THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT AND ITS LINKS

The Restoration Movement, part of the broader movement called “restorationism” in the Second Great Awakening, began in the early 19th century when various members from different Christian groups and denominations decided they had drifted away from the basics of Christianity. Several Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and others abandoned their formal denominations with hopes of establishing a church based solely on the Christianity taught in the New Testament. With their belief in Jesus as the only model and the Bible as the only sacred book, they endeavored to “restore” the church to its original focus during the time of the apostles. The Restoration Movement rejected rules and practices that did not come explicitly from the Bible as causing unnecessary divisions in the church. The goal was for all Christians to dissolve denominational boundaries and become united as one church under God’s rule alone.

Among the most influential leaders of the Restoration Movement were three ministers: Thomas Campbell, his son Alexander Campbell, and Barton W. Stone. Sometimes their reformation efforts are called the Stone-Campbell Movement. Followers of Campbell and Stone called themselves simply “Christians” or “Disciples.” Despite the goal of Christian unity, over time, several schisms occurred. Currently, there are three major groups, called “streams,” that trace their roots back to the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement: the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Churches of Christ, and the Independent Christian Churches.

Among the key principles of the Restoration Movement are the following:

– Recognition of the New Testament pattern of the church. Overall, those in the Restoration Movement attempt to conform their practices as closely as possible to those of the New Testament. Of particular importance is the weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper, which they believe should be open to all. Some churches within the movement disallow musical instruments in their services, as the New Testament contains no example of a church using an instrument.

– Names, creeds, and ecclesiastical traditions divide believers from one another, and denominational exclusivity is renounced. Creeds and doctrinal statements are seen as unnecessary and divisive, and individual congregations task themselves with studying and interpreting the Bible for themselves. External authority over the local church is resisted.

– Names of human origin divide. Those in the Restoration Movement decry the use of denominational names, claiming to be “Christians only.”

When examining the Restoration Movement, of particular concern is the doctrine of salvation. Some churches in the Restoration Movement teach that water baptism is required for salvation. This directly contradicts the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone, without the added condition of works (Ephesians 2:8–9). Scripture presents baptism not as a requirement for salvation, but rather evidence of it.

Other issues that require discernment include the prohibition of musical instruments (in some churches), the emphasis on ecumenism, the rejection of the biblical doctrine of election, and the lack of a clear doctrinal stance.

Wanting to get back to the basics of Christianity is laudable, as is a desire for unity among believers. But the Restoration Movement has not been able to produce the unity it originally sought, being itself subject to division and splintering. And dispensing with creeds and doctrinal statements is counterproductive to knowing and living the truth (Titus 1:9; 2:1).

RESTORATIONISM

“Restorationism” refers to a group of unaffiliated 19th-century movements from within Christianity based upon the premise that the true faith and practice of the church had been lost due to apostasy and that the church needed to be restored to its New Testament model. Restorationist organizations include Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh-day Adventists, as well as the adherents to the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, which consists today in three main groups: Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ), Churches of Christ, and Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ.

While all these groups teach widely divergent theologies, and while some restorationist groups are considered cults (Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses) with other groups being considered valid Christian movements (the Restoration Movement), they have in common the notion that true Christianity had died out many years ago and it needed to be restored to its original New Testament form. Some of these groups believe they alone are the embodiment of true Christianity, some going so far as to teach that all other groups, including mainline Protestant denominations, are not really Christians at all, having lost their way over the centuries to complete apostasy. They are convinced that the drift from Christian principles is so extreme as to render the church irredeemable, and, therefore, it must be completely rebuilt. Denying that past historical patterns have any validity at all, they are free to embrace what they understand to be pure biblical truth as revealed to the apostles.

