|
 The
central idea of “restoration” is faith in the word of God as
the “seed” of the kingdom (Lu. 8:11). When others were
vainly trying to establish an “unbroken line of succession”
of Popes, Bishops, Churches, or Evangelists; “restoration
preachers” were saying, “Succession is in the seed.”
If
a Jay bird carried an acorn into a field and dropped it, the
resultant growth would be an oak tree, not a Jay-bird tree. The
seed determines the plant, not the sower. That was one of bro.
N. B. Hardeman’s favorite illustrations. Or another: if a New
Testament were cast from a ship, and drifted to the shores of
some far off island; it could be translated, studied, obeyed —
and would result in N. T. Christians who, working together, would
form a N. T. church. Of course the idea is that divine authority
is resident in Christ; and is expressed in His word, set forth
by inspired apostles and prophets in the N.T.
The
antithesis of this is that Christ relinquished his authority (by
delegating “power of attorney” to the apostles and their
successors) who then act and speak as though they were Christ.
(A variation of this is the claim of continued inspired
revelation.) These men of “authority” must “administer”
baptism, the Lord’s Supper, etc.; and these things have no
validity or benefit except by their, or their successor’s
hands.
“Succession
in the seed” was readily accepted by restoration pioneers,
pleading the all-sufficiency of the Word and struggling against
tradition to establish N. T. churches; but as we have grown more
numerous, and have
|
|
established our own traditions, some
seem to think maybe there is a sort of authority
resident in “the great middle-section” of the church, or
big-name preachers, elders, etc.
We
have been told that an evangelist can not “go-preach” except
he be “sent” by some church; that to question the elder’s
judgment is to reject the will of God; that the Lord’s Supper
is not valid except it be sanctioned or “set” by “the
church;” and that baptism is not valid unless “administered”
by a “sound” preacher, or at least a “true saint .“ I
think such conclusions come from people who have not thought
through to the logical end of their arguments. Is succession really
in the seed, or have we just invented this to satisfy early
needs?
I
believe it would be a mistake (as respects influence, discipline
of sinners, etc.) to ask a known backslider and reprobate to
serve at the Lord’s table — but I do not believe this would
invalidate the memorial to those who partook of it properly. I
would seriously question the propriety of asking a man (or
woman) “off the Street” to baptize a candidate; although I
believe the validity of baptism is not dependent upon the
character of the one who performs the act. Surely we need not
abandon sound Bible principles in order to act with restraint
and decorum.
Deity
has not abdicated the throne for any man or group of men; the
Word will completely furnish us unto all. good works; and
succession is, indeed, “in the seed” and unrestricted.
[Previous
Article]
[Next
Article]
|
