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, because their Jesus couldn’t keep the church intact and could not.  How does that fit 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.