Certainly, there have been abuses and misuses of the Word of God down through the years by churches claiming to speak for Christ. One has only to look at the Roman Catholic doctrines of purgatory, prayer to Mary, and the veneration of saints—all of which are completely unscriptural—to agree that, in some cases at least, church tradition has superseded the Bible as authority. However, some of the restorationists have also jettisoned such biblical doctrines as the Trinity, hell, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Of course, parts of the church have apostatized, but there has always been a remnant of the faithful preserved by God for His purposes.

At least two disastrous consequences can be expected to result from a zealous embrace of restorationist philosophy. First, it easily leads to a spirit of exclusivism and arrogance, not to mention error. The natural outcome of believing one’s own group has the corner on the truth is the despising of all others who claim the name of Christ, seeing them as apostates, or worse, tools of the devil. No spirit of Christian unity can survive such a mindset. One has only to look at the diverse beliefs that exist among the restorationists themselves, and the resulting animosity that accompanies them, to see the inevitable result of adopting such a belief system. Exclusivism leads to pride, a sin especially abhorred by God (Proverbs 16:5; James 4:6). In addition, exclusivism can provoke delusions of grandeur in its leaders, making possible all manner of erroneous interpretations, not to mention rewriting, of Scripture designed to fit it to the paradigm of the group, without regard for clear and concise biblical scholarship and exegesis.

The second, and far more destructive, result of restorationist philosophy is that it denies God’s ability, or willingness, to preserve the faith “once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), rejects His sovereignty over His people, and disavows His plan to bring to pass His will without fail, despite attempts by Satan and his minions to derail it. God did not send His Son to die on the cross for the sins of His people only to allow those same people to lapse into apostasy and languish there for 1800 years. Such a notion is not only absurd, but it defines God as a ruthless and capricious entity, not the loving and merciful Father God we know Him to be. Those who believe God abandoned mankind for centuries because of their unbelief and sin need only to read Romans 3, which makes it clear that even though men are unfaithful, this does not nullify God’s faithfulness. The Holy Spirit is, and always has been, active in the world “convict[ing] the world concerning sin, and concerning righteousness, and concerning judgment” (John 16:8), drawing God’s people from every race, tribe, nation and language to the Savior. In every era, the redeemed of God have responded to His Spirit because that is God’s plan, and it will continue unabated to the day of Christ’s return. Until then, we have the assurance of Jesus Himself that He will be with us “always, even until the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20).

ECUMENISM

Walter A. Elwell, in The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, defines ecumenism as “the organized attempt to bring about the cooperation and unity among Christians.” On an international level, the World Council of Churches represents ecumenism when it states its purpose this way: “The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior according to the scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is a community of churches on the way to visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and in common life in Christ. It seeks to advance towards this unity, as Jesus prayed for his followers, ‘so that the world may believe’ (John 17:21)” (www.wcc-coe.org). On a national level, a document called Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium, published in 1994 and endorsed by some rather prominent representatives of evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism, is another example of ecumenism.

Ecumenism can also be defined more broadly: “a movement that promotes worldwide unity among all religions through greater cooperation.” For example, a Christian priest may invite a Muslim imam to speak in his pulpit, or a church may get together with a Hindu temple to hold a joint prayer service. Defined this way, ecumenism is definitely wrong. We are not to be “yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14; see also Galatians 1:6–9). Light and darkness have no fellowship with each other.

For this article, we will restrict the definition of ecumenism to “the move toward unity among Christian groups.” The important question is this: are ecumenical ventures right and biblical? Should we be involved with other “Christians” in joint ventures locally, nationally, or internationally? The answer is not absolute. Of course, unity among true Christians is important (Psalm 133:1; John 17:22). But what if some of those who profess Christianity actually deny certain fundamentals of the faith? One must consider each situation individually. Here are a couple of questions that will help us make God-honoring decisions regarding ecumenism:

First of all, are those we are joining with truly Christians in the biblical sense of the word? Many people and organizations reference the name of Jesus Christ and even state He is Lord and Savior yet clearly reject what the Bible says about Him. Obvious examples of this are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ and claim to be “Christian” yet deny what the Bible declares concerning Christ’s nature and work. A not-so-obvious example is liberal Christianity. Liberal Christianity is found in almost every denomination, and, although it may seem Christian, it usually rejects several essential truths. Liberals often deny or diminish the inspiration and authority of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16), the exclusive nature of salvation in Christ (John 14:6; 1 Timothy 2:5), and the total dependence upon God’s grace, apart from human works, for salvation (Romans 3:24, 28; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8–9).

