Restoration Movement?

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

What is the Restoration Movement, who is part of it, etc?

[davidshane]

My I've-heard-this-but-haven't-done-any-research-so-feel-free-to-correct-me-if-you-like says that the Restoration Movement was a movement toward Christian unity that sprang up in America in the 1800's. Out of that movement came the Church of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and the so-called Independent Christian Church, which isn't a denomination, but what a lot of churches that came out of this movement and aren't affiliated with anyone call themselves. They do support a few Bible college with each other, I believe. The Independent Christian Church broke with the Disciples of Christ when the latter decided to become an actual denomination. The campus fellowship I attend services with actually has its board of directors from the Independent Christian Church. I suppose the oddest thing about it is its belief that baptism is necessary for salvation. (Although since it isn't a denomination, it's kind of hard to say "it" believes anything, of course.)

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Ok, so it's basically a denomination?

[davidshane]

Ok, so it's basically a denomination? No, it was a movement that resulted in two new denominations -- well, at least one, I'm not sure what exactly is up with the Church of Christ -- and a whole bunch of independent churches that are very much opposed to ever being considered part of a denomination.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

So what is the purpose of the movement?

[davidshane]

I believe, ironically enough, that it was a movement to restore Christian unity. That's why the groups that formed from it have what sound like very universal names -- "Christian Church" "Church of Christ".

[davidshane]

What's a Homines id quod volvnt credvnt, by the way?

[WesWoodell]

Ok, so it's basically a denomination?

No - it is not a denomination.

[PaladinGirl]

My I've-heard-this-but-haven't-done-any-research-so-feel-free-to-correct-me-if-you-like says that the Restoration Movement was a movement toward Christian unity that sprang up in America in the 1800's. Out of that movement came the Church of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and the so-called Independent Christian Church, which isn't a denomination, but what a lot of churches that came out of this movement and aren't affiliated with anyone call themselves. They do support a few Bible college with each other, I believe. The Independent Christian Church broke with the Disciples of Christ when the latter decided to become an actual denomination. The campus fellowship I attend services with actually has its board of directors from the Independent Christian Church. I suppose the oddest thing about it is its belief that baptism is necessary for salvation. (Although since it isn't a denomination, it's kind of hard to say "it" believes anything, of course.)
That's the problem I had with a ministry at a local college called Christian Campus Fellowship. I was going to go this college but couldn't do to financial aid issues. I was reading up on this ministry's beliefs and it seemed to state that baptism was required for salvation. I tried to contact them about it but wasn't able to. I refuse to join a group that says any kind of works are required for salvation.

[davidshane]

That's the problem I had with a ministry at a local college called Christian Campus Fellowship. I was going to go this college but couldn't do to financial aid issues. I was reading up on this ministry's beliefs and it seemed to state that baptism was required for salvation. I tried to contact them about it but wasn't able to. I refuse to join a group that says any kind of works are required for salvation. Yea. All our statement of faith says is that baptism, among other things, is part of man's proper response to the gospel - not that it's required for salvation, although at least one of our pastor's believes that that is true in most cases. I don't think anyone would disagree that it is a "proper response."

[Stinker]

Yea. All our statement of faith says is that baptism, among other things, is part of man's proper response to the gospel - not that it's required for salvation, although at least one of our pastor's believes that that is true in most cases. I don't think anyone would disagree that it is a "proper response."

Davidshane: Baptism not required for salvation?? Is your congregation not active in the restoration movement?

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I believe, ironically enough, that it was a movement to restore Christian unity. That's why the groups that formed from it have what sound like very universal names -- "Christian Church" "Church of Christ".Ok, well the Orthodox Church has been pushing for unity from Pentecost :) If you need any help, let us know! And, Homines id quod volvnt credvnt means "Men believe what they want to"

[icebreaker]

http://www.thecra.org/restmovement.html

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

http://www.thecra.org/restmovement.html
Some questions about that. Do they use the teachings of the apostles and early fathers, and do they have apostolic succession?

[icebreaker]

Some questions about that. Do they use the teachings of the apostles and early fathers, and do they have apostolic succession?
Not really sure what you mean by teachings of the apostles (New Testament teachings?) and early fathers (old testament teachings?) and I dont really know what apostolic succession is. Please explain.

