Why do we have to look/act/play like the first century church?

[s1n4m1n]

Why does the church have to look like the first century?  Were the israelites commanded to be suspended in time for 1500 years and the church was commanded to be suspended in time for 2000+ now?  I live in 2009.  Where does the bible state that we are suppossed to be frozen in time?

Don't take this as an apology for full-throated restorationism but...

The church is a divine society or entity (I would say institution but some people have problem with that term). By that I mean it was created by God for a purpose. A society, in order carry out its purpose, must follow the rules of its being, its organizing principles. Since it is a divine society we are talking about, these "rules of its being" were created by God.

For the church to be the same church now as it was back then, it must be true to its being. That's not to say it cannot change at all. For instance, biologically I'm the same person I was when I was born, but I certainly changed a lot.

I think it is helpful to look at the NT church as a matter of faith , to look at the organizing principles from the beginning, to help us remain faithful to those princples.

Ken

[s1n4m1n]

BTW, I should point out that, to the best of my understanding of the early Restoration Movement and Alexander Campbell, this going back to the practice of the NT church was an eschalogical event. That is the movement itself was related to fulfilling prophesy in Scriptures.

[marc]

You're right about that, I think.  I also think, if you'll excuse me for saying so, that you're demonstrating the natural path of restorationism--a full-blown commitment to the philosophy, once we're able to honestly look at ourselves and our beliefs, will possibly lead us to a church that can trace it's history back to the first century.

This is, I think, counter to the teachings of Jesus, who commented that he could raise up children of Abraham from stones, if that's what He really wanted, but it is one result of the restorationist path.

[zoonance]

You're right about that, I think.  I also think, if you'll excuse me for saying so, that you're demonstrating the natural path of restorationism--a full-blown commitment to the philosophy, once we're able to honestly look at ourselves and our beliefs, will possibly lead us to a church that can trace it's history back to the first century.

This is, I think, counter to the teachings of Jesus, who commented that he could raise up children of Abraham from stones, if that's what He really wanted, but it is one result of the restorationist path.

So we are all really Stoned teenagers of Abraham?   

[s1n4m1n]

You're right about that, I think.  I also think, if you'll excuse me for saying so, that you're demonstrating the natural path of restorationism--a full-blown commitment to the philosophy, once we're able to honestly look at ourselves and our beliefs, will possibly lead us to a church that can trace it's history back to the first century.

This is, I think, counter to the teachings of Jesus, who commented that he could raise up children of Abraham from stones, if that's what He really wanted, but it is one result of the restorationist path.

Not sure what you are saying in the last sentence, perhaps that heritage doesn't mean anything. It seems that the Jews statement that they are "children of Abraham" (btw, a very important concept) was from a biological standpoint. That is, we are "the physical descendents of Abraham". I believe Christ was speaking against that concept, for the apostle Paul uses that same concept except with respect to "faith" and "promise", i.e. the concept of being spiritual descendents of Abraham. If that be the case then the "hall of faith" in Hebrews 11 makes perfect sense, it shows a spiritual heritage or descent (notice it is in chronological or near chronological order).

I think being part of that spiritual descent is important, which is where I part from the CoC concept of restoration.

[zoonance]

The most 'strict' amongst us coc believe (and they have no choice really) that a faithful few coc have always been present through the millenia. 

[DCR]

I think being part of that spiritual descent is important, which is where I part from the CoC concept of restoration.

The irony is that all Christians groups, CofC included, are part of said "spiritual descent."  No Christian group sprang up out of nowhere.

Now, within that "spiritual descent" is much schism.  But, at the end of the day, all Protestant groups parted ways from each other.  The original Protestants parted ways with the Roman Catholics.  The Roman Catholics and Orthodox parted ways with each other... etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum ad tragicum (if that's a word).

No one can claim a pure unadulterated "spiritual descent" that isn't challenged and disagreed with by someone somewhere.

[s1n4m1n]

I think being part of that spiritual descent is important, which is where I part from the CoC concept of restoration.

The irony is that all Christians groups, CofC included, are part of said "spiritual descent."  No Christian group sprang up out of nowhere.

That may be the case but you can't tell that to my wife's church, where they claim not to recognize any spiritual heritage. I think most CoCs hold to the "seed theory". Plant the pure word of God and it produces Christians outside of any heritage at all.

Now, within that "spiritual descent" is much schism.  But, at the end of the day, all Protestant groups parted ways from each other.  The original Protestants parted ways with the Roman Catholics.  The Roman Catholics and Orthodox parted ways with each other... etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum ad tragicum (if that's a word).

