in their view.) They assert, therefore, that those
who are not only confident that the church can be restored, but that it has
been restored and continues in a restored state, labor under an illusion. To
all such “progressives,” the moment men avow the attainment of restoration,
they thereupon degenerate into a judgmental, self-righteous, narrow,
exclusivist, creed-bound sect. Hughes and Allen are by no means alone in this
sentiment, as all who follow to any degree the liberal network of the numerous
speechmakers and writers can testify. Were one to poll the change agent elitist
liberals in the church, I aver that the results would reveal that all of
them condescendingly judge in the same way all of us who still diligently
contend for the “old paths.” To them we are merely the naïve, innocent, and
unsophisticated religious proletariat that labors under a grand, but groundless
dream.
Contrary
to the anti-restoration fulminations of the authors of Illusions of
Innocence, the Word of God not only affirms the desirability of
restoration in the face of religious corruption, but the necessity of
it. This Divine mandate implies the possibility of restoring the purity
of doctrine and practice when men have abandoned it and of maintaining the pure
state when men have restored it. Statements and/or narratives in both
Testaments demonstrate the certitude of the foregoing assertions.
The
Function of the Mosaical Prophets
When
God gave the law to and through Moses, He demanded that Israel comply fully
with it (He gave ten commandments, not ten recommendations or suggestions). Had He not so
demanded, there would have been little or no purpose for delivering it. The
following statement by Moses is representative of scores, if not hundreds of
similar statements that illustrate the reverence God expected of Israel for His
law: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye
diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I
command you” (Deu. 4:2).
Moses
strictly charged the Hebrew parents to constantly and diligently teach their
children to obey the law of God (6:6–9). Moses warned Israel repeatedly
concerning apostasy after they settled in Canaan. As Joshua neared his
appointment with death, he warned God’s people “to keep and to do all that is
written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to
the right hand or to the left” (Jos. 23:6). They followed Joshua’s charge, but
only for a while before apostasy became the norm:
And
the people served Jehovah all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the
elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great work of Jehovah that he
had wrought for Israel…. And also all that generation were gathered unto their
fathers: and there arose another generation after them, that knew not Jehovah,
nor yet the work which he had wrought for Israel (Jud. 2:7, 10).
Israel
went through numerous cycles of apostasy, repentance, and rescue by
God-ordained judges, until the people demanded (and God permitted them to have)
a king. With few exceptions (none in the northern kingdom), either before or
after the kingdom divided, the kings led the people deeper into idolatrous and
immoral corruption.
God
stated the following to Jeremiah:
Since
the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day, I
have sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and
sending them: yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but made
their neck stiff: they did worse than their fathers (Jer. 7:25–26).
For
what purpose did God send prophet upon prophet to His people, unless to call
them back to His law—to admonish them to restore God’s way from which
they had departed? It is evident that God believed in the desirability, essentiality,
and therefore the attainability of restoring His Old Testament religion.
God Delighted
in Josiah’s Restoration (2 Kin. 21:24–23:30; 2 Chr. 34:1–35:27)
Had
Hughes and Allen been alive in the reign of Josiah, the young restorer king of
Judah, they would have had occasion to make great sport of his efforts, even as
they and their ilk do concerning those who are determined to maintain the
church in its purity at present. It is not difficult to imagine the way they
would have ridiculed righteous Josiah:
Attack
and destroy the false religions, publicly commit yourself to obeying God’s
Word, clean up and repair the temple, and reinstitute the passover? Who do you
think you are to do what your fathers never attempted? Don’t you know you will
be opposing almost the whole nation? Don’t you see how the religions around us
will ridicule us as “narrow” and “judgmental” in your declaring that there is
only one true religion? Don’t you realize you cannot actually restore true
religion in Judah, and that any restoration you think you accomplish will only
be a mirage?
Josiah
knew no better than to believe he could restore worship and service to God in
Judah just as God had established His religion from the time He gave the law to
Moses and strictly commanded their fathers to obey it.
