Author Topic: The RM and Unity  (Read 10542 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

marc

  • Guest
The RM and Unity
« on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 10:19:52 »
I'm interested in others' thoughts about unity, how to acheive it, and how this relates to our past, present, and future practices in the RM.  I have some ideas but would like to hear from others first.  Are we really a unity movement?  Should we be?

Christian Forums and Message Board

The RM and Unity
« on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 10:19:52 »

Offline s1n4m1n

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3687
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Day's Work
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #1 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 11:04:16 »
The RM is a pretty wide spectrum, all the way from the DoC to the most strict CoC, with varying ideas and approaches to Chrisitian unity.

marc

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #2 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 11:10:39 »
Yes, but if we are to consider the historic roots of our approach, it's hard to narrow it too much.  Just looking at the SOF Church of Christ would catch some of the reasons our approach has evolved as it has, but may not hit on the underlying cause.

I'm interested in how we define unity as well, btw.

Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8529
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #3 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 11:18:01 »
Jesus prayed for it, He actually prayed for little else in scripture with us in mind.  Unity does not equal uniformity, but it should be closer than not!   

There is no unity noted between PETA and zoos, hunters, etc.  There can not be.  Maybe some tolerance at times?  Maybe some "agree to disagree" ?  But not unity.

I can not imagine that Jesus's prayer is definable by what christianity looks like today.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #4 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 12:41:33 »
True, but Jesus did not pray for union: he prayed for unity based on the nature of father and son.

Not even the Son had any of His own words: the Father Who was within thought and told Him what to speak.  Since the Spirit does not speak on His own and the Spirit is named "Jesus Christ the Righteous" that means that "that which is written" is the only resource for speaking one to another, and elders must teach that which has been taught.

If you speak the Word of Christ which He called Spirit and Life you will bring the reproaches of all of the religious world down on your head.  If you speak that which has been once for all delivered then Paul said that we must go OUTSIDE of the massed multitude and have our unity and suffer the same reproaches.

That will make your ekklesia, synagogue or school of the Bible VERY TINY and NO ONE will want to unify by "stealing the church houses of widows" in order to impose IMPURE worship John called SORCERY.  You just wont be worth swiping.

Because you don't know a single Biblical Ekklesia quarantined from the marketplace people acting as what Jesus founded, Paul expounded and the historic church practiced for several centuries and the Campbells tried to restore until they began to worship OUTSIDE of their spirit and permitted the wolves and dog to get inside.

The unity Jesus prayed for included NO INSTITUTE which He came to destroy along with the instituters: He COMMANDED giving alms from our hand to the hand of the destitute, he COMMANDED that we do our praying in our CLOSETS where no one has any part.  By founding the Qahal, synagogue or school of the Bible in the wilderness he INCLUDED only speaking and rehearsing the WORD: He EXCLUDED vocal and instrumental rejoicing which intentionally DESTROYS the REST and proves that there is no interest in the mature ELDERS do the PREACHING by READING every week with no private interpretation which means "further expounding" and you know that I know that FURTHER EXPOUNDING is what means preaching.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #4 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 12:41:33 »



Offline Snargles

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manna: 48
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #5 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 15:51:34 »
I think a problem is that the RM started out trying to do two things: unify all the Christians, restore the "Ancient Order of Things." Stone was more of a unifier and Campbell was more of a restorer. As a post-mil, Campbell thought the sooner he could get everyone into one church the sooner the Lord would return to earth. In other words, he was trying to manipulate the second coming. Stone was willing to leave many things up to the individual believers where Campbell wanted everyone to think like he did. Trying to accomplish two goals meant that we couldn't accomplish either. The DoC have taken the more liberal route and allowed in many different beliefs in the interest of unity. The CoC (my people) have taken the pharisitical approach and said "Everyone is welcome as long as they believe exactally like we do."

We won't be able to have unity until we all realize unity should be based on the scriptural stuff (JC=God, love your neighbor, love the Lord and follow his commandments) instead of the physical stuff (no IM, following 1st century worship practices, literal interpretation of scripture without allowinf for the effect of culture).

HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #6 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 15:52:58 »
I'm interested in others' thoughts about unity, how to acheive it, and how this relates to our past, present, and future practices in the RM.  I have some ideas but would like to hear from others first.  Are we really a unity movement?  Should we be?

I already enjoy unity with every Christian - even those in the RM.

I don't need a preacher or university president to tell me it's OK, or that we have finally "achieved unity."

I am comfortable attending just about any church, working aside members of any denomination, and participating in spiritual formation with just about anybody.

The issue is that there are some others that don't see reality as I do. They think that all followers need to be apostolic, or non-instrumental, or assemble in a building with a particular name on it.

But that's their problem, and they're the worse off for it.

Me, I have unity.

Offline Snargles

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manna: 48
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #7 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 16:18:38 »
I'm interested in others' thoughts about unity, how to acheive it, and how this relates to our past, present, and future practices in the RM.  I have some ideas but would like to hear from others first.  Are we really a unity movement?  Should we be?

I already enjoy unity with every Christian - even those in the RM.

I don't need a preacher or university president to tell me it's OK, or that we have finally "achieved unity."

I am comfortable attending just about any church, working aside members of any denomination, and participating in spiritual formation with just about anybody.

The issue is that there are some others that don't see reality as I do. They think that all followers need to be apostolic, or non-instrumental, or assemble in a building with a particular name on it.

But that's their problem, and they're the worse off for it.

Me, I have unity.

