Thank you, and I apologize.
Restoration as a term is not a particularly useful one. That is what I am trying to point out to you. The church does not need restoration. It is still here, because Christ the Lord promised that it would not fail to stand against the very gates of hell. It is still here for no other reason. Soli Deo Gloria. However, that being said, the church is in constant need of repentance, reformation, and repristination, as is every individual Christian. My only point is that every church body, denomination, faction - call it what you will - is in need of the same.
Okay, I get you. My remarks on the "gates of hell" still stand firm. I believe that I also agreed that the church will remain until Jesus' return - so there is no disagreement here. As for the need of "restoration", well, trying to get the church to believe and practice what it was before the "hierarchy" became established is a noble guesture in my mind. If the early Christians were saved without any intervention (after the Apostles were gone) of a heavy "hierarchy", why do we really need that method now? The fellowship I'm affiliated with is an international fellowship that has no "hierarchy", no conventions, voters on what to believe, etc., in other words FREE from the heavy hand of dogmatism from the top down.
Thanks for you input - it was appreciated.
You said,
“The fellowship I’m affiliated with is an international fellowship that has no ‘hierarchy’, no conventions, voters on what to believe, etc., in other words FREE from the heavy hand of dogmatism from the top down.”
This all sounds nice. It is, unfortunately, utopian, a term derived from Greek that colloquially translated means, “Nowheresville.” What you propose will in the end sink into chaos and schism. How do I know? It’s been tried before; and it always ends the same way. There is nothing new under the sun.
Whether the church is governed from the top down or the bottom up is really not so critical. And in fact whatever course is chosen there will have to be a certain amount of both. The bigger question is: What, or better, who is the center of all things? Who is the head of the church, even now? The next question is: Where is teaching authority derived from? If the answers to those two questions are, respectively, Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures, whatever visible manifestation of the church you belong to has a fighting chance of both survival and continuing faithfulness.
Now, in your original piece, in which you tried to make the case for a so-called “restored” church, you gave these points as that which is to be looked for in order to know that you have found such a restored church:
• No denominational designation
• Weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper
• Baptism of adults by immersion for the purposes of washing sin away
• No distinctive title for preachers (e.g., Pastor, Reverend, Father, Brother, etc.)
• No “clergy” / “laity” distinction
• No vestments or special garb (e.g., robes)
• No extra-congregational organization (hierarchy, delegate convention, etc.)
Again, this is all very nice, but ...
No denominational designation: So, the assumption is that something can be “restored” that has not been since the time of the apostles. Just think about how prideful this thinking really is, and how disrespectful to those who have gone before us, whose example we are to follow. (And, yes, I know that we are to obey God rather than men.) Well, enough said ... at least for now.
Weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper: So, you are going to make rules where the Bible doesn’t? What if the observance is more frequent? Or less? Is either to be rejected as unfaithful? Unscriptural? I quite agree that weekly observance of the Supper would be good, but can we really say more than that on the basis of Scripture alone? I don’t think so.
Baptism of adults by immersion for the purposes of washing sin away: Here you are somewhat limiting and misstating what baptism is, as someone already pointed out on this thread. Does it really wash away sin? Or is it the answer of a clean conscience to God? And is it only that? As far as immersion goes, you are simply wrong on this. Immersion is fine. So too is application by other means. All have been done from earliest times, depending on the real circumstances. What is absolutely required is water and the word. (Matthew 28:18-20) No more, and certainly no less. The better question is this: Is baptism a) something we do to identify ourselves as God’s children, or b) something God does to identify us as His children. I will go with b).
No distinctive title for preachers: What? Such titles already existed in the time of the New Testament itself, and are referred to in many places. Elder, Greek presbyteros, was the usual Jewish term for the one who preached and taught, Overseer/Bishop, Greek episkopos, was the usual Greek term for the same, and Pastor/Shepherd, Greek poimen, was the term tied uniquely to Christ, the Good Shepherd. The terms are used interchangeably in the NT.
No “clergy”/”laity” distinction: Again, what? See above. Also, for example (and there are other places to go) Ephesians 4:11. Who appointed them such? Here remember, this is not about class or hierarchy, as is mistaught by so many, it is about who is called by Christ to do what. There is no difference in holiness or righteousness between clergy and laity, both are finally only sinners, but sinners accounted righteous before God for the sake of Jesus Christ.