Thanks
Franklin

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Not really sure what you mean by teachings of the apostles (New Testament teachings?) and early fathers (old testament teachings?) and I dont really know what apostolic succession is. Please explain.

Thanks
Franklin
Works of the apostles not recorded in the Bible actually. And, Early Church Fathers, as in NT-450AD or so. Apostolic succession is the continuing line of laying of hands passed from the apostles, to the ECFs, to modern day. Most Protestants don't have it.

[icebreaker]

Thanks for clearing that up. The movement does not use anything outside the bible. The movement has broken into divisions and some seem to fall away from the original idea of the movement. So there could be some parts of the movement that would use the other works of Apostles but as far as I know they dont. The movement does not use Apostolic succession and I believe that is a catholic tradition but other denominations may use it.

[icebreaker]

The following is the webpage that my college links to give information about the movement.
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/

For a class I just had to read The Fool of God By Louis Cochran
I found the book to be great at explaining the restoration movements original ideas in laymens terms. The book is on the Life of Alexander Campbell It goes over his life in Europe and his trip to America and his life here. Campbell had a very eventful life and I recommend it for reading.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Thanks for clearing that up. The movement does not use anything outside the bible. The movement has broken into divisions and some seem to fall away from the original idea of the movement. So there could be some parts of the movement that would use the other works of Apostles but as far as I know they dont. The movement does not use Apostolic succession and I believe that is a catholic tradition but other denominations may use it.
Apostolic Succession is not just a Catholic thing, but they do have it.

So, I guess my question is, how does the RM hope to be like the early church using only the Bible? The Bible in its present day form was not even around then, and works by the Early Church Fathers were regarded with great authority.

[icebreaker]

Apostolic Succession is not just a Catholic thing, but they do have it.

So, I guess my question is, how does the RM hope to be like the early church using only the Bible? The Bible in its present day form was not even around then, and works by the Early Church Fathers were regarded with great authority.
ya I really dont know much about Apostolic Succession I just searched for it on google and it came up on a Catholic webpage.

The teachings and letters were around during the time of the early church even though they were not officially canonized until hmm I dont know this I wanna say 300ishAD but you might know.

The idea behind the RM is lets get rid of human creeds, traditions, and denominations and lets just do what the bible says instead of what man says to do.

I know nothing of the Early Church Fathers or what they wrote but since they were not added to the bible I question their authority. I will have to look into the cananization and how the books were selected.

[WesWoodell]

No - we do not believe there is a need to lift up those who directly descended from the apostles higher than anyone else.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

The idea behind the RM is lets get rid of human creeds, traditions, and denominations and lets just do what the bible says instead of what man says to do.

I know nothing of the Early Church Fathers or what they wrote but since they were not added to the bible I question their authority. I will have to look into the cananization and how the books were selected.
How can one distinguish human creeds and tradition from Church creeds and Tradition?

Paul was technically an Early Church Father as well. But anyways, the Bible was canonized much the same way a lot of the Ecumenical Councils were held. Both were agreed upon by the Church and both were from God.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

No - we do not believe there is a need to lift up those who directly descended from the apostles higher than anyone else.
They are not lifted up higher than others, they simply have the gifts needed for their duty.

[WesWoodell]

Actually the Bible speaks about geneologies being meaningless in the NT - and I believe what the Bible says.

[Freedom&Light]

Hi there! I grew up in a Church of Christ, and went to a CofC college, and want to clarify some things. :) Most of my writing is pretty much tied to the CofC, but the Christian Churches and the DofC often teach similar things.

To clarify some earlier things:

No, Churches of Christ are autonomous churches, not a denomination, which means they have no formal, governing body outside of each individual church. But, most of them worship and teach the same things, so it's pretty easy to confuse them with a denomination. ;)

Baptism- a lot of churches teach that baptism is a key part of forgiveness of sins (Catholics, Anglicans, Church of Christ, to name a few). There has been a long scholarly debate about this idea, but what's important to understand is that baptism is not seen as a "work" the way that Paul meant works to be. Baptism in a Church of Christ is the literal washing away of sins through Christ's blood- you become dead to yourself as you go into the water and rise up a new person, whole and blameless in Christ. If you don't have faith in Christ, it's only a bath. It's an act of faith, not of works.

