What are you restoring yourselves to?

What are you restoring yourselves to?

Click to expand...

The idea of restoration, is to bring back the church of the New Testament (which was never fully lost) by using the Bible only as a standard of faith. This is different to reformation - Luther and others wanted to reform the Catholic church. Most restorationists would believe that you can't reform something (the corrupt Catholic church) to what it never was in the first place (the church of Christ).

GailMc said:

Ummmmmmmmm.....restoration:The act of bringing back or state of being brought back, to a former condition or state.............If you had lived so long outside the Church you wouldn't need to find a newer place to convince yourself of more silly stuff. So. You've pitched the Creed and what to write your own. On your way to atheism or are you going to try and keep Jesus with you? Not a good thing.

Peace and all good,

Gail

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so quick to judge - "restoration" merely means to restore new testament teachings and practices. There's nothing arcane or untoward in the concept - much like getting back to the fundamentals. The movement is largely a reaction to departures of the catholic and some protestant churches in those areas in "modern" times - reaction to deviations in doctrine, church structure, etc. and the attendant ills associated with them.

If you want a quick summation - it's getting back to Christian fundamentals, "back to the bible" - "speaking where the bible speaks" while keeping silent (as far as doctrinal mandates) on those issues the bible doesn't specifically address. We don't espouse creeds per se - letting the bible be our guide and "court" on doctrinal issues.

I hope that helps.

That is what Christianity is all about the restoration of our relationship with God. Man sinned and needed restoration. The Church left the authority of God's Word and needed restoration.

Peace to all...this is my first posting after a very long time of not be an active member. Glad to be back.

Thank you, Refrus Revil, for pointing out that the Church of the New testament was not fully lost. Indeed, it has survived, and you only have to look at the many Orthodox churches that are still thriving today to glorify the name of our Lord Christ. However, you indicate that the Church of the New Testament was only based on the Bible only, and this is not Biblical. I'm sure you came across the passage that described how our Lord taught His disciples and made many miracles, that if they were all written, alot of books would be needed to describe them. Also, the Holy Bible as you have in your hands was canonised, that is made "the Holy Bible" in the 4th Century at the time of the ecumenical council of Nicea 325AD. At that time, there were alot of books that could have been made the Holy Bible, but the holy Bishops and saints of that time gathered from around the world and led by teh Holy Spirit chose what is they believed to be the true and authentic word of God, and here it came The Holy Bible. To add to that, many other Bookds, e.g. the Son of Sirach, Maccabeans...etc, were also considered part of the Holy Bible but the protestant movement removed them. In fact, some early protestant founders attempted tpo remove the Epistle of st James, which we have now in the Holy Bible. Thus, It is not only the written form of teaching that is an integral part of Christianity, as there are also things that we get through the spirit of what was practised and what was handed down. How would Joseph know that obeying the lusts of the wife of Potifar was a sin before God? He must have been taught, not necessarily in the written form, that adultery was a sin. There are many example from the Holy Bible to teach us that the written form is not the only source of God words that we should abide to.

The only form of God's word that we have today is in the form of the Holy Bible. The Bible does not have to have all truth in for it to be God's only truth today. As for Church Traditions many Church including the EOC falled in to the trap of the Pharisees. Man made traditions are not apart of God's Word. ( Matthew 15:3 ) The church leaders used a list requirments that each book must meet before it could become apart of the Bible and a lot of documents did not meet the requirments. They did not pick and chose the one's they just liked.

Yes the Protestants took out the Apocrypha, I'm not sure they should have done that. But the Apocrypha are pre-Christian book and having them or not having then does not change Christianity. Christians or only under the New Testament.

Thedictator said:

The only form of God's word that we have today is in the form of the Holy Bible. The Bible does not have to have all truth in for it to be God's only truth today. As for Church Traditions many Church including the EOC falled in to the trap of the Pharisees. I agree that some churches have fallen in that trap, but this doesn;t mean that all churches did. The Pharisees were very holy and zealous people who really wanted to uphold the word of God, but they fell into that trap and focusse more on the traitions an the letter of the law rather than on the spirit of it. This shoul not be the case, an we shoul focus on the meaning an spiritual message of the traditions we have exactly as the previous saints did. They were driven by the Holy Spirit, as well. So a tradition is not a man sitting down contemplating and comes up with an idea, which is then considered law, or more important than the Holy Bible. It is basically, a way of living your faith, or a way of manifesting this faith. When we talk about fasiting, as an example, it is a way of manifesting your love to Christ (by disciplining your body and devoting more time to focus on praying). Man made traditions are not apart of God's Word. ( Matthew 15:3 ) This specifically refers to the traditions of the Jews that led people away from God and the essence of His love and word to His chosen people. It does not refer to God's word (which is passes down from generation to generation in the spoken and practised form rather than written). The church leaders used a list requirments that each book must meet before it could become apart of the Bible and a lot of documents did not meet the requirments. They did not pick and chose the one's they just liked. That is very true. After all, they were led by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of all believers.

Yes the Protestants took out the Apocrypha, I'm not sure they should have done that. But the Apocrypha are pre-Christian book So i assume you reject the Psalms, Genesis, Isaiah...etc. as these are pre-Christian Books. I don't think so. The Lord Christ Himself believed in these books and quoted many times from them. Just because part of the Bible was written before the Lord Christ does not mean it is pre-Christian and is not binding to Christians. He Himself said something to the effect that he didn;t come to contradict the law but to complement it. So who are we to contradict it (by law He meant the Old Testament and the Law of Moses). After all, the entire scripture is useful for teaching and is the inspired word of God. We cannot pick and choose. and having them or not having then does not change Christianity. Christians or only under the New Testament. With all due respsct, i disagree for the simple reasons mentioned above.

Click to expand...

I have to apologise if the quote/unquote is not clear as i didn;t know how to do it any other way.
God bless

we pray here in the philippines that God would restore good governance and that God would give more passion to people to help the needy and poor

I never restored myself, only G-d did. He removed the veil in my eyes and I saw was His great beauty and glory. He returned me back to the original language of the prophets and writers of the bible, Hebrew.

TRADITIONS: Your right not all traditions are wrong, but some do go against the Word of God. Example: The worship of Mary, This is a tradition that is Idolatry.

The Old Testament: Just because we are no longer under the authority of the Old Testament does not mean it is not God's Word.

Example: We are not under the authority of the Articles of Confederation in the U.S. Our authority comes from the U.S. Constitution. Are the Articles no longer a part of America? No, they still are. They are a part of who we are, but we are not under it's authority.