Rather
than seeking to dissuade Josiah, God delighted in the restoration he wrought,
narrow and exclusive though his efforts were. At the beginning of his reign,
inspiration provides the following preview assessment of his restoration
efforts: “And he did that which was right in the eyes of Jehovah, and walked in
all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to
the left” (2 Kin. 22:2).
Well
into his restoration work, the inspired writer further evaluated Josiah:
And
like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to Jehovah with all his
heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law
of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him (2 Kin. 23:25).
Josiah’s work of restoration was manifestly “right
in the eyes of Jehovah,”
as has been the same effort of Godly men and women in
every age and as it continues to be to this moment. It involves steering
a steady course
in the way of Truth, alert to avoid the errors of law-making
anti-ism on one hand or of law-breaking liberalism on the other. It involves
constantly asking, “Is this according to—authorized by—the law of God” (Col.
3:17)? The two accounts of Josiah’s efforts conclusively demonstrate that he
wrought a real restoration in Judah, not merely the illusion of one. If
true religion could be (and was) restored almost centuries after God gave the
law through Moses, then true religion, according to the will of Christ, can
also be restored centuries after His church has fallen victim to the
corruptions, philosophies, and traditions of men—and God will always have it
so.
God Is a
God of Patterns
Perhaps
the only thing liberals despise as much as being called “narrow-minded” by
their denominational cohorts is for us to insist that God is a God of patterns.
In making sport of “patternism” and “patternists,” however, they make sport of
God’s Word, which contains numerous God-given patterns. In the final analysis,
all such outcries constitute rebellion against God’s limitations of human
behavior, whether in religion or morals, which all liberals find odious. All
such outcries are, in fact, protests against God Himself.
He
had a pattern of behavior for Adam and Eve in Eden. He had a pattern of worship
for Cain and Abel and the other patriarchs. He gave Noah a pattern for the ark.
The Mosaical system is a manifold pattern composed of numerous sub-patterns.
The writer of Hebrews asserts this truth in calling attention to the typical
nature of the Mosaical priesthood and tabernacle. Those priests, he said
…serve
that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses is warned
of God when he is about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou
make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount
(Heb. 8:5).
This
passage refers to the very detailed “blueprint” God gave Moses for building the
tabernacle, its furniture, and its appurtenances (Exo. 25–27). Not once, but
twice, God ordered Moses to build all things “according to the pattern” He
supplied (Exo. 25:40; 26:30).
The
mention of the tabernacle by the Hebrews writer was not to urge the Hebrew
saints to revert to that Old Testament pattern and rebuild (restore) the
tabernacle. Contrariwise, he mentioned it to further his argument to these
Jewish brethren against reverting to the obsolete Mosaical system that
centered first on the tabernacle and then on the temple.
Throughout
most of this epistle one finds the running argument that Christ and His New
Testament are vastly superior to the Mosaical system out of which they came,
and in Christ alone—not in Moses—is there salvation. The statement in Hebrews
8:5 is an important part of the author’s argument, which may be framed in the
familiar if–then formula:
If
God
had a pattern for the inferior institution (the tabernacle) of the Law of Moses
(which He did [Heb. 8:5]), then it follows that He has a pattern for the
superior institution (the church) of the Law of Christ.
It
is neither logical nor Biblical to conclude that, while God had an unalterable
pattern for the tabernacle, when it came to His church, Jesus allowed men to
construct and include in it whatever pleased them.
That
the aim of the inspired writer is to argue from the lesser to the greater is
not a matter of speculation, for he immediately tells us so. In reference to
Christ, as the head of His New Testament religion (summed up in the church) he
stated: “But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as
he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon
better promises” (v. 6).
The
Hebrews letter also emphasizes the fact that God demands strict adherence to
the patterns of the Law of His Son, just as He did to the patterns of the Law
of Moses:
For
if the word spoken through angels proved stedfast, and every transgression and
disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we
neglect so great a salvation…? (2:2–3a).
A
man that hath set at nought Moses law dieth without compassion on the word of
two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be
judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the
blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath
done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (10:28–29).
Again,
the if–then formula serves to apply the foregoing passages:
If
God
was so concerned about strict adherence to His pattern for the inferior Law of
Moses and its institutions (which He was [Heb. 2:2–3a; 10:28]), then He
is even more concerned about strict adherence to His pattern for the superior
Law of His Christ (including the church) (Heb. 10:29).