No vestments or special garb: I guess. What is the big problem with this? If you are arguing that such things are used to exalt the man who wears them, I will agree with you. If, however, the purpose is to obscure the man who wears them and to point to Christ alone as Chief Shepherd, the only true and Good Shepherd, and all the rest merely as His undershepherds, what is the beef? Anything can be misunderstood, especially if its purpose is not clearly and regularly taught. Let all things be done for edification ... right?
No extra-congregational organization: What? This was already in existence in the book of Acts. This is not the problem, though it can certainly be twisted into a problem, as nearly anything can.
You said,
“The fellowship I’m affiliated with is an international fellowship that has no ‘hierarchy’, no conventions, voters on what to believe, etc., in other words FREE from the heavy hand of dogmatism from the top down.”
This all sounds nice. It is, unfortunately, utopian, a term derived from Greek that colloquially translated means, “Nowheresville.” What you propose will in the end sink into chaos and schism. How do I know? It’s been tried before; and it always ends the same way. There is nothing new under the sun.
Whether the church is governed from the top down or the bottom up is really not so critical. And in fact whatever course is chosen there will have to be a certain amount of both. The bigger question is: What, or better, who is the center of all things? Who is the head of the church, even now? The next question is: Where is teaching authority derived from? If the answers to those two questions are, respectively, Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures, whatever visible manifestation of the church you belong to has a fighting chance of both survival and continuing faithfulness.
Now, in your original piece, in which you tried to make the case for a so-called “restored” church, you gave these points as that which is to be looked for in order to know that you have found such a restored church:
• No denominational designation
• Weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper
• Baptism of adults by immersion for the purposes of washing sin away
• No distinctive title for preachers (e.g., Pastor, Reverend, Father, Brother, etc.)
• No “clergy” / “laity” distinction
• No vestments or special garb (e.g., robes)
• No extra-congregational organization (hierarchy, delegate convention, etc.)
Again, this is all very nice, but ...
No denominational designation: So, the assumption is that something can be “restored” that has not been since the time of the apostles. Just think about how prideful this thinking really is, and how disrespectful to those who have gone before us, whose example we are to follow. (And, yes, I know that we are to obey God rather than men.) Well, enough said ... at least for now.
Weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper: So, you are going to make rules where the Bible doesn’t? What if the observance is more frequent? Or less? Is either to be rejected as unfaithful? Unscriptural? I quite agree that weekly observance of the Supper would be good, but can we really say more than that on the basis of Scripture alone? I don’t think so.
Baptism of adults by immersion for the purposes of washing sin away: Here you are somewhat limiting and misstating what baptism is, as someone already pointed out on this thread. Does it really wash away sin? Or is it the answer of a clean conscience to God? And is it only that? As far as immersion goes, you are simply wrong on this. Immersion is fine. So too is application by other means. All have been done from earliest times, depending on the real circumstances. What is absolutely required is water and the word. (Matthew 28:18-20) No more, and certainly no less. The better question is this: Is baptism a) something we do to identify ourselves as God’s children, or b) something God does to identify us as His children. I will go with b).
No distinctive title for preachers: What? Such titles already existed in the time of the New Testament itself, and are referred to in many places. Elder, Greek presbyteros, was the usual Jewish term for the one who preached and taught, Overseer/Bishop, Greek episkopos, was the usual Greek term for the same, and Pastor/Shepherd, Greek poimen, was the term tied uniquely to Christ, the Good Shepherd. The terms are used interchangeably in the NT.
No “clergy”/”laity” distinction: Again, what? See above. Also, for example (and there are other places to go) Ephesians 4:11. Who appointed them such? Here remember, this is not about class or hierarchy, as is mistaught by so many, it is about who is called by Christ to do what. There is no difference in holiness or righteousness between clergy and laity, both are finally only sinners, but sinners accounted righteous before God for the sake of Jesus Christ.
No vestments or special garb: I guess. What is the big problem with this? If you are arguing that such things are used to exalt the man who wears them, I will agree with you. If, however, the purpose is to obscure the man who wears them and to point to Christ alone as Chief Shepherd, the only true and Good Shepherd, and all the rest merely as His undershepherds, what is the beef? Anything can be misunderstood, especially if its purpose is not clearly and regularly taught. Let all things be done for edification ... right?
No extra-congregational organization: What? This was already in existence in the book of Acts. This is not the problem, though it can certainly be twisted into a problem, as nearly anything can.