There is a major emphasis in our day on ecumenical unity among evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Those who promote such unity state that both groups are Christian and both are God-honoring systems of faith. But there are substantial differences between the two groups. Biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism are two different religions that practice and believe different things about how one is saved, the authority of the Bible, the priesthood of believers, the nature of man, the work of Christ on the cross, etc. The list of irreconcilable differences between what the Bible says and what the Roman Catholic Church says make any joint mission between the two impossible. Those who deny this are not being true to what they say they believe, no matter which side they are on. Any Catholic who is serious about his faith will reject what a serious evangelical Christian believes, and vice-versa.

One of the draws of ecumenism is that often theologically divergent groups are passionately like-minded regarding certain issues. Biblical Christians usually hold a strong pro-life stance, a traditional view of the family, a conviction to care for the homeless and sick, and a desire to see justice in the world. Other groups, which may have unbiblical theology, can hold the same social positions. Thus, the temptation to pool resources in pursuit of a common cause is sometimes great. This leads to the next question.

Second, what is the ultimate goal of this ecumenical venture? Scripture gives clear guidance as to how Bible-believing Christians are to live. Colossians 3:17 states our purpose this way: “Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” Regarding our interactions with the lost, Jesus says in Matthew 5:16, “Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” Matthew 28:18–20 and 1 Corinthians 2:2 make the gospel our top priority. All that we do is to bring glory and honor to God, we are to live in good works before a lost and dying world, and we must bring to the world the life-changing message of the gospel. Sharing the death and resurrection of Christ brings glory to God and should motivate our interaction with the world.

Regarding ecumenical ventures, we need to ask whether or not these goals are being pursued. Often, sharing the gospel becomes an afterthought, if it is even thought of at all. In place of the gospel, ecumenism tends to focus on political and social messages. Rather than seek to transform hearts, ecumenical endeavors often seek to transform environments—political, social, or financial. The ultimate goal of our actions should be the salvation of lost sinners (Ephesians 2:1–3). The angels of heaven rejoice over one sinner who repents (Luke 15:10). There is nothing in the Bible that says the angels rejoice when a law is passed, when a well is dug, or when a street is paved. (Not that there is anything wrong with accomplishing those things, but they cannot be allowed to overshadow the gospel.) As we contemplate ecumenical ventures, we need to make sure God’s kingdom is being expanded through evangelism.

In conclusion, should we be involved in ecumenical cooperation with other Christian churches and other groups of believers? Some would say: If there is no doctrinal compromise on core Christian belief, if the gospel is not being watered-down or sidelined, if believers can maintain a clear testimony before the world, and if God is glorified, then we may freely and joyfully join with other believers in pursuit of God’s kingdom.

We say, heed the cry of Revelation 18:4.

THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST

The Disciples of Christ (DOC), officially called the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is a denomination emphasizing Christian unity, inclusiveness, and social action. Their official identity statement, from their website, says they are “a movement for wholeness in a fragmented world. As part of the one body of Christ, we welcome all to the Lord’s Table as God has welcomed us.” As of 2010, the denomination reports approximately 691,000 members with over 3,700 churches in North America.

The Disciples of Christ movement is actually part of the larger Restoration Movement, begun in the early 19th century by two men, Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone. These two men were leading their own religious movements in two separate states in the U.S. before they met in Georgetown, Kentucky, in 1824. Realizing that they shared many of the same beliefs and desires for the church, they combined their groups, and the Restoration Movement began. Later, in 1906, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) was formed as part of a schism, which also produced the Churches of Christ (Non-Instrumental) and the Independent Christian Church.