Whoa man. Now I see why you are signed up with RTM. This is not your father's RM.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #8 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 18:17:53 »
As a post-mil, Campbell thought the sooner he could get everyone into one church the sooner the Lord would return to earth. In other words, he was trying to manipulate the second coming

I think that is what the "scholars" have agreed upon but I am convinced that most of them don't read the originals but other "scholarly" opinions.  I have decided that they constitute a new denomination: ATS which means "among the scholars."

First, Alexander Campbell clearly taught that the Kingdom HAD come and defines that as promised and fulfilled beginning at Pentecost.

Secondly, the word MILLENIAL does not mean that he had decided on any form except that the denominations could not fulfil the signs without the help of a literaly Jesus.

He speaks of a "new heaven and a new earth" the old one being burned up.  He does not speak of a kingdom headquartered and Jerusalem and he discusses the FIGURATIVE rather than the literal meaningof the 1,000 years.

Others put words into Campbell's mouth as a way to discredit the modern Church of Christ.  Here is the link to excerpts by Benjamin Lyon Smith in the MH 1902.

http://www.piney.com/Second.Coming.Campbell.html

I confess, then, that I have never felt the force of reason in any argument drawn from the second advent as near at hand, come from what source it might.

    Indeed I am much more certain that our individual death is sometimes called the coming of the Lord, than I am of the truth or reasonableness of any of the Millenarian theories now being preached all over the land. I hear them all with candor, as I have impartially submitted them to my readers. Still my candor must not be construed into acquiescence with any of them.


Looking at the "proof texts" Campbell actually vocally denied that these events could take place as in the dogmas without a long time span.

Richard T. Hughes and Leonard Allen are the major dispenser of shoddy-to-false "scholarship" and they often quote other textbooks and consequently lie about the original authors. They have an AGENDA as all book writers do and it is not pretty.

You really have to take this document apart rather than lift some statement out of context.  He clearly denied that he wanted all of the SECTS united in one group and denies that man has the power to FORCE the Second Advent as the late and lamented ECUMENICAL movement "Among the Scholars" of the church of Christ whom i VOW never read beyond their theology books.

As for Christians among the sects, he agreed that they might be but insisted that the come out of Babylon.




Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #9 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 21:45:17 »
Marc
I am with HR.  However I will go a step further.  I think we should get rid of the 3 most divisive things  1. the institutional church with its over under leadership style.  The "hireling clergy" that controls the service and tows the party line and the expensive buildings we meet in.  Take the money collected and help the poor that are struggling to pay their bills feed the hungry and take the good news to the lost.

HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #10 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 21:56:39 »
Marc
I am with HR.  However I will go a step further.  I think we should get rid of the 3 most divisive things  1. the institutional church with its over under leadership style.  The "hireling clergy" that controls the service and tows the party line and the expensive buildings we meet in.  Take the money collected and help the poor that are struggling to pay their bills feed the hungry and take the good news to the lost.

OK. But I'd like a spot to meet in just so we can enjoy one another's company in between giving out cups of water.

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #11 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 22:02:16 »
HR
There are homes, buildings that can be rented (even church buildings that can be rented at a different time)  The church i attend started in a meeting room at the Holiday Inn ( a member owned the HI)  There are storefronts and other buildings that can be bought or rented at a reasonable cost.  Notice I said expensive buildings.

HRoberson

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #12 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 22:10:35 »
HR
There are homes, buildings that can be rented (even church buildings that can be rented at a different time)  The church i attend started in a meeting room at the Holiday Inn ( a member owned the HI)  There are storefronts and other buildings that can be bought or rented at a reasonable cost.  Notice I said expensive buildings.

Yeah, I know. I don't care if we own it; just some place to do the fellowshipping, encouraging, lamenting, and instructing sorts of stuff.

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #13 on: Mon Dec 08, 2008 - 23:01:26 »
Yep.  That is the purpose of the assembly.

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #14 on: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 10:39:39 »
The early Stone-Campbell plea was for a unity in diversity, a unity based upon the essentials of the apostolic faith, with individual Christians and churches allowed to hold their own opinions on lesser, non-essential doctrines. This is what Campbell got from John Locke-that Christianity can be pared down to a set of essential beliefs that most reasonable people could agree on. From the Scottish School of Common Sense he got the idea that any reasonably intelligent person can understand the major teachings of the Bible by using plain old reason and common sense. However as he got older and matured, he drifted away from a lot of his early infatuation with philosophy.

In Campbell's thought, restoration was a means to an end-unity. The second and third generation leaders who came after him lost sight of this and proceeded as if restoration had been the end rather than simply the means to that end. And it wasn't the only means. By the 1840s Campbell had backed away from talking so much about restoration as the primary means to unity and wrote more about a "catholic" (universal) unity upon the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4. But there is a lot of evidence, esp. in the Christian Baptist that convinces me that the younger Campbell was not as gung-ho or inflexible when it came to his "ancient order" as many people assume. For example, in the preface to the 2nd, 1839, ed. of The Christian System, Campbell states that the book contains his views, which he believes are right but that he won't be dogmatic or make his interpretations a test of fellowship. And in an April, 1824 CB article entitled "The Foundation of Hope and of Christian Unity" he says that only two things are necessary for becoming a Christian and a member of the church-belief in Jesus as the Messiah and baptism. Anyone who believes Jesus is the Christ and is baptized is a  christian and a member of the church and it doesn't matter whether they hold Arminian or Calvinist, Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, Quaker, etc. views. During the Dr. John Thomas affair of the 1830s Campbell rejected Thomas' dogmatic insistence that a person had to understand remission of sins for their baptism to be valid. Then there's his March 6, 1826 response to German Dunkard Jake Hostetter (whose churches officially united with Campbell's group in 1828) that he loves Hostetter, as a brother despite certain issues upon which they don't agree (frequency of  communion, trine immersion, the kiss of peace, etc.), and takes pains to state that they nevertheless have a unity of faith.