That
God has a pattern for the church as surely as he had a pattern for the
tabernacle is undeniable. As one traces the establishment of various
congregations and the descriptions of their identity from Pentecost through the
epistles, one sees a pattern of the terms upon which men became members of the
church, when the church assembled, the way the church worshiped in its assemblies,
and the way the congregations were organized.
Liberals
find the pattern concept embedded in Scripture to be particularly
irksome concerning the church, and the reason is obvious. They understand that
if they admit the existence of a pattern, they thereby admit the possibility of
following such to restore the church when apostasy corrupts it. After all, the
fundamental purpose of a pattern is to provide the means to duplicate the
original. Furthermore, if a pattern for the church exists and the church is
restored, once restored, faithful saints can maintain it in its restored state
by persistent adherence to the pattern. Therefore, the very thesis of Hughes
and Allen in Illusions of Innocence constitutes a tacit denial that God
has a pattern for His church—that He cares about entrance requirements, worship
(acts and/or day of assembly), organization, or any other element pertaining to
it. While they do not care about such matters, God most certainly does care
because He is the ultimate “patternist.”
Implications
of Individual Restorations
When
brethren stray from the Lord’s way, is it desirable, necessary, or possible to
restore such individuals? Does not the call for repentance imply the call for
restoration? Unless one adheres to a once-an-a-apostate, always-an-apostate doctrine
(a peculiar twist on Calvin’s perseverance of the saints error), one
must give an affirmative answer to the foregoing questions. Restoring fallen
brethren is desirable for many reasons (e.g., the Lord loves them and
died for their salvation, we love their souls and want them to be saved, their
abilities, influence, and resources need to be claimed for the kingdom, etc.).
Restoring the fallen is necessary if they are to be saved (Jam. 5:19–20;
Jude 22–23) and because we are commanded to do our best to restore them (Gal.
6:1). Restoring the brethren who sin is possible, at least in some cases
(Gal. 6:1), although not all can be persuaded to repent (Heb. 6:4–6).
If
one brother who strays can be restored, can two be restored to original
faithfulness (not merely an “illusion” of it)? What if a church of two hundred
members has apostatized? Is it desirable and necessary to seek its restoration?
Is it possible to achieve its restoration? Does not the possibility of the
restoration of one or two apostate brethren imply the possibility of the
restoration of an entire congregation that goes astray? If all religion becomes
apostate, cannot true religion be restored even as the individual apostate
brother or congregation can be restored? If not, why not?
Implications
of the New Testament’s Demands for Doctrinal Purity
The
fact that original Christianity can be restored is not that difficult to grasp,
except for those who are determined that it can/shall not be so. To deny that
men can take the New Testament and reproduce the New Testament church in any
age is to deny the fact that men who originally possessed the New Testament
(first in the persons of inspired men, then gradually in print) did so in the
first century. What they did then, men can do now or ten thousand years from
now if the Lord delays his return.
If
restoration is not possible, what is the purpose of the relentless emphasis of
the profusion of passages that call men to revere and submit to the will of God
delivered through His Son? The many appeals to repent aimed at wayward saints
and churches all imply the possibility of restoration. Numerous passages warn
of the eternal wrath that will come upon those who enter, but then depart from
the way of Christ and never repent, all of which imply the desirability and
possibility of restoration.
The
Master intended that the one Gospel be proclaimed throughout the world,
resulting in the baptism and salvation of sinners (Mark 16:15–16). Those
baptized were to be taught all of the Lord’s commands, and not just in that
first generation, but “to the end of the world” (Mat. 28:19–20). These passages
powerfully further demonstrate that the Lord has a pattern for His religion and
that He intends men to follow it. If the foregoing is not plain enough in this
regard, Paul’s instruction to Timothy perhaps will be: “And the things which
thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful
men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
Our
Lord intended that men of every generation should hand down the pure Gospel to
every succeeding generation without interruption. History reveals that men
failed the Christ, causing grievous and multi-generational interruptions to
occur and resulting in corrupt pseudo- Christianity that has prevailed for
centuries. Liberals such as Hughes and Allen aver that, once corrupted, the
church can never again exist in its purity. By implication, however, the
immediately foregoing passages teach that in any generation men can take the
Gospel, follow it, and reproduce the church in its pristine beauty.