As with other churches in the Restoration Movement, some Disciples of Christ churches believe that a Christian can lose salvation. The DOC teaches the priesthood of all believers and is therefore not hierarchical in church polity. They teach believer’s baptism by immersion and therefore do not baptize infants. The church also places a heavy emphasis on communion, symbolized by the chalice they use as their denomination’s logo; most Disciples of Christ congregations observe communion every week.

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) uses a lectionary, a collection of Scripture readings pre-selected for worship and study. Many congregations also follow the liturgical seasons, beginning with Advent and including Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, and Pentecost. No congregation is required to follow the liturgical calendar, however.

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) dislikes denominational labels and avoids putting Christians “in a box.” They believe that Christians can have a variety of doctrinal differences. “Unity, not uniformity,” is one of their sayings. The denomination’s official confession is short and simple, avoiding detailed assertions about doctrine beyond stating that Christ is Lord and Savior. They are a very fluid group, connecting many people of vastly different beliefs.

There is no “test of faith” to join the Christian Church. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) lets individual congregations and individual Christians believe and practice what they want. Their lack of defined doctrinal boundaries has resulted in the denomination becoming one of the most theologically liberal churches in America today. The DOC ordains women as pastors. In July 2013 the General Assembly of the Disciples of Christ passed a resolution affirming that openly homosexual individuals were welcome as members and leaders in their church. Their church has also consistently supported legalized abortion. The doctrines of heaven and hell are considered “speculative,” and the DOC takes no official position on either.

First Corinthians 15:58 says, “My dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.” In their emphasis on community involvement, members of the Disciples of Christ seek to fulfill the latter half of this verse, and their commitment to Christian unity is certainly commendable. But we must not overlook the command in the first half of the verse, to “stand firm” and be immovable in our doctrine. Eschewing doctrinal statements, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) has moved away from sound doctrine. How can a church “stand firm” if it doesn’t know where it stands on important issues? How can a church “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) if there are no theological tests?

PENTECOSTALISM

Pentecostalism is a fairly modern movement within Christianity that can be traced back to the Holiness movement in the Methodist Church. A major focus of Pentecostal churches is Holy Spirit baptism as evidenced by speaking in tongues. There are approximately 170 different denominations that identify themselves as Pentecostal.

Toward the end of the 19th century, there was a dramatic rise in religious fervor as various groups anticipated the end of history and the return of Christ in 1900. Much of this fervor was driven by the revival meetings held by those in the Holiness movement, and there were occasional reports of people speaking in tongues. The first widespread use of tongues was at a revival in Topeka, Kansas, in January 1900, led by Charles Parham. Agnes Ozman, a Methodist, began to speak in tongues, and others in the meeting eventually followed suit. In 1906, a series of revival meetings on Azusa Street in Los Angeles led to a widespread experience of tongues-speaking, which spread to many parts of the country. The meetings were led by William Seymour, one of Charles Parham’s students. Parham and Seymour eventually parted ways, because Parham believed many of the manifestations of Azusa Street were of the flesh, or perhaps even demonic. By 1909, Seymour had excluded all but African-Americans from holding office in the mission, and the ministry eventually faded into history.

Though the Azusa Street mission had a brief life, its impact on the Pentecostal movement has been a lasting one. Many new churches and missions were founded across America which carried the new emphasis on seeking the baptism of the Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues. Today, there are over 200,000,000 denominational Pentecostals and another 200,000,000 who identify themselves as Pentecostal or charismatic in mainline churches.

There are three main divisions within the Pentecostal movement. The original group which came out of the Holiness churches (Methodist and Nazarene), sees three progressive steps in the life of a believer which indicate growth and blessing. The first step is justification, which is the forgiveness of sins that comes from putting faith in Jesus Christ. The second step is sanctification, or the second blessing, which was first taught by John Wesley in his “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection” (1766). The essence of this doctrine is an inner purity of heart and an infusion of power, whereby the believer no longer practices sin. This is sometimes followed by the third step, the “baptism of the Spirit,” as evidenced by speaking in tongues or other signs. The Church of God in Christ and the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee, are two major denominations in this group.