And of course there's his response to the Lunenburg Letter, in which he states that when push comes to shove he cannot even make immersion a test of fellowship. There may be "pious unimmersed," who, mistaking the outward baptism nevertheless possess the inward baptism. And on at least two occasions after this time (1837), he reiterated that same position.

The genius of the Stone-Campbell plea at work can be seen in the Aylette Raines affair of the 1840s. Raines was a Disciples preacher who developed Universalist views. Many in the Movement were calling for him to be withdrawn from however Campbell urged tolerance and restraint. Campbell was certain that if Raines preached publicly only what Scripture taught that he would soon study/think himself out of Universalism. So he spoke to Raines and asked Raines not to publicly preach his Universalist views, which Raines agreed not to do. Sure enough, Raines later on did in fact discard his Universalism, and credited Campbell with helping him to do so.

But the genius of the Movement can also be seen at work in the official unity of Stone's Christians and Campbell's Disciples; despite some serious disagreements, both men didn't consider said differences an impediment to unity, so they officially united in 1832.

As for his post-millennialist views. I'm not sure I'd say Campbell was trying to "manipulate" Christ's return; he sincerely believed though that a united Church would, according to Scripture, hasten Christ's return. He was always careful though, to state that his millennial views were his own opinion and not a test of fellowship. Campbell knew the dangers inherent in making calculations and setting precise dates, as William Miller, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell and other did,. Campbell initially thought Miller might be right, but later denounced him as a fraud. After Campbell saw that the church wasn't united and Christ didn't return, he backed off from further speculation on the end-times. Many early S-C leaders were premil, however there wasn't an "official" brorherhood position on eschatology-at least until the 1930s and 40s, when Foy Wallace, Jr. and others attacked RH Boll's premillennial churches and posthumously attacked David Lipscomb's apocalyptic views, pacifism, etc.

Pax.
« Last Edit: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 11:06:10 by Lee Freeman »

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #15 on: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 11:25:52 »
The subject arose briefly in Millersburg, Kentucky. Aylette Raines, who kept a diary for many years, made the following entry April 27, 1851: "Brother S(aunders) wishes to introduce the melodeon into the church."3 However, Raines was bitterly opposed to all innovations, so the melodeon was not introduced. This was the prevailing attitude during the 1850's. Instrumental music was not a strong issue, and most of those men who ever spoke out on the subject considered it an innovation which was brought in by those destitute of spirituality, and as a mockery of those things which were sacred. In an 1856 issue of the Gospel Advocate, Tolbert Fanning said that he "regarded the organ and violin worship, and even the fashionable choir singing of our country, as mockery of all that is sacred." 4. John T. Lewis, The Voice of the Pioneers on Instrumental Music and Societies (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 19321, p. 120.

In 1833 he married Sarah Ann Cole, daughter of Judge Josiah Cole. He soon moved, with his bride, to Paris, Kentucky. In 1834 he bought him a home in Paris and lived there until 1862, when his house was burned. After that until his death, in 1880, he lived with his only daughter, the wife of W. S. Giltner, Eminence, Kentucky. In Nov. 1843 Rains, along with Dr. Fishback, "Raccoon" John Smith, and President Shannon assisted A. Campbell in the Campbell/Rice Debate. For several years he published a paper called, Christian Teacher, while preaching at Paris, Kentucky. In 1846 he wrote editorials on Co-operation where he strongly objected to state meetings and organization, saying it was unfounded and without example in Scriptures. Later in the 1850’s he again greatly opposed the addition of the instrument of music into the worship assembly. In his life time he served as part-time preacher for Paris - 28 years, Winchester - 27 years, North Middletown - 26 years, and Providence - 22 years. - A man that should not be forgotten!


Here is why legalistic sectarians hate John Locke and slander him. He was born in 1632 and died in 1704: to him we owe our political and religious freedom and that is why they discredit Locke in order to discred Campbell by false teaching.

A Letter Concerning Toleration.

http://www.piney.com/LockeTol.html

"But since men are so solicitous about the true church, I would only ask them here,
        by the way, if it be not more agreeable to the Church of Christ
        to make the conditions of her communion consist in such things, and such things only,
                as the Holy Spirit has in the Holy Scriptures declared,
                in express words, to be necessary to salvation;
 
I ask, I say, whether this be not more agreeable to the Church of Christ
         than for men to impose their own inventions and interpretations upon others
        as if they were of Divine authority, and to establish by ecclesiastical laws,
        as absolutely necessary to the profession of Christianity,
        such things as the Holy Scriptures do either not mention,
        or at least not expressly command?

Whosoever requires those things in order to ecclesiastical communion,
        which Christ does not require in order to life eternal,
        he may, perhaps, indeed constitute a society
        accommodated to his own opinion and his own advantage;

    but how that can be called the Church of Christ
            which is established upon laws that are not His,
            and which excludes such persons from its communion
            as He will one day receive into the Kingdom of Heaven,
            I understand not.

Alexander called for believers to COME OUT OF BABYLON. Campbell would refuse to preach if the organ was not first silenced. If he PREACHED in a Presbyterian church that does NOT mean that he would fellowship them in the sense of the silly notion of "I'm OK, you're OK."