Apostolic succession, early church fathers, and acts of the apostles- Churches of Christ, having no formal head other than Christ and not being a denomination, has no apostolic succession, and will not claim any. It is not necessary. Though, if they did, they would try to trace it to Paul. ;) Hee- just a joke.

Early church fathers- *Most* will recoginze the importance of early church fathers and their contributions. The Churches of Christ does not place as high importance on their writings as the Bible, but I know that they are studied. :)

Works of the apostles- Even I haven't really some across this one too much in my cross-denominational studies. Are you referring to healings and things that are part of Tradition?

It's actually pretty easy to set up a church based on the Bible. :) LOL. Paul especially outlines a *lot* in his letters. However, if you are looking at it from a more RC/EO viewpoint, I could see how it would seem lacking. :)

I'm glad to see this section!! While I'm not currently attending a RM church, I still agree with a lot of their teachings and interpretations of this Bible.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Actually the Bible speaks about geneologies being meaningless in the NT - and I believe what the Bible says.
In once sense. However the Gospels used them, so it cannot be all inclusive.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

It's actually pretty easy to set up a church based on the Bible. :) LOL. Paul especially outlines a *lot* in his letters. However, if you are looking at it from a more RC/EO viewpoint, I could see how it would seem lacking. :)
Quite so. I am sure it is easy to create a church based on the Bible alone. But the epistles were written in response to heresies, not meant to be used as all inclusive guidelines. Im just unsure of how the RM is creating the original Church, when all of these others things were present, and the Bible was not, when they are using just the Bible. I do not understand.

[icebreaker]

this may not answer your question but I saw a great quote under someones name here on the forums forgot his or her name

"Less religion more Jesus"

[ischus]

another helpful site:

http://www.newantiochcoc.org/restoration_movement_in_america.htm

(what's up, Bizzle?) :)

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

another helpful site:

http://www.newantiochcoc.org/restoration_movement_in_america.htm

(what's up, Bizzle?) :)
Hey ischus :wave: Haven't seen you in a LONG time. How are ya?

Anyways, why does the RM try to create a new body, when in fact the body already exists? (The gates of Hades will never overcome it, etc) Why do they not join with the existing Church and help from within?

[ischus]

Well, at the time, they didn't think they were creating a new body. They thought they were calling the body back to being a more biblical body. They tried to be an example of what they saw as the "New Testament Church." But not many people followed their lead, and so in effect they became just another group.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Well, at the time, they didn't think they were creating a new body. They thought they were calling the body back to being a more biblical body. They tried to be an example of what they saw as the "New Testament Church." But not many people followed their lead, and so in effect they became just another group.
Well, now that they know the Church is still around, why do they not join it?

[ischus]

Well, now that they know the Church is still around, why do they not join it?
lol, why doesn't every denom do that?! While I agree with you, it just isn't going to happen. Sometimes our idealism is biblical, but often unrealistic. We work with what we have, and in this case the Restoration movement churches (while they are making efforts of reconciliation among themselves) are not going to be 'joining' with any protestant groups any time soon.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I'm talking about joining the Church, not some other congregation.

[ischus]

Oh...I see what you mean. I didn't notice that you are Orthodox now. But like I said, that is (unfortunately) not realistic because of theological differences.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Oh...I see what you mean. I didn't notice that you are Orthodox now. But like I said, that is (unfortunately) not realistic because of theological differences.
Theological differences between the First Century Church and Orthodoxy or between the RM and both of them?

[ischus]

Differences between all 3. I think it is foolish for anyone to say that they are the 1st Century church. By 'theological' differences I mainly refer to differences in Worship, but certainly there will be other doctrinal issues as well (although I am not that familiar with Orthodoxy).

