This post provides a good accompaniment to the last three posts I’ve written here (one, two, and three). I’ll return to the first two of those posts, as they are the beginning of a continuing series.
************************
Successionism or Restorationism
The choices are not apostolic succession or no succession of churches. Apostolic succession is bogus, a lie, and a fraud. Apostles did not continue after John. Succession itself though is a biblical concept. True churches continued. Jesus promised that and enough history exists to validate it. If you don’t believe in succession, then you believe in restorationism, which is a commonality in cults. Look at all the religions of the 19th century that started in the United States, claiming to restore the lost church: Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), Churches of Christ (Campbellism, today also the Christian Church), Seventh Day Adventist, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Charismatic Movement is also a restorationist movement. It says that the church lost its true or full relationship with and to the Holy Spirit. Charismatics speak of the “latter rain,” this era with a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
For someone to start a false religion, he needs a kind of blank canvass. He must take his religious etch-a-sketch, shake it, and start over. He starts from scratch, inventing something that almost always includes extra-scriptural revelation or authority of some kind.
“Total Apostasy”
Grounded in restorationism is “total apostasy.’ Everyone everywhere turned from the truth with perhaps a few exceptions imbedded in something of a false church. Wikipedia uses the terminology, “Great Apostasy.”
Protestants, which include Baptist English Separatists, take up the mantle of restorationism themselves. They at least wobble between a couple of competing ideas. Included in their restorationism is the terminology, “the reformed doctrine of justification,” as if the world lost justification for a period of time, enveloped in darkness and coming out in the light of the Protestant Reformation. Supporters have to say that the true church or the truth itself was in Roman Catholicism or that it was free floating on the planet somewhere maybe or maybe not.
The latter of the two explanations for lost Christianity or non-existent New Testament churches for an undetermined period of time, perhaps over a thousand years mainly turns into mysticism. A mystical church existed somewhere. It’s a tough one to admit, but they would say that mainly mystically within Roman Catholicism some kind of true church existed in a spiritual way. It’s a tough view to support.
What’s Left
Those who won’t believe in successionism are saying that the true church existed in a universal, visible apostate church that preached a false gospel. These apparent believers did not separate from that church. The “true believers” stayed in the church in defiance of the biblical gospel, meanwhile practicing multiple forms of false worship and taking everyone around them with them in this journey. It’s no wonder they get angry and just don’t want to talk about it.
I asked AI about the doctrine of justification and it concluded: “The doctrine of justification was indeed lost or significantly distorted for several centuries prior to the Reformation.” AI also reports: “Protestants generally do not believe in a formal succession of true churches from the first century until now.” Concerning restorationism in Protestantism, AI adds: “During the Reformation in the 16th century, Protestant reformers sought to return to what they viewed as the original teachings of Christianity as found in Scripture.” AI says that Protestants themselves are restorationists.
Support for Perpetuity
Matthew 16:18 and 28:20
One of the primary verses cited in support of the church’s perpetuity is Matthew 16:18, where Jesus states, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Jesus says that His church will endure against all adversities, implying a continuous existence throughout history.
In Matthew 28:20, Jesus promises His disciples, “And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” This assurance indicates that Christ’s presence would accompany His church until the end of time, reinforcing the belief that there would always be a community of believers—His church—on earth. AI says: “Based on biblical texts and theological interpretations, the Bible does teach the perpetuity of true churches through history in every generation, affirming that there will always be a faithful remnant who adhere to Christ’s teachings.”
Other Reasons
On the other hand, scripture teaches against a total apostasy during the church age. 1 Timothy 4:1 says, “Some shall depart from the faith.” Some. Not all. All depart from the faith would contradict the promises of Christ. Like He preserves His Words, the Lord preserves His churches. Restorationism is a clear signal or cue of a false religion, denomination, or church.
Other arguments and reasons for a visible succession of true New Testament churches exist. Scripture does teach authority. Christ gives all authority to His church to baptize (Matthew 28:20). Jesus himself affirmed John’s authority when he asked the religious leaders about it, stating, “The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.” (Mark 11:30). The implication here is that John’s baptism had divine backing, which was essential for its validity. Those who accepted John’s baptism were seen as accepting God’s purpose for their lives (Luke 7:29-30) and recognizing his role in God’s plan.
Jesus Himself traveled 70-90 miles for baptism by John. Surely He could have had someone dunk Him under water or baptize himself. Jesus recognized the importance of authority in baptism. Baptism requires legitimate authority to be legitimate in practice.
I’m not advocating chain link authority, but the principle of authority as a matter of faith. This is how churches understood the authority for baptism. Roman Catholicism does not have this legitimate authority. Neither did Protestants receive legitimate authority from Roman Catholicism. Where did authority lie? It comes through churches independent of the state church with a true gospel and Christ as their Head. Scripture says they would continue and they did. Attacks on perpetuity and succession are tantamount to an embrace of restorationism, admitting that Jesus did not fulfill His promises.
English Reformation?