In His Reasonableness of Christianity, John Locke said MANY THINGS hard to be DISCERNED by C. Leonard Allen or Richard T. Hughes who we are certain has never read them:

http://www.piney.com/Lockereasonableness.html

Locke said: 238. Though the works of nature, in every part of them,
        sufficiently evidence a Deity;
        yet the world made so little use of their reason,
        that they saw him not, where, even by the impressions of himself,
        he was easy to be found.

        Because reason can grasp that Paul said:

        Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;
            for God hath shewed it unto them. Romans 1:19
            For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
                being understood by the things that are made,
                even his eternal power and Godhead;
                so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20


The Word or Logos IS reason or the "reasonable discourse of God." The writers taught that readers can read the text and understand it. The doctors of the Law whom Jesus fired say NO you cannot understand it but I can--IF THE PRICE IS RIGHT.

Paul harkens back to Mount Sinai when they rejected the Godhead by the musical idolatry of the Egyptian trinity:

Locke has a problem with the REASONING and evil of those who IMPOSE things not required almost always to promote themselves:

        Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful;
        but became vain in their imaginations, and
        their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21
        Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:22


Sense and lust blinded their minds in some,
        and a careless inadvertency in others,
        and fearful apprehensions in most

(who either believed there were, or could not but suspect there might be,
        superior unknown beings)
        gave them up into the hands of their priests
        to fill their heads with false notions of the deity,
                and their worship with foolish rites, as they pleased;
                and what dread or craft once began,
                devotion soon made sacred,
                and religion immutable. John Locke

« Last Edit: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 11:35:41 by blituri »

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #16 on: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 12:43:00 »
Ken, we weren't talking about Raines' opposition to IM. We were talking about how Campbell refused to boot him out of the Movement because of his Universalism. Why do you twist everything into a diatribe against IM? To read your posts you'd think that's all Campbell talked about, when it fact, judging from what he actually did write about it, the subject was practically a non-issue for him (though against it, the subject wasn't the big controversy it would become after his death and he couldn't envision his brethren opting for it, hence wrote little about it).

So. Do you have anything to say about Campbell's refusal to boot Raines out over his Universalism or about the methods favored by Stone and the Campbells for achieving unity?

I didn';t think so.

Pax.

Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8529
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #17 on: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 12:55:36 »
I think a problem is that the RM started out trying to do two things: unify all the Christians, restore the "Ancient Order of Things." Stone was more of a unifier and Campbell was more of a restorer. As a post-mil, Campbell thought the sooner he could get everyone into one church the sooner the Lord would return to earth. In other words, he was trying to manipulate the second coming. Stone was willing to leave many things up to the individual believers where Campbell wanted everyone to think like he did. Trying to accomplish two goals meant that we couldn't accomplish either. The DoC have taken the more liberal route and allowed in many different beliefs in the interest of unity. The CoC (my people) have taken the pharisitical approach and said "Everyone is welcome as long as they believe exactally like we do."

We won't be able to have unity until we all realize unity should be based on the scriptural stuff (JC=God, love your neighbor, love the Lord and follow his commandments) instead of the physical stuff (no IM, following 1st century worship practices, literal interpretation of scripture without allowinf for the effect of culture).
[/b]



Doctrine and Practices.  How should these reflect the "UNITY" that Jesus prayed for as the head of His body.   Is His body an accurate reflection of the Head?   What would a "Unity Movement" in obedience to His prayer look like today then?  If not in accuracy, does a pursuit of truth matter?  If not in spirit, does repentance and obedience matter?  Unity is not just a personal sense of Kumbaya while standing in front of a mirror.   Unity is .... unity between all brothers and sisters in Christ.    How would that be recognized?  Do we even reflect that unity on this Forum?

marc

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #18 on: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 14:31:52 »
I don't have a lot of time at the moment (it's fifteen minutes past the time I usually leave), but this thread was inspired by a discussion of Ephesians 4 in a class I taught last Wednesday, particularly the surprise of someon who grew up in another church at the way the Church of Christ had traditionally used this passage. 

I'll write more later.

Offline Snargles

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manna: 48
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #19 on: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 14:49:38 »
When I was in grade school I tried using Ephesians 4 on my Lutheran friends to prove them we were right and they were wrong. It didn't work. To them one body was the worldwide collection of believers that JC was the son of God who came to earth, died for our sins and after 3 days arose. The one faith was the belief that kept that one body together. One God, Father, Lord was no problems for them because for sure there is only one God. One baptism wasn't even a problem for them because just as there are many different varieties of children of God (white ones, black ones, fat ones, skinny ones) why shouldn't there be varieties of baptism. His children look different but they are still his children just as different baptisms look different but they are still baptisms.

They are still Lutherans and I am still CoC. They felt we had unity and I felt they were going to hell because they didn't do things exactally the same way we did.

Who da fool?

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #20 on: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 15:49:50 »
I don't have a lot of time at the moment (it's fifteen minutes past the time I usually leave), but this thread was inspired by a discussion of Ephesians 4 in a class I taught last Wednesday, particularly the surprise of someon who grew up in another church at the way the Church of Christ had traditionally used this passage. 

I'll write more later.

As I said above, Campbell gradually moved away from restoration as the principle means of achieving unity. By the early 1840s he was rethinking this subject.