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Differences between all 3. I think it is foolish for anyone to say that they are the 1st Century church. By 'theological' differences I mainly refer to differences in Worship, but certainly there will be other doctrinal issues as well (although I am not that familiar with Orthodoxy).
Well I do encourage you to look into Orthodoxy. I did, and look at my icon :)

Anyways, if you do find ANY doctrinal differences between the First Century Church and the Orthodox Church, let me know. Don't forget to stop by Emma's sometime :wave:

[ischus]

I am not the authority on Biblical doctrine or interpretation, so I am not going to point out my differences with Orthodoxy. But actually I line up rather well with a lot of Orthodox theology.

Good to see you again, brother. :)

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I am not the authority on Biblical doctrine or interpretation, so I am not going to point out my differences with Orthodoxy. But actually I line up rather well with a lot of Orthodox theology.

Good to see you again, brother. :)
Well if you see anything you are confused on, or that doesn't line up, let me know. I'm still learning a lot too :)

Come over to Emma's too! :wave:

[WesWoodell]

Well, now that they know the Church is still around, why do they not join it?

Please do not be offended, but we consider many parts of the doctrine of the "Catholic" or "Orthodox" Church to be heretical, however if you would like to discuss that please start another thread. :)

[Freedom&Light]

Quite so. I am sure it is easy to create a church based on the Bible alone. But the epistles were written in response to heresies, not meant to be used as all inclusive guidelines. Im just unsure of how the RM is creating the original Church, when all of these others things were present, and the Bible was not, when they are using just the Bible. I do not understand.

It's all about how you look at things. Remember, the RM was a movement to unite Christians, and in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, there was so much dumb stuff going around from all angles that the Campbells moved to follow only the guideline which we *know* to come from God. You're absolutely right that Paul was writing to correct heresies, but he was also giving a template for how things should be. And this template was evident in many of his epistles to different churches.

Basically, the heart of the RM was to restore what was there in the first century. Since the only thing we really have are letters and things from the first century (namely in the Bible), that's what we have to look at to see how the model church should be.

Now, I know that amazingly EO and RM actually are closer than most think. But there's a lot there that RM Christians would have a hard time embracing.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Now, I know that amazingly EO and RM actually are closer than most think. But there's a lot there that RM Christians would have a hard time embracing.
The more RM grows, the closer they will come to EO. I hope they will come into communion with us soon :amen:

[Suffolk Sean]

Please do not be offended, but we consider many parts of the doctrine of the "Catholic" or "Orthodox" Church to be heretical, however if you would like to discuss that please start another thread. :)
Boy you had me until this post.....

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Boy you had me until this post.....
Considering Orthodoxy is "in charge" of defining what heretical means, it lost me as well.

[WesWoodell]

Boy you had me until this post.....

Sorry if I'm confused, but I always thought the Catholic Church was the same as the Orthodox Church.

I guess I don't know too much about it ...

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Sorry if I'm confused, but I always thought the Catholic Church was the same as the Orthodox Church.

I guess I don't know too much about it ...
That's ok :)

Anyways, in 1054 the Catholics and Orthodox split. This is known as the Great Schism. The Catholics supported Papal power/infalliability, the filioque, and purgatory, among other things. We Orthodox do not.

[WesWoodell]

What is filioque?

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Look at the Nicene Creed. You will see [and the Son]. This is the filioque (and the Son, in Latin). It was a heretical addition to the Nicene Creed according to Orthodoxy

[Suffolk Sean]

Wes,

Is RM associated with Cincinatti Bible College?

[WesWoodell]

I don't believe so Sean, but I'm not positive. I haven't heard of it myself. Someone else here may know for sure.

[Nazarite]

Yes the Cincinnati Bible College, a division of the Cincinnati Christian University, www.cincybible.edu (http://www.cincybible.edu) is affiliated with the Independent Christian Churches. In fact a friend of mine, Jimmy Allen, who is a well known preacher spoke there just a few years back.

[WesWoodell]

Ahhh ok. I hadn't heard of it before now.

I know Jimmy Allen. He's a freind of my father.

[ischus]

Jimmy Allen just spoke at the Harding University Lectureships this year. He also has just released his autobiography, Fire in my Bones. If you want a good look at the classic CoC doctrine and mentality, check out his book. :) (Plus he is a real great guy with a wonderful story...almost legendary status in CoC history.)

