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.
Sorry, my bad. I hit the button twice.
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.
This fellowship I affilate with is not a "church"; it is simply a very large bunch of people who preach and proclaim the Gospel of Christ around the world, and specifically His resurrection and ours at the end of the ages. Those in this fellowship happen to be in many different "churches", and are not a "church" in any organized meaning of the term. It is very independent, and so are those in it; and all have opinions of their own - but not about the Gospel that saves people. Does that make clear what I'm talking about? If you took it that I was talking about a "church", I'm sorry. I never made any reference to what "church" I attend, and that shouldn't make any difference anyhow.
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.
Exactly! The answers you gave is what the church I attend agree to 100%
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:
The thesis posted is not mine, and I made that quite clear - it was written by a friend of mine, and as I said, I believe it is worthy of discussion. I agree with a lot of what he wrote, not all. I'd phrase some things differently.
Again, this is all very nice, but ...
Yes, what you say is all very nice also. And I agree with a lot of it. But I do think you may be reading somethings into it that are not really there.
For example - No denominational designation: I don't believe that a person or group can get away without a designation. If a group were to choose as their name a Biblical name such as "Church of Christ" or "Church of God", what would be wrong with that, other than those organizations who also wear those names and have distanced their selves from the beliefs and practices of the NT Scriptural churches? Why would using Biblical names for a church be disrespectful and prideful, i.e., arrogant?
Again an example: Weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper: So, you are going to make rules where the Bible doesn’t? I don't think the author of that thesis was making a rule, seeing as how whenever two or three gather in Jesus' name, He is there; and the supper can be had - which he teaches and practices! But I get your point :-)
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.
Here I disagree with you, and we can discuss it. On my side, I stick to what the Scriptures have to say about it, using exegesis and etymology to help my understanding. Your side is to accept traditions, which are certuries late in arriving on the scene (or at least I think you do). How you can make any other method of "baptizo" and its derivatives mean something other than "immersion" is not only unscriptural but unhistorical. There is so much evidence available that I don't really see how anyone can come to the conclusion that the original practice was not the immersion of believers only. As for the purpose, well, it has quite a few, among which is for washing away sin. Read some of my other posts on that.
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).
Okay, but I'll go for both.
No distinctive title for preachers:
In the assembly I go to, the preacher is called by his first name, and identified as "preacher" to others. Everyone is equal, yet there are "elders/presbyters/overseers" and "deacons", which also we call by their first or last name, and identify them to other by the above words - sometimes as "bishops" and "ministers". Basically, I have no problem with what you say.
As to your statements on Clergy/laity and vestments/special garb, the church I go to has no rules on these at all, and Gene's church doesn't either. Maybe that's why I like him :-) I have no problem with what anyone wears, just that it's clean. Can you imagine a preacher dressed in blue-jeans and sweat shirt while preaching a sermon? Well, Gene does that quite often. Does anyone in attendance care, absolutely not. I applaud that!
Here is something to think upon, and maybe discuss: "God's clergy are the laity!" And that can be backed up from the Scriptures. I've written articles on it and had them published. Responses, yes, both pro and con. And interesting to say the least. :-)
Thanks for the interesting conversation - hope others think about what we say to each other. God bless you.