In 1841 Campbell had a discussion through the MH with Regular Baptist Brother Andrew Broaddus on the precise nature of the atonement. Broaddus had concerns about Campbell's willingness to fellowship Barton Stone, whose view of the atonement, in Broaddus view, was too low, hence deficient. According to Broaddus, it was unconscionable that the "community of Reformers" would "give this matter the 'go by' in his terms of fellowship, and to fraternize with those whose views are subversive of this foundation." Penal, substitutionary atonement was a fundamental of the Christian faith. Broaddus could not make "common cause" with anyone who held a moral influence theory of atonement, as he believed Stone did, those "who allow no more atoning efficacy to the blood of the Son of God, than to that of Peter or Paul,--nay, I might say, than to that of 'bulls and goats' under the legal dispensation."He wanted to know how Campbell could.

Campbell responded that the atonement is the "foundation of the Christian's hope." It is, he writes, the "sub-basis of the remedial system, the corner stone of the Christian superstructure, the grand central idea of the everlasting covenant." Consequently, Broaddus' question "deserves our gravest consideration." On the basis of Ephesians 4, Campbell believed that "we must fraternize with all who practically own one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one Spirit, one hope, one God and Father of all" and "with all such we must maintain the unity of spirit in the bonds of peace." In his 1860 address to the American Christian Missionary Society, he referred to these as the seven hills of the "true Zion of Israel's God." They are the seven "divinely constructed and instituted pillars" which are "alone sufficient, and the all-sufficient foundation--the indestructible basis--of Christ's kingdom on this earth, and of man's spiritual and eternal salvation in the full enjoyment of himself, his Creator, his Redeemer."

Campbell recognized, of course, that "on these subjects there has been an interminable, international, sectarian speculative war in which all parties have incorporated the language of Ashdod." All parties of this war have entered the ranks of the Reformers, but they have entered to the end that there might be full and free discussion as they move to "a more clear and full agreement." Campbell believes that as long as one "practically" admits "but one Lord and one sacrifice for sin," and that "without Christ's blood there is no remission," then he will commune with them despite the fact that their speculations apparently deny what they affirm. Campbell accepted Stone because he saw in Stone a practical faith which affirmed the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4 even though they might disagree about how to understand the fullness of some of those particulars. In the same breath, Campbell invited Broaddus and his "Baptist Christians" to extend the right hand of fellowship to him as he had done to Stone.

Campbell envisioned a community of believers who assented to the "seven ones" of Ephesians 4, and where discussion and communion would continue "although in many points [the community] may err both in theory and practice." The Sage of Bethany called for a theological unity around the seven ones, albeit a unity that is ever progressing toward a deeper and fuller understanding of those seven fundamental beliefs. It would be a discussion that recognizeed genuine faith in everyone but where theology was in process for the community. The community would be centered in the same faith as it sought to understand that faith in the context of community.

In 1847 through the pages of the MH Campbell came out in general agreement with the propositions of the Protestant Evangelical Alliance that had recently convened in London (his son-in-law WK Pendleton represented the S-C Reformers), propositions which he said were very similar to his father Thomas' 1809 "Declaration & Address."


Pax.
« Last Edit: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 16:16:32 by Lee Freeman »

Offline Snargles

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manna: 48
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #21 on: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 16:35:12 »
Lee, where do you see the CoC end of the RM leaving the inclusive teaching of AC and going to where we are now? Would you consider the DoC as having followed AC or have they gone off the liberal deep end in their attempt to include everyone?

Offline Lee Freeman

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10368
  • Manna: 240
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #22 on: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 17:15:18 »
Lee, where do you see the CoC end of the RM leaving the inclusive teaching of AC and going to where we are now? Would you consider the DoC as having followed AC or have they gone off the liberal deep end in their attempt to include everyone?

IMO the CoC bought into a preconceived idea that Campbell was only or primarily interested in restoration for its own sake. This notion goes back to students of Campbell like Tolbert Fanning who misinterpreted or reinterpreted Campbell's goal primarily as one of restoration. Fanning's focus was more on restoring the true church and opposing the sects, whereas Campbell's was one of reform and Christian unity. For the most part, in the COC restoration prevailed and in the DOC for the most part, the emphasis on tolerance, unity and inclusiveness prevailed. Both the CoC and the Doc made their peace with the idea of being denominations as opposed to sects and went mainstream, the CoC in the 1940s, and the DoC probably a few decades earlier.

Campbell was all for being inclusive-but only as far as he saw scripture allowed. He wouldn't compromise on, say, the traditional Christian view that homosexuality is a sin, or Christian exclusivism. Unfortunately there are parts of the DOC that seem to have gone totally liberal and off the deep end in the interest of tolerance and inclusivesness. But I'm not as familiar with the DoC as I am the CoC.

Pax.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #23 on: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 20:05:14 »
I think that Campbell tolerated the notion of universalism--quick thinking of you to pick a view which is still tolerated and broad brush it.

He tolerated it then like most tolerate it today: "if you don't teach about it publically."

Campbell had no interest in restoring A new testament church: his views were consistent with all non-catholic history that the reformation to Calvin and his descendants is clearly defined as RESTORATION.

RESTORATION to Calvin, Locke and the Campbells was to REMOVE all of those divisive practices which had been imposed by the RATIONALIZATION by the CLERGY CLASS who then imposed THEIR reasoning on everyone else and hypocritically accused them of using REASONING when they quoted the Bible to them

I didn't think you would respond to my proof that sowers of discord always appeal to Locke or Hume when in reality both condemned the RATIONAL basis of the CLERGY CLASSES.  Assuredly the deliberate discord sowed by the society and instrument had NO other rationality than 'WE NEED MONEY." McGarvey's discorded told him that their institute could not exist without music.  It was only in 1878 that any creature in recorded history thought that they could RESTORE the Biblical teaching and find music commanded by the word PSALLO which is a warfare and polluting word with no musical content.