The second division is comprised of those who came out of a Baptist background, but were heavily influenced by the Holiness revivals of the late 1800s. The Assemblies of God was founded in 1914 under the leadership of Eudorus N. Bell, who had been a Southern Baptist pastor. The key difference in doctrine for this group is that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is available for anyone, regardless of attaining sanctification.

The third division is the Oneness Pentecostals. At the meeting which formed the Church of God in Christ (1914), there was intense debate over Trinitarian doctrine. While the majority of Holiness believers held to the traditional belief in the Trinity, there was a growing group which held to a modalist belief and affirmed that baptism should be done in Jesus’ name only. Another tenet of this group is the necessity of speaking in tongues as evidence of salvation. This group was to form the United Pentecostal Church and the Apostolic Pentecostal Church, among others.

What are we to make of this movement? The early Holiness believers recognized that Christianity ought to result in visible changes in a person’s life. The focus of many early prayer meetings was to “throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles” (Hebrews 12:1). These earnest believers wanted to run their race faithfully and were seeking God’s help to do so. As that earnestness gave way to emotional religious fervor, doctrines were developed to explain and support the emotions and experiences. For many today, the emphasis is on the excitement, the experience, or the new word of prophecy. Some of the questionable foundations laid by John Wesley (e.g., a second blessing of perfection) paved the way for later Pentecostal doctrines of new works of the Spirit. Some Pentecostals allow experience to trump scriptural teaching and attempt to conform Scripture to what they “know by experience.” But fervent experience, even when it involves miracles, is not the test of true faith (see Matthew 7:22–23). Peter affirmed the value of Scripture over experience when he said, “We also have a more sure Word of prophecy, to which you do well to take heed, as to a light that shines in a dark place” (2 Peter 1:19).

SIGNS AND WONDERS

Our God is a God of wonders (Psalm 136:3-4). As the Creator and Sustainer of all that is, God has the power to suspend natural laws in order to fulfill His purposes. Miracles were a part of the ministries of Moses, Elijah and Elisha, and of course Jesus and the apostles, and their miracles primarily served the purpose of confirming their message as being from God (Hebrews 2:3-4). Today, many people still seek to experience the miraculous, and some will go to great lengths to have that experience. There may be many reasons for such a desire, and Scripture gives us at least five:

1. Some people seek after signs and wonders because they want confirmation of the truth of God. There is nothing inherently wrong with this desire. In fact, God willingly gave signs to Moses (Exodus 4:1-9) and Gideon (Judges 6:11-22) to confirm His word. Miracles can aid a person’s coming to faith, as in John 2:23, “Many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name.”

However, there comes a time when enough miracles have been performed—the truth has been proved—and it is time to exercise faith. When Moses hesitated to obey after a series of miracles at the burning bush, “the LORD’s anger burned” (Exodus 4:14).

Also, it is nobler in God’s sight to believe without needing a miracle. Jesus visited the Samaritans, and “because of his words many more became believers” (John 4:41, emphasis added). Just a few verses later, Jesus rebukes the Galileans: “Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders . . . you will never believe” (John 4:48). Unlike the Samaritans, the people of Galilee required signs and wonders.

2. Some people seek after signs and wonders because they do not believe the signs and wonders which have already been performed. The Pharisees of Matthew 12 were just such a lot. Jesus had been performing miracles for quite some time when a group of scribes and Pharisees came to Him with an insolent demand to see another sign. In response, Jesus condemned them as “wicked and adulterous” (Matthew 12:38-39).

