Works of Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone (restoration preachers)

Brad Fry said:

Several other works by College Press

The College Press NIV Commentary Series is a tremendous asset for papers that require more recent sources than the Green Textbooks.

DP

<><

Cal,

I was talking to some of my Mennonite friends here and one guy said told me they had ties to the Restoration movement. I was "dismissive" with a "yeah, I hear that a lot, it was/is a very powerful movement that has affected a lot of churches." I guess I have to go back and ask more questions now, and enjoy a good serving of humble pie or crow. [:$]

all about Christ,

David

David:

Without doing ANY research at all, I wonder if it is semantics.  The Church of God (Anderson, IN) call themselves a/the "Restoration Movement."  I can see the Mennonites (or specific branches of Mennonites) calling themselves "Mennonites".  The term Restoration Movement is not unique to the Stone-Campbell movement, which is why more and more people have begun to call it the Stone-Campbell movement rather than the RM.  "Restoration" is an entire method of biblical interpretation that crosses a number of denominational streams.

Part of the difficulty (and I say this as one from within the movement) is the question of whether there is actually ONE model of church found in the New Testament. If so, then it may be a fair endeavor to "restore" that.  If not...then not so much. That is what most Restoration movements advocate.And even if there was, are there parts of it that are cultural and no longer applicable? Much more difficult question.

There is also the aspect of restoring the Gospel.  That would be trying to strip the Gospel of Christ away from all of the attendant human theologies and creeds that humans have added to it through the centuries and which were particularly rabid and unhelpful in the 19th century.  That is another animal altogether (and in my view perhaps more productive, but also more dangerous). 

I've rambled enough...I am foolish to get started. I don't always know where to stop!!

Dan-I agree.  It's an Eerdmans pulication with a 2004 copyright.

Don't forget that there are other RM resources available in Logos, too: McGarvey's Four-Fold Gospel for instance.

Aaron,

PBBs don't work on L4 yet, although that feature is forthcoming...

Not yet. Logos 4 does not yet (as I understand it) have the capability of reading PBBs.  (One of several reasons why I have not yet upgraded). That capability should come later this year.

Oops - just noticed that my question has already been addressed. I suppose I'll wait. 

Aaron Knotts said:

Can I use the PBB files on Calvin Habig's site in my L4 Scholar's Gold? If so, how do I import them please?

Thanks for the answers on this guys. I had read various things in the forums and was unsure of the final outcome (merely by confusing myself). Just as well I still have L3 installed. A little more searching and I found where I needed to put the PBB files on my drive and I am reading them. Thank you for your advice, and also for the great work of putting these online.

Here's hoping the Encyclopaedia will be offered by Logos when L4 is capable of reading them too.

Dan DeVilder said:

What I do appreciate is their effort to refocus on the Bible, to ask hard questions ("have we added to many layers of man-made tradition and, in so doing, obscured something simple or precious in regard to the gospel or the life of the church?"  Well, I can't see Campbell using the word "precious", but I hope you get my point), and to unite people under Christ from a variety of backgrounds.

I have often thought our movement went too far in disavowing the creeds, which are man made. However, they do represent the work of many dedicated Christians who spent decades mining the Scriptures seeking the Christ of the Bible.  Imagine if each generation had to start from scratch in every discipline. Medicine as but one example would be very primitive.  

Dan DeVilder said:

. . . and of course we could never be charged with creating any ourselves, could we?

NEVER!

That said, I do agree with you regarding uniting many different backgrounds under Christ. However, let's make certain it's the Christ of the Bible.  I was reading McGarvey's commentary on Deuteronomy a couple of days ago, and he labeled the Christ who emptied himself of his deity in the Kenosis the kiss of Judas. That is why I commented on throwing out the creeds too soon.

The description given of McGarvey's words is (at least) a little inaccurate.  On p. 267 of "The Authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy" J.W. McGarvey is talking about critics of the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy.  One standard (Christian) argument for Mosaic authorship is that Jesus refers to Moses as the author. 

McGarvey then quotes a couple of scholars (among them Alfred Plummer) to say that Jesus' self-emptying (or his Kenosis) probably involved emptying himself of areas of knowledge as well.  For instance, it say that Jesus grew "in stature and in wisdom." That implies that (when he was young) there were things that Jesus did not know.  Even later in his ministry, Jesus states that he does not know the date or time of his second coming.  Plummer, et. al. have said that since this states that there were things Jesus didn't know, then it is also possible he didn't know the true authorship of Deuteronomy. 

McGarvey is quoting these scholars critically.   He says that they label themselves "reverent critics".  He says (in irony) that they are reverent in the same way that Judas was reverent when he came and kissed Jesus to betray him. 

Here is the direct quote:  "The accepted title of this process is 'reverent criticism.'  Reverent it is in manner and tone, but not more so than the approach of Judas in the garden to kiss his Lord; and we are to see whether it is less deceptive." (He says, no it is not less deceptive).

The way that this quote is formulated is both confusing as well as misrepresenting what McGarvey states. 

Here is the paragraph with the McGarvey quote from p. 267. "When believing scholars began to favor the Old Testament
criticism of these unbelievers, they soon perceived that the testimony of Jesus
and the apostles would have to be reckoned with, and so they put their
ingenuity to work in the search for some method of evading the the apparent
force of this testimony. The first effoert in this direction that came under my
own observation was an essay in the Expositor for July 1891, from the pen of
Dr. Alfred Plummer, under the heading, “The Advance of Christ in Sophia.”
Starting from the statement of Luke, that Jesus, when a child, “increased in
stature and in wisdom” (Sophia in the Greek), he argued that this increase in
wisdom may have continued throughout the life of Jesus, and that, consequently,
at every period of his life, even to the last, there may have been some things
which he did not know, and among these the matters involved in Old Testament
criticism. Add to the conclusion thus reached the fact that, according to his
own statement, he did not know the day or the hour of his own second coming and
there remains but a short step to the conclusion that he may have been ignorant
the authorship of the so-called book of Moses, and the reality of the facta
recorded in it. A little later, Canon Gore introduced us to the doctrine of the
kenosis, as it is called, arguing the possibility of our Lord’s ignorance on
critical subjects from the statement of Paul that though he was in the form of
God, and thought it not a prize to be equal with God, he emptied himself, and
took the form of a servant (Phil. ii. 6-8). This emptying
included the laying aside of divine knowledge, so that he did not possess the
latter while he was in the flesh. By this ingenious method of reasoning these
gentlemen thought themselves justifiable in laying aside the testimony of him
who had previously been regarded by all believers as the most important witness
who could testify in the case. This they do “very reverently,” and not with the
irreverence with which infidel critics had already reached the same result. The
accepted title of this process is “reverent criticism.” Reverent it is in
manner and tone, but not more so than the approach of Judas in the garden to
kiss his Lord, and we are to see whether it is less deceptive."

Cal, I have spent almost 40 years studying the Kenosis, and have accumulated almost 600 articles. That does not make me right, but it should indicate I have a fair knowledge of the subject. That said, the Biblical text does not say Christ emptied Himself of any of His divine attributes. In the Kenosis  Christ stooped down and humbled Himself by adding manhood to His person. He continued as fully God and fully man, both at  the same time, and that  is what  the creeds affirm. Here is an article I wrote years ago on the subject.

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Jesus-Christ-Kenosis.htm

Hello brother .. I saw that u commented on witness lee in forum ... and supervise the collection u have it in your LOGOS?

is this package .. I can not buy is expensive for me at the moment .. but I would investigate it by LOGOS SOFTWARE ...

Is this package:

https://www.logos.com/product/39689/living-stream-ministry-life-study-of-the-bible