The restorationist movement

[HTacianas]

Are there any restorationist groups who actually follow the new testament?

By "restorationist" I mean any or all of those groups claiming that the Church somehow went astray and it is up to them to "set things straight".

To follow the new testament one must:

1. Practice water baptism for the remission of previous sins
2. Gather on the first day of the week
3. Sing the liturgy
4. Read from the bible (actually only read from the old testament)
5. Participate in the eucharist as the body and blood of Christ and a sacrificial sacrament

There are a few others, such as having apostles, teachers, etc. This only hits on a few of the high points.

 

[Albion]

Maybe we need a few specific examples of churches that you have in mind.

 

[tampasteve]

There are some Messianic congregations that would fulfill the list you have, though their liturgy will look more Jewish than a Orthodox or Catholic sung liturgy might look. Most Messianic congregations do not have the "Eucharist as a sacrifice" (although some do), but many (most?) celebrate it with prayers, wine and bread as most Jewish congregations do on a Friday night service, but from a believer in Yeshua perspective.

 

[dzheremi]

Soooo...that's a no.

Obviously not. Restorationism itself is inherently anti-NT, anti-Christianity, and anti-Christ.

What kind of believer in Christ takes a U-turn at "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"? These people (whether Mormon, Iglesia Ni Cristo, JW, etc.) are incapable of actually following the NT, even if they check off each one of the points you bring up, with their own understanding of them that somehow excuses or justifies their restorationism.

 

[Dale]

Are there any restorationist groups who actually follow the new testament?

By "restorationist" I mean any or all of those groups claiming that the Church somehow went astray and it is up to them to "set things straight".

To follow the new testament one must:

1. Practice water baptism for the remission of previous sins
2. Gather on the first day of the week
3. Sing the liturgy
4. Read from the bible (actually only read from the old testament)
5. Participate in the eucharist as the body and blood of Christ and a sacrificial sacrament

There are a few others, such as having apostles, teachers, etc. This only hits on a few of the high points.

You seem to be saying that to follow the New Testament a church must read only from the Old Testament. Huh? That's contradictory.

 

[HTacianas]

You seem to be saying that to follow the New Testament a church must read only from the Old Testament. Huh? That's contradictory.

There was no new testament in the early Church. They only had the books of the old testament.

 

[HTacianas]

Maybe we need a few specific examples of churches that you have in mind.

I don't want to seem to be knocking anyone in particular, but merely by way of example, the Seventh Day Adventist movement. One of Ellen White's stated goals was to restore the church to its original form.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Are there any restorationist groups who actually follow the new testament?

By "restorationist" I mean any or all of those groups claiming that the Church somehow went astray and it is up to them to "set things straight".

To follow the new testament one must:

1. Practice water baptism for the remission of previous sins
2. Gather on the first day of the week
3. Sing the liturgy
4. Read from the bible (actually only read from the old testament)
5. Participate in the eucharist as the body and blood of Christ and a sacrificial sacrament

There are a few others, such as having apostles, teachers, etc. This only hits on a few of the high points.

I struggle with the entire "restorationist" concept, myself. The limitations the Church faced in the early centuries were products of their time. Willingly going back to them seems counter-intuitive.

 

[com7fy8]

Are there any restorationist groups who actually follow the new testament?

4. Read from the bible (actually only read from the old testament)

I understand that Paul wrote Canon Scripture, and directed that his writings, of the New Testament, be read by the churches.

 

[com7fy8]

Are there any restorationist groups who actually follow the new testament?

3. Sing the liturgy

I would say there are restorationist people who have not found any New Testament scripture which shows the early church sang a liturgy.

 

[com7fy8]

Are there any restorationist groups who actually follow the new testament?

I think there are groups who claim to do what we see the early church doing, in the book of Acts.

But they might not believe that baptism is "for" getting the remission of sins. Instead, they might understand that baptism is "for" celebrating and acknowledging the remission of sins, which they have already gained.

And ones might seek to have all things common, and other things.

Even so > I understand that at first the Christians all were new Christians, just starting in the Holy Spirit; and so the early church was not mature. So, things they did, at first, could have been limited to their level of maturity. And so, I offer we do well to grow in Jesus and His love's creativity and not only try to copy-cat what we suppose other people are doing or have done.

 

[HTacianas]

I understand that Paul wrote Canon Scripture, and directed that his writings, of the New Testament, be read by the churches.

At the time Paul wrote, his letters were not considered scripture. But if we use the consensus dating of I Thessalonians as 50 or so AD, with Christianity having been founded circa 33 AD, that leaves some twenty years of Church history without any letters of Paul, but all the while reading scripture. The gospels are actually much later. The letter to the Thessalonians went, of course, to Thessaloniki. There were many other Churches that never read that letter and an untold number of Christians who lived and died never hearing of Paul, much less reading his letters.

That leaves us with Churches with no knowledge of Paul and no gospels, but with weekly scripture readings.

 

[FenderTL5]

Are there any restorationist groups who actually follow the new testament?

By "restorationist" I mean any or all of those groups claiming that the Church somehow went astray and it is up to them to "set things straight".