The English Reformation, a famous religious and political movement in England, almost anyone here reading knows started with King Henry VIII separating from Roman Catholicism because he wanted an annulment from his wife, Catherine of Aragon. The English Reformation itself for whatever its benefits begets religions or denominations clearly with no authority. It essentially impersonates Roman Catholicism with some slight tweaks. Then other groups spin off of it equally with no authority. This is painfully obvious and something rather to block out of the imagination.
Despite the truth about the English Reformation, many Baptists today embrace English separatism themselves like restorationists. It would have to go like this. Roman Catholicism was apostate so Church of England started something over anew, and then the Church of England wasn’t legitimate, so English Baptists dissented and began themselves something novel, fresh, and disconnected. They were against trying to restore something lost. They embrace that concept by saying nothing of perpetuity or succession exists, except, probably said in a whispery tone, within Roman Catholicism.
Bogus Attack on Successionism
I understand the attack on successionism. It’s akin to throwing the game board. If you can’t win, then nobody wins. The harsh and vitriolic attack on the Trail of Blood idea found in the pamphlet, The Trail of Blood, irks those with no perpetuity, no succession, and no authority. They don’t want anyone embracing it, so they deny it all and then leave scorched earth behind it. And what do these men leave everyone with? It’s not pretty.
Our church will not fellowship with restorationists. We cannot legitimize that view of the world or reality. Based on presuppositions and suitable enough history, restorationism can’t be true. I believe it is a different Jesus, not in a salvific way, but because the actual true Jesus of the Bible does keep the church intact and fulfill His promises.
How does restorationism or the like fulfill a biblical view of God’s sovereignty? With His love, wisdom, and power, He just allowed true churches to die everywhere. How did they come back? In most instances, they would say from infant sprinklers who embraced a state church and much other doctrine and practical error. None of this is biblical or true.
Hello brother Brandenburg,
In relation to this, what do you think about the glorification of Martin Luther and the Reformation in Christian education (thinking Abeka Book specifically) and the embrace of this by independent Baptists?
I recently read all 95 of Luther’s theses (which brother Ross did a nice review of as well) and realized how wicked they are and yet his 95 theses are spoken of as the greatest triumph since the resurrection by many, even Baptists. I brought this up to my independent Baptist family members and was read the riot act as to how I could question the goodness of Martin Luther.
Bro Thompson,
There is a lot of revisionism, just flat-out untruth when it comes to the Reformers. Then when you tell people what they really believed, and it’s awful, people act like you said nothing. It’s a basic attack on the truth or just not taking the truth seriously. And then people wonder why the world is so full of lies.
I believe that Baptists have perpetuated the original faith since 30 AD.
Thanks Tim.
You’re welcome, Kent.
Pastor Bradenburg,
I really enjoyed this post that you wrote. It is strong meat that obviously not many are willing to receive today, but nevertheless it is the truth.
I agree with you that there are really only two choices when talking about church history, either successionism or restorationism. I like what you wrote about the restorationist movement, and I agree with you that the charismatic movement definitely needs to be under that label.
I really don’t disagree with anything that you wrote in this article, and I appreciate what you wrote about English Separatism amongst Baptists today. It is something that is not given the attention that it needs to amongst so many Independent Baptists today.
My confusion is in comparing what you wrote in this post to how you responded to me in an email that I sent to you about the matter of authority in baptism and how it relates to English Separatism in a previous post that you wrote. My question to you was if you would consider the baptism administered by a “Baptist” church that takes the English Separatist view of Baptist history to be a valid baptism? Your response was: “Scripturally and historically, churches can have proper authority without themselves accepting Baptist successionism.” You mentioned that English Separatism arose in the 19th century in the Southern Baptist Convention, and that it is the prominent view amongst Baptists today. You then said: “That does not however eliminate a church from being a true church, just because it doesn’t understand or accept its own origins.”
The problem with that response, is that in this post that I am replying to now you identify so-called churches that have a restorationist (English Separatist) view of church history (ignorantly or willing I suppose), as not being true churches, and having no authority. You make the claim that they have “a different Jesus, because their Jesus couldn’t keep the church intact and could not.”
Again, I have no issues with what you wrote in this post, I am just try to reconcile in my mind your response to me from that previous post that seems, at least in my estimation, to contradict your stance here relating to only two views of either successionism or restorationism.
If I am missing something, then please let me know.
Jason
Hi Jason,
I think I vaguely remember your emailing me and that conversation. First I want to deal with what you are calling a contradiction. I think you’re taking it all from one statement I made, a different Jesus. It makes what I wrote sound like a salvific issue, which I did not mean it that way. I could explain that I meant that in a different way, but the fact that you were confused about it concerns me. I do believe the Jesus of the Bible keeps His church, so this is a different Jesus in that sense. I don’t think I can say that this means people that are English separatists are not saved though. Someone doesn’t need to be all set and clear on such a doctrine at the moment of his reception of Jesus Christ. I wasn’t thinking that either, but it confused you about what I said, so I’m going to tweak it. Thanks.