It is both desirable and possible for us to do the will
of the Father and the Son (Mat. 7:21, 24). If it is possible to love the Lord Jesus,
it is possible to keep His commandments (John 14:15). Those who hear the Gospel can respond in faith
and obey the commands to repent and be baptized unto the remission of their sins (Acts 2:36–41). When they do so, the Lord still adds
them to His church (v. 47). That “process” constitutes a pattern.
Truth
and error in religion are actualities that may be distinguished. Men who teach
error and disturb the unity of believers by so doing not only can be,
but also must be identified and shunned for so doing (Rom. 16:17–18;
Eph. 5:11; Tit. 3:10; 2 John 9–11; et al.). All of the Lord’s people are under
Divine mandate to speak and even think alike in obligatory matters, which
demands that we can both understand and adhere to His requirements (1 Cor.
1:10). Our Savior apparently has a pattern for His church, otherwise He would
not have inspired Paul to teach the same message “everywhere in every church”
(4:17).
There
are various man-made “gospels,” but there is not another Gospel of and from
Christ. If anyone (be he angel, apostle, or any other man) preaches any
“so-called” gospel besides that of the New Testament, he is under the anathema
of God (Gal. 1:6–9). Its very words are inspired, and they alone constitute the
Lord’s revelation (1 Cor. 2:10–13). Therefore, men add to it or subtract from
it at their own peril (Rev. 22:18–19). It is not only possible to recognize and
be obedient to “the faith,” but we are also required to “contend earnestly” for
it (Acts 6:7; Jude 3). When men obey this order they constitute the same church
the Gospel produced when the apostles originally preached it. It is that
simple.
The Seed
Principle
In
His parable of the sower, Jesus likened the heart conditions of various men to
various kinds of soils (Luke 8:4–8). He identified the “seed” in the parable as
the Word of God (v. 11).
From
the beginning, seed has produced only after its kind, if it produces at all
(Gen. 1:11–12). “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” is
invariable in both physical and spiritual matters (Gal. 6:7). If men preach and
practice the same Gospel the apostles preached and practiced, it will produce
the same religious body in any age. If men cannot establish the apostolic
church in post-apostolic times, it can only be because they no longer have the
same Gospel seed. It is difficult to avoid the implication of those who deny
the possibility of restoration that they do not believe we have the pure seed,
the pure Gospel. If we have the same seed we can produce the same plant.
Conclusion
All
denials, such as those of Hughes and Allen, of the possibility of restoration
are rooted in a more fundamental denial. They deny that men can arrive at an
accurate understanding of New Testament Truth; they must ever be in pursuit of
it, but never attaining it. None such should ever refer to the New Testament as
the Lord’s “revelation,” for by implication they believe its message is so
clouded in ambiguity as to be incomprehensible. To them, any who profess that
they truly know or understand it are “arrogant,” “presumptuous,” and
“boastful,” notwithstanding Jesus’ clarion statement: “and ye shall know the
truth, and the truth shall make you free” and John’s claim: “but whoso keepeth
his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected. Hereby we know
that we are in him” (John 8:32; 1 John 2:5).
Not
only can we know what God has communicated to and through inspired men, Peter
declared we can “know assuredly” those truths (Acts 2:36). To deny that we can
know or understand what God and His Son mean in the inspired, revealed message
conveniently overlooks a rudimentary fact: Deity gave us the Bible that we
may be able to know and understand God’s mind and purpose sufficiently to
be reconciled to Him (all emph., DM):
Now
to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching
of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath
been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, and
by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal
God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith: to the
only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever. Amen (Rom.
16:25–27).
But
we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden,
which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: which none of the
rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have
crucified the Lord of glory: but as it is written, Things which eye saw not,
and ear heard not, And which entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever
things God prepared for them that love him. But unto us God revealed them through
the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God (1
Cor 2:7–10).
