Balancing Grace and Truth...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church : One Thread

In previous discussions I came to realize what it is that truly turns my stomach in what I see in many RM corners...and that is the lack of real grace. You know, growing up in Cocoa, FL and being close to Florida Christian College I heard a lot about grace...many sermons and lessons, but still my only understanding was that grace was something you could fall from.

When I see the "We are the only true church" argument rear its grotesque head, it is usually joined with a horrible spirit of absolute arrogance. And then to speak out against such a spirit or attitude is typically met with...quit crying the blues and acting like Rodney King.

To be honest, I love the original dream of the RM. I get excited thinking about the lives of our early pioneers in restoration theology. From the eloquence of Alexander Campbell to the abrasive John Smith, it was a time of growth and a time of utter focus on a principle of unity that still hasn't fully lost its roots in many hearts.

I don't share this to self-agrandize but I do know that the "we are the only church" crowd is so unappealing to this Post-Modern culture that they'd rather be spoon-fed recent vomit than to endure such stringent theology. It isn't merely that we should look at that and say, "Well, the truth hurts sometimes!" That is often, violently true. But if we can not get our heads out of the sand and realize that God's church is so much larger than the arrogant group of men who preach to themselves in Hillsborough, Ohio, then we'll just never wake up.

What I believe is God's greatest irony is that same crowd that doesn't know the grace of God (or once did and have now traded it for assurance of correct doctrine)...that same crowd will be quickened into heaven by the same grace that envelopes those in every denominational stripe known. For it isn't about principles, even correct doctrine...because the Lord knows sometimes my principles are self-seeking and my doctrine can be thwarted by my lack of consistent character, but it is only the work of Christ on the Cross applied to my life that will ever save me.

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002

Answers

Michael, Hearing you speak, it sounds like you may be harboring deep roots of bitterness towards the RM do to some rather unpleasant experiences with certain individuals within the fellowship. I can certainly empathize with your sentiments to a degree. Arrogance can often be the unfortunate byproduct of fundamentalism and/ or restorationism. Doctrinal purity without grace is dead. Grace without truth is dead. That is the whole point of 1 Corinthians 13. Seldom has the church found a precise balance between both of these all-important elements of Biblical faith. The only church in the Bible that seems to have managed a near-perfect balance is the church at Philadelphia in Revelation 3:7-13.

On the other hand, I sincerely believe that you have misrepresented the spirit and genius of the Restoration Movement. Yes, the heirs of the RM need to re-discover grace over and over again, because our condition is that of the Ephesian church in Revelation chapter 2:4,5. We have been in the business of defending truth for so long that we frequently loose sight of what ought to move us to share that truth with others. Nevertheless, Christ’s admonition to the Ephesian church was for the purpose of keeping them within His grace – not to kick them out as you seem to do with this tongue-lashing of yours.

My dear brother Bill Pile of Christ’s Church in the City at Los Angeles taught me a very valuable lesson. He calls it “In-Your-Face Ministries”. In other words, if you have a bone to pick with someone, confront that person with a spirit of love; i.e. love for his soul that is going to hell if he does not repent of his or her sin. The sin of arrogance is as deadly as any other, and unless you can see beyond that arrogance with the intention of restoring the erring brother or sister, you are just as guilty of arrogance as the one that you are accusing of arrogance. Michael, I would caution you not to fall into that trap. I know for a fact that I have, more than once.

Addressing some of the points you made in your post:

I don’t know any true restorationist that affirms that we are the only true church. Restorationism says that the church universal has always existed since its inception on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. It has never ceased to exist! Therefore, we can honestly say that true Christians have always been around long before the Campbells, et al. I know they exist today because I have met them and have shared many precious hours with them. WE ARE CHRISTIANS ONLY – NOT THE ONLY CHRISTIANS. Anyone who states otherwise doesn’t have the slightest notion of what the RM stands for.

By the same token, any true restorationist cannot accept the ecumenical flaw that says that all professing Christians or churches are a part of the Body of Christ. True, there may be true believers within those religious bodies, but the institutions themselves are not part of the Body of Christ. I noticed that in one of his responses, Barry chided me for not acknowledging Bill Hybles and Graham as my brothers in Christ. However, even he apparently draws the line at some point because he did not clearly state whether he acknowledges the Pope as a brother in Christ or not.

In your post you erroneously suggest that the early dream of the RM was that of unity of the church. While that is certainly true, none of the pioneers stood for the ecumenical or interdenominational variety of unity that you seem to propose. All it takes is a cursory reading of Campbell’s writings to come to that conclusion. In closing, your last statement is most disturbing to me because it indicates the prevailing spirit of apostasy that has taken the church by storm:

“What I believe is God's greatest irony is that same crowd that doesn't know the grace of God (or once did and have now traded it for assurance of correct doctrine)...that same crowd will be quickened into heaven by the same grace that envelopes those in every denominational stripe known. For it isn't about principles, even correct doctrine...because the Lord knows sometimes my principles are self-seeking and my doctrine can be thwarted by my lack of consistent character, but it is only the work of Christ on the Cross applied to my life that will ever save me.”

All this is saying is that God has more than one way to save the lost. He can save them by a true Gospel or He can save them some other way. This is subtle universalism. Its rhetoric breathes a sense of divine authority but it has to be the most presumptuous an arrogant statement I have ever heard. It bypasses the authority of Scripture and undermines the revelation that has already been received by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, it saddens me to see someone as intelligent as you give credence to such a notion. I would urge you Michael to carefully reconsider your position. If you truly love the RM as you claim, than you know that you are as unbalanced as those that you castigate in this post.

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002


If that's all you learned from my teaching about grace then I failed miserably, and I very sorrowfully apologize. But besides that, most of what you just stated is nothing but slop. I have not seen anyone say that we are the only true Church, except for maybe Phil. I cannot speak about individuals I do not know. All I can speak for is me and mine. I know what's going on here at Crown Hill.