First, Campbell never thought of institutional union and the D&A identifies church as did Paul: exclude private opinions in Romans 14 and include speaking "that which is written" in Romans 15: that defined the scope of CHURCH since the Lord's Supper was a TEACHING activity and that is what they grasped could never be RESTORED because the unlawful clergy would not go along.

If you read the history of the Baptists and the "Christians" mostly in Kentucky he lost the need to restore when most of their preachers agreed with Campbell. It is silly to think that Campbell would fellowship an instrumentalists in the sense of letting them teach it.  It is said that "the Christian Church was ruined in Kentucky" which would not have happened if ANYONE ever agreed to an institutional UNION in 1932.

Campbell was all for being inclusive-but only as far as he saw scripture allowed

Me too: but Campbell would not INCLUDE the Stoneite view of baptism, the frequency of the Lord's Supper, the mourner's bench, the added ACT of the "Shouting Methodists," an ordained clergy and a "society" they used to test and INCLUDE only those who agreed with the Stoneite ordaining body.  And EXCLUDE those with whom they disagreed.  You don't know a single BROAD MINDED group who would include me when I told them:

There is no law of singing: it happened almost 400 years too late.
There is no role for preaching: it came about the same time when pagan priests were INCLUDED.
There was no Law of Giving: Jesus, Paul and all of history reading 1 Cor 15:1-2 affirmed along with many Restoration figures.
No one in history INCLUDED instruments AS worship--not even the Catholics.

When they speak of being INCLUSIVE they mean "you may attend, sit, sing and lay by in store" but you SHALL NOT teach anything with which we disagree. So, spreading hate against the Church of Christ fails to see that an institutional church of christ differs little from any other denomination as far as public LITURGY is concerned: the word REST Jesus died to give us in fact OUTLAWS LITURGY.

In fact it was the denominations which ALWAYS excluded the Campbells over things like communion and baptism.  It was the instrumental discorders who refused their old preacher McGarvey FELLOWSHIP by refusing to let him teach against the organ.

The sudden RESTORATION that the Bible should be the guide to faith and practice forced MOST dogmas to be tested and resolved.  I doubt that anyone can find that RESTORATION ONLY was the motive: Campbell thought of restoration as DESTROYING THE SECTS if everyone used the CENI which ALL recorded history and the Bible defends.  As Locke would say: it is OUR REASONING about what the Bible says or YOUR hatching up things out of your own reasoning in order to IMPOSE it on other people for MONEY.

CAMPBELL made it very clear that HE would appear to be a fool for having done all of His CALLING OUT work if he believed that the SECTS were faithful churches.  If your instrumental friends are interested in UNITY they would melt down the organs and cymbals: they were the ones who EXCLUDED the owners of their own property.









blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #24 on: Tue Dec 09, 2008 - 20:09:22 »
I would like a reference to Alexander Campbell allowing unity based on the SEVEN ONES. Please.

marc

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #25 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 10:50:50 »
To put it as simply as I know how, somewhere along the line we decided that unity is acheived by keeping people out, not welcoming people in. We've declared unity without uniformity to be a false unity and used Ephesians 4 to justify our exclusivity by seeing "one" as "the only one" instead of as a unifying concept.

Offline Johnb

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12499
  • Manna: 226
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #26 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 11:22:12 »
Marc your are on the mark.

Offline s1n4m1n

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3687
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Day's Work
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #27 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 11:29:17 »
To put it as simply as I know how, somewhere along the line we decided that unity is acheived by keeping people out, not welcoming people in. We've declared unity without uniformity to be a false unity and used Ephesians 4 to justify our exclusivity by seeing "one" as "the only one" instead of as a unifying concept.

Marc,

You were thinking of Ephesians 4:3-4, I was thinking of Ephesians 4:11-13.

ISTM that the latter verses describe how the unity of the former verses is achieved.

Even so, I don't think Paul is describing some "formula" for unity of seperate Christian groups as the unity he was talking about was between Jews and Gentiles, Ephesians 2:14-16. I think Ephesians has to be read in that light.


blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #28 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 12:06:07 »
To put it as simply as I know how, somewhere along the line we decided that unity is acheived by keeping people out, not welcoming people in. We've declared unity without uniformity to be a false unity and used Ephesians 4 to justify our exclusivity by seeing "one" as "the only one" instead of as a unifying concept.

I have lived 78 years and attended churches from corner to corner of the USA.  I would like some testimony about KEEPING PEOPLE OUT. 

You will never hear of people EXCLUDED because they believe in instrumental music: you will have them restricted from teaching roles just the way others are excluded in instrumental churches. ALMOST EVERYONE agrees that they can worship WITHOUT entertainment music. They can worship acceptable in a none-musical church. If they use "machines for doing hard work and doing mind altering" then THEY have decided to EXCLUDE anyone who knows better and will not participate.

You will never hear of people excluded for expressing their opinions in Bible Class.

You will never hear instrumental music which KEEPS PEOPLE OUT who know the Bible and church history.

You will never hear people being EXCLUDED from the Lord's Supper whatever their organization or "saved" condition.  You will never have people EXCLUDED because they are told that they must TITHE.

You WILL find baptized members of the Church of Christ excluded in most baptist churches until they have been rebaptized confessing that they were saved BY FAITH ONLY.

The SEVEN ONES in Eph 4:2-3 is not the CORE GOSPEL.  It says that we should keep the unity of the Spirit...