How
that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few
words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the
mystery of Christ (Eph. 3:3–4).
Even
the mystery which hath been hid for ages and generations: but now hath it
been manifested to his saints, to whom God was pleased to make known what
is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ
in you, the hope of glory (Col. 1:26–27).
God
certainly knows the intellectual and reasoning powers of His own creation, and
He is quite capable of expressing Himself in terms men can comprehend.
Otherwise, why did He give us the Bible, why did Jesus charge us to take the
Gospel to all mankind, and why does the Bible contain repeated warnings of
tampering with and departing from that which God has revealed? It appears that
the likes of brethren Hughes and Allen have a very low view of the capabilities
of both God and men.
It
may be, on the other hand, that such liberals, in the depths of their souls,
fully understand that men are capable of understanding the meaning of God’s
Word and can arrive at true conclusions regarding its message, but, as with all
denominationalists, they have decided that God does not mean what He says.4 This being so, their contention that it is impossible
to restore the church is merely a camouflage claim. Behind the mask, they
understand the Word all too well; their real conviction is that it just does
not matter.
This
attitude toward Truth and restoration gives such men cover for their faithless
ecumenical inclinations that allows them to embrace in their fellowship men of
every variety of name, creed, doctrine, and practice as long as they profess
“belief” in Christ. Their mentality is perfectly typified in the remarks of
Royce Money, president of Abilene Christian University at the time, in the
opening speech of that institution’s lectureship in 2000. After making what at
first sounded like a strong statement on the necessity of baptism, he then took
it all back. Of John 3:5 he said:
I
assume it’s still true. That’s the rule, but what about the exceptions? What
about countless believers…whose spirituality and Christian virtues at times far
outstrip mine? What about all that? I don’t know, but the Lord knows
exceptions, and I hope He makes a lot of them. Our job, it seems to me, is to
teach the rule and let the Lord make the exceptions [long and loud applause]
(Money).
As
all certifiable liberals so often do, Money put his brain in neutral and raced
his emotional engine in this statement. I paraphrase: “God is obligated to make
exceptions to His teaching on baptism because there are so many ‘spiritual
believers’ out there who do not believe in it. Surely He will not condemn all
of those good, sincere people.” This is vintage denominational tripe. No,
brother Money (and all of your liberal cronies)—it is not our job to teach the
rule and suggest that the Lord will make exceptions. It is our job to teach the
rule—period (Mat, 28:19–20; Mark 16:15–16). It is interesting that such men
call us “arrogant” if we claim to know the Truth, but they see no arrogance in
claiming to know that God will do what He explicitly revealed He will not do,
namely, allow those who are not born of water and the Spirit to enter the
kingdom of Heaven.
One
would be insane to claim to know everything, for that would be a claim of
omniscience that only God possesses. We who love the Word of God fully believe
Paul’s assessment of God in this respect: “O the depth of the riches both of
the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and
his ways past tracing out!” (Rom. 11:33).
However,
none of those who faithfully serve in the Lord’s church have ever made such a
knowledge claim. All we are claiming is sufficient knowledge of the Truth to be
what that Truth requires us to be, both as individuals and as groups of
individuals in various congregations. If that is not possible then nothing
matters in religion, and we only waste our time in studying the Bible.
The
New Testament contains the pattern for the church. Men in any age who love the
Truth can recognize that pattern
and follow it in the essential matters
relative to salvation. When several of them do so—in whatever century—they constitute
the restored church of the apostolic age. It is not arrogant, but imminently
Scriptural to so declare. Hughes and Allen have only pity for the simplicity of
those who have the effrontery to claim that the church has been restored and
exists today in its restored state. To our liberal authors, Tolbert Fanning’s
1845 statement represents a tragic development in restoration efforts:
No
modern system or church is of God…, and he who professes to believe a system,
formed since the Apostolic age [to be so]…must be in great error…. We claim to
be members of the Church of Christ, which had its origin in Jerusalem on the
day of Pentecost, and not on Brush Run Creek, in 1810 (131).