To follow the new testament one must:

1. Practice water baptism for the remission of previous sins
2. Gather on the first day of the week
3. Sing the liturgy
4. Read from the bible (actually only read from the old testament)
5. Participate in the eucharist as the body and blood of Christ and a sacrificial sacrament

There are a few others, such as having apostles, teachers, etc. This only hits on a few of the high points.

When I was in high school (decades ago), I once dated a young lady who was part of a Restoration Movement Church, one of the Stone-Campbell, Church of Christ gatherings.

They would have practiced 1 & 2. As for 5, they took 'The Lord's Supper' in a very protestant fashion, not as a sacrament but as a remembrance and without the prayers by the clergy nor any by the laity. Basically, everyone just came forward and received.

They definitely read/preached from both Old and New Testaments. Singing was traditional protestant hymns that could have been in any Baptist Church, but without instrumentation.

 

[HTacianas]

I would say there are restorationist people who have not found any New Testament scripture which shows the early church sang a liturgy.

One of the reasons I doubt the restorationist movement is that they have no idea what the early Church was doing. Paul said:

2Th 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The liturgy was one of those traditions. Pliny wrote to Trajan circa 112 AD, asking for advice on how to deal with Christians. Pliny's description of Christians read:

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god..."

The liturgy is sung "responsively". That places the liturgy, according to an outside source, as early as 112 AD.

 

[HTacianas]

When I was in high school (decades ago), I once dated a young lady who was part of a Restoration Movement Church, one of the Stone-Campbell, Church of Christ gatherings.

They would have practiced 1 & 2. As for 5, they took 'The Lord's Supper' in a very protestant fashion, not as a sacrament but as a remembrance and without the prayers by the clergy nor any by the laity. Basically, everyone just came forward and received.

They definitely read/preached from both Old and New Testaments. Singing was traditional protestant hymns that could have been in any Baptist Church, but without instrumentation.

That would rule them out entirely. The cup specifically was blessed in the original Churches:

1Co 10:16 - The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?

Notice that Paul does not say "start blessing a cup", but "the cup...we bless". The blessing of the cup had already been established long before he wrote the first letter.

 

[FenderTL5]

One of the reasons I doubt the restorationist movement is that they have no idea what the early Church was doing. Paul said:

2Th 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The liturgy was one of those traditions. Pliny wrote to Trajan circa 112 AD, asking for advice on how to deal with Christians. Pliny's description of Christians read:

"They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god..."

The liturgy is sung "responsively". That places the liturgy, according to an outside source, as early as 112 AD.

How old is the liturgy of St James?
It seems, iirc, that it is originally attributed to St James the Just but there is acknowledgement that it has been updated through the years.

 

[FenderTL5]

That would rule them out entirely. The cup specifically was blessed in the original Churches:

1Co 10:16 - The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?

Notice that Paul does not say "start blessing a cup", but "the cup...we bless". The blessing of the cup had already been established long before he wrote the first letter.

Agree.
The primary point in that gathering was 'the preached word,' not the Lord's Supper. Although they did have the Lord's Supper every Sunday.

 

[com7fy8]

that leaves some twenty years of Church history without any letters of Paul, but all the while reading scripture.

But right in the Book of Acts we have a quote from that letter which the Jerusalem church sent out, don't we? Acts 15

Also > Colossians 4:16 > Paul mentions letters which were to be shared.

So, from this I can see how there could have been other sharing, though it is not recorded in detail.

an untold number of Christians who lived and died never hearing of Paul, much less reading his letters.

Well, ones in Romans knew of Paul and even had developed in faith before meeting him, Paul himself says in Romans 1:8-12. So, ones had faith, but they did know of him.

And Paul says the Thessalonians themselves were "examples" (1 Thessalonians 1:7) to people they reached. So, yes ones Paul reached were reaching others. So, from this I can see that ones reaching could have told people about Paul.

So, I am curious who you mean, by saying Christians did not know of Paul, since he got the ministry to Gentiles started.

 

[tampasteve]

That would rule them out entirely. The cup specifically was blessed in the original Churches:

1Co 10:16 - The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?

Notice that Paul does not say "start blessing a cup", but "the cup...we bless". The blessing of the cup had already been established long before he wrote the first letter.

FWIW, it can be argued that the blessing being spoken of is the traditional Jewish kiddush and the "Communion" simply means participation in the community (the Body of Christ), as some translations render it. While I do believe it refers to the Eucharist as practiced, the argument can be made and to throw it out is to apply an anachronism to the text.

 

[dzheremi]

How old is the liturgy of St James?
It seems, iirc, that it is originally attributed to St James the Just but there is acknowledgement that it has been updated through the years.

The same is true of all liturgies, though. Wikipedia says fourth century, as it seems to be developed from an ancient Egyptian form of the "Basilian anaphoric family" (which I would assume includes the Egyptian anaphora of St. Basil itself, which is from the fourth century, and is attested in manuscript form from the 6th century onward), united with the anaphora described in the catechetical lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who likewise lived in the fourth century.