....In the same way that their is one body and one spirit.  Jesus Christ is the Head of the church and HE is the only Spirit or Comforter.

All members of the church should have the spirit OF SONSHIP.   That unity in John 17 is FOUNDED on the Word of God spoken by the SON and not even He had the right to go beyond what He was told by the Father within.

There is NO GROUP which would use the SEVEN ONES as the only test of FELLERSHIP!  An instrumental church or one following the heresy of a "musical worship team" standing in the "holy place" would NOT let you participate if you told them that you CANNOT be led any closer to God than the TEAM as A. Campbell would say.

ALL of them would exclude you if you told them that Theologian is an invented role for which "there is no certificate of need" or that there is NO PREACHER named in Ephesians 4. The BIBLICAL Pastor-Teachers are the elders restricted to "teach that which has been taught."  If you sew in another person on MY BODY or the BODY of Christ then Jesus defines Pharisees as hypocrites by pointing to "speakers, singers and instrument players."  That is why PARASITE is a synonym for a rhetorician or singer or instrument player.

Offline zoonance

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8529
  • Manna: 233
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #29 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 12:48:24 »
Restoring the New Testament Church was the primary motivation for the RM movement! (thus the name)  What does a non-New Testament church look like?

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #30 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 12:59:36 »
Maybe someone can find out when they called it a RESTORATION MOVEMENT.

I think it went something said from the earliest writers: "Speak were the Bible speaks and be Silent where the Bible is silent."

Certainly, John Calvin and I believe ALL that Campbells calling themselves REFORMERS intended to CUT OFF all of the witchery which had been IMPOSED to enslave people without any BIBLICAL authority. I doubt that you can find anyone wanting to restore any of the Biblical churches which are mostly "how not to do school of the Bible."

If I wanted to RESTORE a 34 ford I might begin by REMOVING the fog lights.  If you remove the law of giving, human compositions for SANGING, sermonizing, vulgar buildings and everything not required to conduct SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE it will be restored and look nothing like any first century assembly.

marc

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #31 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 14:18:25 »
To put it as simply as I know how, somewhere along the line we decided that unity is acheived by keeping people out, not welcoming people in. We've declared unity without uniformity to be a false unity and used Ephesians 4 to justify our exclusivity by seeing "one" as "the only one" instead of as a unifying concept.


Marc,

You were thinking of Ephesians 4:3-4, I was thinking of Ephesians 4:11-13.

ISTM that the latter verses describe how the unity of the former verses is achieved.

Even so, I don't think Paul is describing some "formula" for unity of seperate Christian groups as the unity he was talking about was between Jews and Gentiles, Ephesians 2:14-16. I think Ephesians has to be read in that light.



Yes, I agree.  I also think that the first couple of verses of the chapter help.  We've made these verses specific to a "problem" we see rather than look at what they were originally meant to do -- promote unity in an ethnically mixed church.
« Last Edit: Fri Dec 12, 2008 - 16:31:52 by admin »

Offline Snargles

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manna: 48
  • Gender: Male
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #32 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 14:34:03 »
Restoring the New Testament Church was the primary motivation for the RM movement! (thus the name)  What does a non-New Testament church look like?

A Jewish synagogue or a Catholic cathedral.

Offline s1n4m1n

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3687
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Day's Work
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #33 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 14:34:33 »
To put it as simply as I know how, somewhere along the line we decided that unity is acheived by keeping people out, not welcoming people in. We've declared unity without uniformity to be a false unity and used Ephesians 4 to justify our exclusivity by seeing "one" as "the only one" instead of as a unifying concept.


Marc,

You were thinking of Ephesians 4:3-4, I was thinking of Ephesians 4:11-13.

ISTM that the latter verses describe how the unity of the former verses is achieved.

Even so, I don't think Paul is describing some "formula" for unity of seperate Christian groups as the unity he was talking about was between Jews and Gentiles, Ephesians 2:14-16. I think Ephesians has to be read in that light.



Yes, I agree.  I also think that the first couple of verses of the chapter help.  We've made these verses specific to a "problem" we see rather than look at what they were originally meant to do--promote unity in an ethnically mixed church.

I'm glad you mentioned the first couple of verses because they seem to focus on the individual's heart.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The RM and Unity
« Reply #34 on: Wed Dec 10, 2008 - 14:49:33 »
The seven ones is almost always used to say that these are the ONLY THINGS we should consider in fellowship: they mean that if something is NOT included in this list it is not--in Leroy Garrett's words--not part of the gospel but the opinions of divided and divisive apostles but only for our "thinking about." However,  Ephesians specificially OUTLAWS everything but teaching the WORD: that is why God DOES NOT INCLUDE preachers, singers or instruments, or family life ministers. All of the PERFORMING roles are by Jesus and the Greek literature defined as the Hypocritic Arts and Crafts.

In John 17 UNITY was based on the fact that the SON spoke only what was revealed to Him from the Father whom He said was within.  If we are SUBJECT to the Son then we will speak what He delivered face-to-face and prserved by inspiration and leaving us an "example" which is defined as a written record.

Men like Paul and Peter considered themselves as having DELIVERED that word as their memory of their face to face revelation from the Son.  In Ephesians 4 Paul confirmed what Peter warned about

TRUTH HAD BEEN DELIVERED
This would MARK as a false teacher those who did not "sing that which is written" (using sing in error)
and the elders who refused to "teach that which HAS been taught."

Paul identifies the UNITY of the spirit--the MINDS of the body--which must for all times be based on the UNITY established by God in Jesus Christ. 

Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.