They
bemoan the fact that Fanning’s statement “spoke for most” brethren at the time,
and in response, they plaintively asked, ”What had happened to the ‘Christians’
in the short span of forty years?” (i.e., since Barton Stone and Alexander
Campbell began sounding forth the plea for restoration) (131). The answer is
both simple and obvious: In those four decades, dedicated disciples (such as
Fanning) had studiously applied the principles of restoration and the
Scriptural hermeneutics those earlier pioneers preached, even more fully than
Stone and Campbell were willing to apply them in some cases. When faithfully
followed, those same Bible principles will produce and maintain the same
apostolic church in any age, including ours.
Let
us never be intimidated from heralding the grand plea of restoration, for it is
simply the plea of Gospel Truth. It would be a wonderful day if Richard T.
Hughes and C. Leonard Allen and all of their Christian Chronicle comrades
would quit pretending to be part of the church they so much despise. Integrity
ought to compel them to do what Max Lucado did a few years ago in shedding that
albatross designation, church of Christ. I strongly encourage them, if
they must proceed in their progressive path, to follow the course of their
liberal ancestors who a century ago forced a systemic, open schism between
themselves and their “weaker brethren.” This would allow them to hasten the
formation of the denomination they are working so hard to make of the remnants
of the church of the Lord Jesus.
For
my part, over the years I’ve grown weary of the term, Restoration Movement.
When I obeyed the Gospel plan of salvation preached on Pentecost, the Lord
didn’t add me to the “Stone/Campbell Heritage,” the “Stone/Campbell Movement,”
the “American Restoration Movement” (ARM), or any other “movement.” The Lord
added me to His church because He saved me from my sins in my obedient faith.
He has continued doing this since He began doing it on Pentecost, and He will
continue doing so, “even unto the end of the world” (Mat. 28:20).
Works
Cited
All
Scripture quotations are from the American Standard Version unless otherwise
indicated.
Biola University. www.biola.edu/about/doctrinal-statement/
Fuller
Theological Seminary.
www.fuller.edu/about-fuller/mission-and-history/statement-of-faith.aspx
Hughes,
Richard T. and Allen, C. Leonard. Illusions of Innocence: Protestant
Primitivism in America, 1630–1875. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 2008.
Osburn,
Carroll D. The Peaceable Kingdom. Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives,
1993.
Messiah College. http://www.messiah.edu/about/
Money,
Royce. Opening lecture of the Abilene Christian University Annual Lectureship,
February 20, 2000. Quoted from transcription of tape of lecture in the author’s
files.
Endnotes
1
Readers
should be prepared to grow tired of such words as primordial, primordium,
primitivists, primitivism, restorationists, restorationism, historyless, infinitude,
and a few other buzzwords that appear with great frequency, sometimes more than
once on the same page.
2
In
the past five and one-half years an alarming number of those once considered
Scripturally sound and faithful
have behaved as if Holy Writ were stone silent on fellowship with false
teachers. Ironically, when we have challenged their behavior, they have behaved
just as the liberals they once exposed and derided. They have first denied the
error of the false teacher, then defended the false teacher in his error, then
attacked those who correctly applied Scripture to their error, and finally,
kept right on fellowshiping brother Dave Miller, the blatantly proud and
impenitent advocate of error. I have tried to distinguish between the behavior
of “blatant” liberals and that of our “not-so-liberal”—but errant— brethren on
fellowshiping those in error, but see little difference in principle.
3
Respect
for the prohibitive force of Scriptural silence is itself “implication-based.”
Biblical silence implies the absence of authorization and thus carries a
preclusive impact.
4
This
hypothesis fits well with the denial of the Biblical doctrine of eternal
torment in Hell (i.e., “annihilationism”)
by some renowned brotherhood liberals (e.g., Edward Fudge, F. LaGard Smith,
John Clayton, et al.).
[NOTE:
I wrote this MS for and delivered a digest of it at the Contending for
the Faith Lectureship, hosted by the Spring, TX, Church of Christ, February
27–March 2, 2011. It was published in the lectureship book, Profiles in
Apostasy No. 2 (Spring, TX: Contending for the Faith, 2011.]