So do you believe that you must believe church succession or Baptist succession to be saved?
Pastor Bradenburg,
Thank you for responding to my reply. You said in your reply that you are concerned that I didn’t understand your comment about a different Jesus. You said that you didn’t mean it in a “salvific” way, but merely with respect to the doctrine of the church, whether successionist or restorationist.
The problem is that I don’t see where we can compartmentalize things in Scripture relating to Jesus, requiring Him to be the same Jesus with respect to salvation, but then allowing or accepting Him to be a completely different Jesus when talking about a very important doctrine like the church, which you seem to be doing when you are allowing restorationists to have a completely different Jesus, as you call it, with respect to the church.
Maybe I am missing something, but anytime I see “another Jesus” mentioned in Scripture (II Corinthians 11:4), it is always referred to in a salvific sense; or “another gospel” (Galatians 1:6), because you cannot separate Jesus from the true Gospel. So my question to you would be, could you provide for me an example in Scripture that suggests that people can have the true Jesus in salvation, but then hold to a different Jesus pertaining to other important doctrines that Christ taught?
To answer your question that you are concerned about: No, I absolutely do not believe that a person must believe in Baptist successionism in order to be saved, and I really don’t get how you might think that I do based upon my reply to your post. I believe that all who are truly born-again are part of the family of God and Kingdom of God, but they are not members of New Testament churches if they believe in the doctrine of restorationism as you outlined.
You seem to be evading the point of my reply Pastor Bradenburg by focusing on something else.
I suppose a simple answer to the following question might help to clear up some confusion. Do you believe that all restorationist “churches” have no biblical authority to baptize, or do some of them have that authority, while others don’t? Again, as I said in my reply, you seem to go back and forth with the English Separatism, so I will ask it like this. Do some English Separatist “Baptist” churches have true biblical authority, or do none of them have true biblical authority?
That is the point that I was getting at in my reply. Thanks.
Jason
Jason,
Actually, I’m being consistent with my answer to you, unlike what you’re saying. If someone does not believe in successionism, what does he believe? Restorationism. And you say that it isn’t salvific. That is exactly on point, and I’m not changing the subject, as you falsely accuse. I just went more offensive for a moment, instead of just defending. And that exposed this attack that you’re making. You don’t believe any differently than me on the subject, even though you’re attacking me for doing it.
Just because a church believes in English separatism doesn’t mean they’re not a true church. They can still have authority even if they don’t believe the same on authority. I’ve been clear. That doesn’t mean that we will fellowship with that church.
I’ve already answered the point of your comment and apparently an email that you wrote me. Whether a church believes or doesn’t believe successionism does a singular issue determining whether it is a true church or not. I’ve given my argument already. You took your comment the direction of my “another Jesus” usage. I explained what I meant in the context I used it. I know Paul is using it differently in 2 Corinthians 11:4. I’m going to stand on how I used it and how I explained it.
Thanks.
Pastor Bradenburg,
In no way was I trying to attack you, and I apologize if it came across that way. Sometimes what we say, and even more so the spirit of what we say behind a keyboard or text message can be construed to be something different than what we actually mean, and even though you and I differ with respect to your article in some aspects, I am still very grateful and encouraged by what you wrote in the main.
I would just point out however that the title of your article, as you know, was: “Can Restorationist Churches Be or Are They True?” As I reread your article, I would think that anyone upon reading your article would have to conclude that your position is that any so-called church that believes in “restorationism” in place of the biblical “church successionism” must be a false church, whether we are talking about the false religious cults that you mentioned, or so-called churches that sprung out of English Separatism, which would include English Separatist “Baptists”. You said: “Restorationism is a clear signal or cue of a false religion, denomination, or church.” You did not make any statements in the article (like you did in your replies to me) that some English Separatist Baptist churches can be true churches, even if they don’t accept their so-called origins, which is confusing, because if they don’t believe in “successionism”, how can their origins be correct, because as you pointed out in your article, they are therefore then restorationists, which is false, and grounded in complete apostasy. Furthermore, if it is your contention, as you say, that some English Separatist “Baptist” churches can be true churches while holding to their doctrine of restorationism, would it not have been important to put that in the article?
For the record, I am not advocating a visible chain-link successionist position. I do hold to a “Trail of Blood” successionist view based upon faith in the promise of Christ, which I believe is your position as well. I would say also that how a church is constituted and organized at the outset determines whether it is a true New Testament Church or not. If from the beginning a group of believers holds to the restorationist (Protestant) view that their origins are as a result of a split from the English Reformation movement, then I don’t see how they could be a Historic New Testament Baptist Church with true Biblical authority. They are not ignorant of their true origins; their origins in that scenario are false to begin with. As you say in your article, any groups that come out of the English Reformation, (which would have to include English Separatist Baptists) have no Biblical authority.
Maybe you and others reading this post see me as straining at a gnat with my critique here (Matthew 23:24), but this is the only stance that I see as consistent with the biblical doctrine of church successionism.
Jason