I can speak concerning organizations and groups that produce literature and I can encourage or denounce the group based on that. But not the individuals. How can you say what you did about Hillsboro having never attended NOR READING THEIR LITERATURE? I know you've never been to one, and since they produce no literature, I know you've not read that either. To say that men like George & Jeff Faull, James Strauss, Jack Cottrell, et al, are only preaching to themselves, well, to me sounds quite arrogant on your behalf. Hillsboro may not get the attendance of Willow Creek or Promise Keepers, but they are faithful to God's word without compromise.

You are being overly appealing "to this Post-Modern culture" by implying that there is truth "in every denominational stripe known." You do not know that anymore than I know the opposite. Why do you feel you must build up the false dichotomy of grace versus doctrine? From my vantage point, you're the one with your head in the sand. Just because on one thread or two people take a bold stand on doctrine does not mean they lack grace. As a matter of fact, and you know this, without proper doctrine you will not have a proper understanding of grace.

The principle of unity that our Restoration fathers held was a unity based upon the Truth of God's Word, not some false union of leaders who agree to disagree. The plea was, and is, a call to unite upon the Word of God. That is why they were chased out of the Baptist - twice.

I admit, there are legalistic factions within our brotherhood, just as there are liberal factions. And take a look a look at the literature. The libs far outweigh the legal eagles. Both extremes lead to Hell. BTW, Mike, I have some Ottumwa brothers here that could teach you and have taught me a thing or two about grace. They may not define it very well verbally, but they'll show you what it is up close and personal - and they will not compromise the truth.

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002


Michael,

The early RM would be appalled at the sectarian spirit present in some parts of the movement today. In fact, many on this board would not accept Alexander Campbell as their brother in Christ during his early period of walking away from the Presbyterians. Somehow we have become the "Baptism Movement" and the "We're Right You're Wrong" Movement. I find it ironic when some here ask me why I stay in the RM as if I have strayed from the course. The fact of the matter is, the ones asking the questions are the ones that have no idea concerning what the original Restoration Plea was even about. If so, they wouldn't be saying the things that they are saying.

Barry

Barry

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002


Please tell us Barry, what was the original intent of the Restoration Fathers according to your understanding? Thomas Campbell believed, at first, that the only problem was with the creeds of each sect - hence the Declaration and Address. But he and others soon learned it was much more than that.

The revisionists want to make the Campbell's, et al, out to be nothing more than a union movement, but it was a genuine unity movement. It was a movement to unite upon the only thing we could unite upon - the Word. From this thinking such phrases were used by Campbell as "the ancient order of things." Walter Scott's major literary achievement was called "The Gospel Restored." But please, Barry, enlighten us.

One other thing, to be fair to Phil, he never stated anything about the RM being the True Church, he was just understood that way by someone on the other thread. No intentional slam was intended Phil.

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002


Hi Scott,

The RM is a movement that stresses unity based on the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Don't you agree?

IHS,

Barry

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002



Michael.....

Been out of town and just saw your original post.

That simply cannot go unchallenged.

Please document...."cut and paste"....just one discussion including the name and date of the thread.....where myself, Scott,...or any others your pointless barbs are directed at.....and cite where we ever said....."We are the only ones going to heaven"....or...."only those in the Christian Church are going to heaven and/or are the only Christians."

Just one!!!

Good luck! You're going to need it.

Barry....feel free to help him out. He's going to need it.

Also Barry....no.....the RM is not just based upon "the Lordship of Jesus Christ." The RM is also committed to "if you love me...keep My commandments."

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002


Well said!

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002

Barry,

It is one of the current trends to water down what a Christian is to the lowest common denominator of the Lordship of Christ. It just won't work. According to Eph 4, believers already have a unity which is to be maintained, not created. The seven pillars of unity are one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all.

We can all agree on the one Lord, no problem. Even the Mormons can do that (in their own way). But you, Barry, throw the rest out so you can maintain your fellowship with false teachers. But the Restoration Fathers maintained a plea of unity based upon the Word of God. When you understand the Word, you understand the Lordship of Jesus, the faith, the baptism, etc. Try reading what they actually wrote sometime rather than what Garrett (a revisionist) says they wrote. I doubt seriously you've read Campbell et al as thouroughly as Hybels.

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002


Scott,

You are right. I've read a lot more from Hybels than I have from Campbell. It is more relevant to today's ministry.

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002


Danny...

I think that two potentials exist as I read your post to me...one is that you misunderstood the point of my post or that I didn't clarify myself well enough.

I think that the "we are the only church" argument comes out in many forms, rarely is it communicated as bluntly as I worded it. I have seen it pop up when someone's doctrine is "slam dunked" in typical RM fashion. Or when alignments are made with those who have clear and significant doctrinal distinctions from the RM.

I think all in all, it is an unchanged truth in my heart that many in our movement lack real, genuine grace-filled lives. Is that a judgment? Well, sure or maybe more accurately...fruit inspection.

Have I seen those things displayed on this forum...sure. And I think from time to time, I have fallen right in line with it myself. I, too am very attracted to the "we are the only church" mindset because its safe. But as I grow and I learn how little I really know true grace in my own life then that mindset is so much more un-palatable to me.

And don't get me wrong, I love the forum. I love the debate. I love fun of the game. But sometimes, lines do get crossed. Eternal destinations are judged as if we are the judge and jury. And rarely, if ever does grace abound.

My intent was not to "direct barbs" but to ramble and share how I've been feeling as of late. Probably has a lot to do with me going to liberal Lincoln but more than that, its stuff in my heart.

-- Anonymous, September 05, 2002



Moderation questions? read the FAQ