They were “wicked” in that they refused to believe the signs and wonders Christ had already performed. “In spite of his wonders, they did not believe” (Psalm 78:32). Their hearts were hardened towards the truth, even after numerous public miracles. Nothing would make them believe; their hearts were as pharaoh’s, hardened after witnessing so many of Moses’ miracles in Egypt (Exodus 9:34-35).

They were “adulterous” in the spiritual sense, having left the true worship of God to follow a man-made set of rules and traditions. Not satisfied with the miracles Jesus was doing, they demanded something even greater. As commentator Matthew Barnes puts it, “They looked for signs of their own devising.” So entrenched was their rejection of Christ that, when later presented with the “sign of the prophet Jonah” (Christ’s resurrection, Matthew 12:39-40), they still would not believe.

3. Some people seek after signs and wonders because they seek an occasion to excuse their unbelief. There were people in Jesus’ day who “tested” Him by seeking a sign (Matthew 16:1; Luke 11:16). Since they specified that the sign be “from heaven,” they most likely wanted something spectacular, similar to Elijah’s calling down fire from the sky (1 Kings 18:38) or Isaiah’s causing the sun to reverse course (Isaiah 38:8). Probably, their “test” was designed to be something “too big” for Jesus to accomplish—they simply hoped He would attempt it and fail in the attempt.

4. Some people seek after signs and wonders because they are curious thrill-seekers. Like the crowds in John 6:2 and King Herod in Luke 23:8, they want to see something sensational, but they have no real desire to know the truth of Christ.

5. Some people seek after signs and wonders because they hope to get something for themselves. After Jesus fed the multitudes, a large crowd followed Him to the other side of Galilee. Jesus saw their true motivation, however, and rebuked it: “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill” (John 6:26). The crowd’s desire was not to know Christ or even to see more miracles; it was simply to fill their stomachs again.

Better than seeking after a new miracle is taking God at His Word. Simple faith is more pleasing to the Lord than a reliance on a dazzling sensory experience. “Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).

CESSATIONISM

Cessationism is the view that the “miracle gifts” of tongues and healing have ceased—that the end of the apostolic age brought about a cessation of the miracles associated with that age. Most cessationists believe that, while God can and still does perform miracles today, the Holy Spirit no longer uses individuals to perform miraculous signs.

The biblical record shows that miracles occurred during particular periods for the specific purpose of authenticating a new message from God. Moses was enabled to perform miracles to authenticate his ministry before Pharaoh (Exodus 4:1-8). Elijah was given miracles to authenticate his ministry before Ahab (1 Kings 17:1; 18:24). The apostles were given miracles to authenticate their ministry before Israel (Acts 4:10, 16).

Jesus’ ministry was also marked by miracles, which the Apostle John calls “signs” (John 2:11). John’s point is that the miracles were proofs of the authenticity of Jesus’ message.

After Jesus’ resurrection, as the Church was being established and the New Testament was being written, the apostles demonstrated “signs” such as tongues and the power to heal. “Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not” (1 Corinthians 14:22, a verse that plainly says the gift was never intended to edify the church).

The Apostle Paul predicted that the gift of tongues would cease (1 Corinthians 13:8). Here are six proofs that it has already ceased:

1) The apostles, through whom tongues came, were unique in the history of the church. Once their ministry was accomplished, the need for authenticating signs ceased to exist.

2) The miracle (or sign) gifts are only mentioned in the earliest epistles, such as 1 Corinthians. Later books, such as Ephesians and Romans, contain detailed passages on the gifts of the Spirit, but the miracle gifts are not mentioned, although Romans does mention the gift of prophecy. The Greek word translated “prophecy” means “speaking forth” and does not necessarily include prediction of the future.

3) The gift of tongues was a sign to unbelieving Israel that God’s salvation was now available to other nations. See 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 and Isaiah 28:11-12.

4) Tongues was an inferior gift to prophecy (preaching). Preaching the Word of God edifies believers, whereas tongues does not. Believers are told to seek prophesying over speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:1-3).