Not necessarily, it can be schism from "spiritual descent" not schism of "spiritual descent". Also the church must remain true to it being.

No one can claim a pure unadulterated "spiritual descent" that isn't challenged and disagreed with by someone somewhere.

That's irrevalent, anyone can set up shop and challenge anyone else's "spiritual descent". I think anyone doing such would have to follow the "rules of being" of the Church first.

Here's a project (a good one for myself too), name someone in your spiritual descent from each century from the 1st century to the 21st century. Kinda like the list in Hebrews.


Ken

[blituri]

One of the RACA terms applied to try to intimidate the Church of Christ to fall in line with the "ceremonial legalists" is to make fun--at the HIGHEST LEVELS OF SUMMITS--of the ignorant PRESUMPTION of the Church of Christ that the church could be restored if you PLANT THE SAME SEED.  They take for granted the MOSS of prelatal pride which has collected so that one billy goat protects his manure pile while the other protects his pig pin.  This is the old shell game where the fools never guess that the NUT IS UNDER NEITHER SHELL.

John Calvin somewhat before the Campbells:

http://www.piney.com/Calvin-Reform-1.html

THE NECESSITY OF REFORMING THE CHURCH.
TO THE MOST INVINCIBLE EMPEROR CHARLES V.,
AND THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS PRINCES AND OTHER ORDERS, NOW HOLDING
A DIET OF THE EMPIRE AT SPIRES,
A HUMBLE EXHORTATION
SERIOUSLY TO UNDERTAKE THE TASK OF RESTORING THE CHURCH.
PRESENTED IN THE NAME OF ALL THOSE WHO WISH CHRIST TO REIGN.
AUGUST EMPEROR,

There are two circumstances by which men are wont to recommend, or at least to justify, their conduct. If a thing is done honestly, and from pious zeal, we deem it worthy of praise; if it is done under the pressure of public necessity, we at least deem it not unworthy of excuse. Since both of these apply here, I am confident, from your equity, that I shall easily obtain your approval of my design.

    For where can I exert myself to better purpose or more honestly, where, too, in a matter at this time more necessary, than in attempting, according to my ability,

to aid the Church of Christ, whose claims it is unlawful in any instance to deny, and which is now in grievous distress, and in extreme danger?

But there is no occasion for a long preface concerning myself. Receive what I say as you would do if it were pronounced by the united voice

    of all those who either have already taken care to RESTORE the Church,
    or are desirous that it should be RESTORED to true order.

As to what I have yet said, there is no controversy among the pious, or among men of right and sane mind.

That in these things consists the true and sincere worship which alone God approves, and in which alone He delights,

        is both taught by the Holy Spirit throughout the Scriptures, and is also,
        antecedent to discussion, the obvious dictate of piety.

Nor from the beginning was there any other method of worshipping God, the only difference being, that this spiritual truth, which with us is naked and simple, was under the former dispensation wrapt up in figures.

    And this is the meaning of our Saviour's words, "The hour cometh, and now is,
    when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth," (John iv. 23.)

    For by these words he meant not to declare that God was not worshipped by the fathers in this spiritual manner, but only to point out a distinction in the external form, viz., That while they had the Spirit shadowed forth by many figures, we have it in simplicity. But it has always been an acknowledged point, that God, who is a Spirit, must be worshipped in spirit and in truth.

Moreover, the rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application,
      in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves,
      but look to the injunctions of Him who alone is entitled to prescribe

Therefore, if we would have Him to approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with the utmost strictness, must be carefully observed. For there is a twofold reason why the Lord, in condemning and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to his own voice.

First, it tends greatly to establish His authority that we do not follow our own pleasure, but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray.

    And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions.

    Justly, therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert his full right of dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes us to do, and at once reject all human devices which are at variance with his command.

    Justly, too, does he, in express terms, define our limits, that we may not, by fabricating perverse modes of worship, provoke His anger against us.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world
      that God disapproves of all modes of worship
      not expressly sanctioned by His Word.

The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were,
      in their very bones and marrow,
      is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction,
      provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honour of God. [sincerity counts for nothing]

But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship,

    if at variance with His command,
    what do we gain by a contrary course?
    The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice."

"In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. xv. 22; Matt. xv. 9.)

Every addition to His word, especially in this matter, is a lie.
Mere "will worship" is vanity
       This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided,
       it is no longer time to debate.

Well, that was John Calvin's opinion and he truly restored many things: the task was pretty easy: just ELEMINATE anything NOT COMMANDED and which did not contribute to piety.