When the hole in the donut if filled there isn't any room for us to FILL up the SILENCES.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Pastor-teacher is a hyphenated word: the Elders are to Feed by Teaching "that which is written." There are no Worship Teams (a blasphemy word) or GuitarIST which is a synonym for PARASITE  which defined the loud NOISE makers (never called music) to "make the lambs dumb before the slaughter priest." He is called a HERETIC because he "Lifted up the lambs to CUT THEIR THROATS" intending to eat the meat himself.

Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Because the saints are STUDENTS, there is no task for anyone who does not train the members of the church.
The Word EDIFY means EDUCATE: Romans 15 says you speak "that which is written" using one MIND and one MOUTH to educate.

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in
       A. the unity of the faith, and of
       B. the knowledge of the Son of God,
       C. unto a perfect MAN,
       D. unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ
:

    Stature: 2244. helikia, hay-lik-ee´-ah; from the same as 2245; maturity (in years or size):  age, stature. [Comrad, not playmate]

Revelation came in PARTS. When the PERFECTED revelation camen then the IN PART revelation would cease. That means YOUR Apostle or Prophet is a change agent from hell.

THE SEVEN ONES which specificially PERMITS AND ADDS numbers 8 through 100 out of their OWN imagination which God says is evil continually.

If they had read a bit further they would understand that Paul ALWAYS outlaws the 93 DIVERSITY.
Why is the church to be EDUCATED according to that which is written. WHY are they to be a school of the Bible--only?

Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro,
        and carried about with every wind of doctrine,
        by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness
        whereby they lie in wait to deceive;


Craft in Revelation 18 or Techne includes "speakers, singers and instrument players" which John and all evidence charge with being SORCERERS: Sorcerers burn.

Panourgia (g3834) pan-oorg-ee'-ah; from 3835; adroitness, i.e. (in a bad sense) trickery or sophistry: - (cunning) craftiness, subtilty.

3835.  panougos, pan-oor´-gos; from 3956 and 2041; all-working [ergon], i.e. adroit (shrewd):  crafty.

A musical instrument is a machine for doing hard WORK from ERGON. This was always to MAKE WAR or to induce the arousal in religious ritualism.

Organon , to, ( [ergon, erdô]  3.a hard piece of work, a hard task, Il.: also, a shocking deed or act,
3. musical instrument


Before giving a non-authorized pastor the right to impose what he knows destroys the unity but makes more money, it would be "scholarly" to see how Paul's words are used in his language.

Aristotle Politics 1341b and all the instruments that require manual skill. And indeed there is a reasonable foundation for the story that was told by the ancients about the flute. The tale goes that Athena found a flute and threw it away. Now it is not a bad point in the story that the goddess did this out of annoyance because of the ugly distortion of her features; but as a matter of fact it is more likely that it was because education in flute-playing has no effect on the intelligence, whereas we attribute science and art to Athena...And since we reject professional education in the instruments and in performance  (and we count performance in competitions as professional,  for the performer does not take part in it  for his own improvement, but for his hearers'  pleasure, and that a vulgar pleasure, owing  to which we do not consider performing to be proper for free men, but somewhat menial; and indeed performers do become vulgar, 

This is what Paul outlawed to be replaced with "speaking that which is written."

Panourg-êma  A. knavish trick, villainy,   sophistry, Gal.5.251; cf. panourgeuma.

Sophis-tikos  Artistic or poetic, This includes the techne or craftsmen who perform as sorcerers in Rev 18.

Techn-ê , A.art, skill, cunning of hand, soothsayer, to learn a thing professionally, hence title of various treatises on Rhetoric (v. VI; but rather tricks of Rhetoric, OF the rhapsoidikos, poetlc

    Clement Against Heresies
    To me, therefore, that Thracian Orpheus, that Theban, and that Methymnaean,-men, and yet unworthy of the name,-seem to have been deceivers,  who, under the pretence of poetry corrupting human life, possessed by a spirit of artful sorcery for purposes of destruction, celebrating crimes in their orgies, and making human woes the materials of religious worship, were the first to entice men to idols;
            nay, to build up the stupidity of the nations with blocks of wood and stone,-
                  that is, statues and images,-
            subjecting to the yoke of extremest bondage the truly noble freedom
                 of those who lived as free citizens under heaven
                 by their songs and incantations. Technites

Both in Hebrew and Greek a BURDEN is a song which creaths spiritual anxiedy (laded burden) or the self-pleasure in Romans 15 which is a reproach (exposing one's pudenda)

But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: Eph 4:15

From whom
     the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,
     according to the effectual working in the measure of every part,
     maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. Eph 4:16

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Eph 4:17

Having the understanding darkened,
       being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them,
       because of the blindness of their heart: Eph 4:18

Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. Eph 4:19

But ye have not so learned Christ; Eph 4:20
But that isn't the way Christ taught you! Eph 4:20

If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: Eph 4:21


HOW WE DO CHURCH without a human HEAD.

Eph. 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man,
        which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
Eph. 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
Eph. 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Eph. 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying,
        speak every man truth with his neighbour:
        for we are members one of another

More spiritual discord and damage has been created by falsely quoting parts of this chapter than just about any passage.  The UNITY in DIVERSITY in Corinth is just the opposite: they were diverse but NOT united.

ALL groups are divided and divisive: that is why Paul outlawed doubtful disputations in Romans 14. These are anything which arise out of the human imagination.  In Romans 15 he defined the Synagogue and included only using ONE mind and one mouth to teach "that which is written." Even the Lord's Supper he defines as a teaching activity with no magic power.