5) History indicates that tongues did cease. Tongues are not mentioned at all by the Post-Apostolic Fathers. Other writers such as Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine considered tongues something that happened only in the earliest days of the Church.

6) There are indications that the gift of tongues has ceased. If the gift were still available today, there would be no need for missionaries to attend language school. Missionaries would be able to travel to any country and miraculously speak any language fluently, just as the apostles were able to in Acts 2. As for the gift of healing, we see in Scripture that healing was primarily associated with the ministry of Jesus and the apostles (Luke 9:1-2). And we see that as the era of the apostles drew to a close, healing, like tongues, became less frequent. The Apostle Paul, who raised Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20:9-12), did not heal Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25-27), Trophimus (2 Timothy 4:20), Timothy (1 Timothy 5:23), or even himself (2 Corinthians 12:7-9). The reasons for Paul’s “failures to heal” are 1) the gift was never intended to make every Christian well, but to authenticate apostleship (2 Corinthians 2:12; Hebrews 2:4); and 2) the authority of the apostles had been sufficiently demonstrated.

The reasons stated above are reasons cessationists believe the miraculous sign gifts have ceased. It is important to remember, though, that cessationists believe God still continues to work through the other gifts of the Spirit. According to 1 Corinthians 13:13-14:1, we would do well to “pursue love,” the greatest gift of all. If we are to desire gifts, we should desire to speak forth the Word of God, that all may be edified.

WOMEN PASTORS/PREACHERS

There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than that of women serving as pastors. As a result, it is important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors/preachers and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as pastors/preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not a matter of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation/authority.

The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13-14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors/preachers over men, since pastoring definitely includes preaching, teaching publicly, and exercising spiritual authority.

There are many objections to this view of women in pastoral ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, then the majority of Jesus’ disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching men (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, the pastor of the church in Ephesus). Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, and women were the authorities in that branch of paganism—therefore, the theory goes, Paul was only reacting against the female-led customs of the Ephesian idolaters, and the church needed to be different. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention the standard practice of Artemis worshipers as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

A third objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words for “woman” and “man” in 1 Timothy 2 could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words is broader than that. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing? (verse 8) Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God? (verses 9-10) Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not just husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a narrowing to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.

Yet another objection to this interpretation of women in pastoral ministry references women in positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. It is true that these women were chosen by God for special service to Him and that they stand as models of faith, courage, and, yes, leadership. However, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue of pastors in the church. The New Testament Epistles present a new paradigm for God’s people—the church, the body of Christ—and that paradigm involves an authority structure unique to the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.

Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. In verse 18, Priscilla’s name is mentioned first, suggesting to some that she was more prominent in ministry than her husband. (The detail of whose name comes first is probably inconsequential, because in verses 2 and 26 the order is reversed from that of verse 18.) Did Priscilla and her husband teach the gospel of Jesus Christ to Apollos? Yes, in their home they “explained to him the way of God more adequately” (Acts 18:26). Does the Bible ever say that Priscilla pastored a church or taught publicly or became the spiritual leader of a congregation of saints? No. As far as we know, Priscilla was not involved in ministry activity in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14.

In Romans 16:1, Phoebe is called a “deacon” (or “servant”) in the church and is highly commended by Paul. But, as with Priscilla, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Phoebe was a pastor or a teacher of men in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not for deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9).

The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the reason why women cannot be pastors perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for,” giving the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived” (verses 13-14). God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. The order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and in the church.

The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men (1 Timothy 2:14). This does not mean that women are gullible or that they are all more easily deceived than men. If all women are more easily deceived, why would they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? The text simply says that women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church.

Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helping/serving. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. But women in the church are restricted from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This does not imply men are better teachers or that women are inferior or less intelligent. It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are also to set an example in their lives, but in a different way (1 Peter 3:1-6). Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3–5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children at home. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men in the church. This bars women from serving as pastors/preachers to men. This does not make women less important, by any means; rather, it gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s design.

- - - - - - - - -