[WesWoodell]

I have it and have read most of it. Ischus where do you live? The river in your picture looks like the Little Red.

[Nazarite]

I learned to fly fish on the Little Red River when I was a youth minister in Cabot, AR. I went to grad school at HU.

[ischus]

Wes: I live in Dallas right now....that river is the Big Blue river in Nebraska (although it should be called the Big Brown, IMO). ;) I went to York College, in York, NE. That was a little canoe trip that I went on with a couple friends...it was pretty cool roughin' it for a week in God's wilderness, with him providing for us the whole time.

Nazarite: My fiance is graduating from Harding School of Nursing on Dec.18. :)

[WesWoodell]

Well I won't hold that against you ... as long as you're not a Cornhusker fan anyway :P

[ischus]

lol, I did get into them a little bit, but I am not a hardcore fan...so I guess we can still be friends! ;)

[gtsecc]

I think you RM folks are on to something...
Would you be willing to add an Iconostasis and some damascus rose inscense?

[WesWoodell]

lol huh?

[Nazarite]

Nazarite: My fiance is graduating from Harding School of Nursing on Dec.18. :)


My beloved graduated from Nursing school at Harding in May 93. Its a good program. I remember having to be a guinea pig for her when she first began her clinicals. She drew blood from me for one of her tests. She's been drawing blood ever since ^_^ but I love it. I really married up the food chain to a great lady.

[WesWoodell]

My sister graduated from the Harding School of Nursing.

[getreal52]

The RM is about having a "Pattern" or a "Seed" or a "Map" if you will. By following the principals one is able to produce the same thing today that was produced in the first Century...Christians. That's what the founding Farthers were trying to do. Everyone before them had tried to "Reform" that which they felt had been corrupted (The Catholic Church) But Cambell and Stone felt that it was not possible to "Reform" that which was corrupt. So they decided to "Forget the Corruption" and start over. And they called themselves "Christians" and "Christians Only".

They said things like "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is Silent". If you really go back and read what they did you come away with a way to cut through the "man made stuff" and get back to the Bible.

Now about Baptism. I read where one of you called it a work. Peter said; "This water symbolizes Baptism that now saves you also."

If you look at it as a "Work". You are going to have a very hard time with it. But Obedience to God is NEVER "Work". And Baptism is "Obedience".

It's best explained in Rom 6:3-8

Here's what I find there: Baptism is our participation in the Death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And it clearly shows that; IF we have been united with him in Baptism, then we will be raised with Him. And the opposite is also true.

Baptism is a part of God's plan, God's Will. Not Man's. To fight it is to find yourself fighting with God.

I suggest reading Acts 2:38, Rom 6:3-8, Acts 22:16, 1 Pet 3:21, Acts 10:48, Mark 16:16, Gal 3:26-27, Eph 4:4 and John 3:3-5

Read them looking to see if this Baptism is God's idea or Man's idea.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

The RM is about having a "Pattern" or a "Seed" or a "Map" if you will. By following the principals one is able to produce the same thing today that was produced in the first Century...Christians. That's what the founding Farthers were trying to do.
Much like Orthodoxy. The RM is closer than most to Orthodoxy. Maybe we will share communion one day :)

[gtsecc]

The early church was liturgical and sacramental.
The RM movement tends to anti-catholic, and Liturgy and Sacraments seem Catholic to RM folks.
I don't see how any way around this.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

The early church was liturgical and sacramental.
The RM movement tends to anti-catholic, and Liturgy and Sacraments seem Catholic to RM folks.
I don't see how any way around this.
The more they know about Orthodoxy, however, the more they will see that liturgy and sacraments are not just a RCC thing. That's why we live for so long, we have to do a lot of learning and a lot of seeking :)

[Tetzel]

Ok, well the Orthodox Church has been pushing for unity from Pentecost
That's not what some Roman Catholics told me.

[ischus]

Maybe we will share communion one day :)How about today? :wave:

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

That's not what some Roman Catholics told me.
They were actually part of our Church at one time. Look at a lot of the early works and the Councils. You will see what happened.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

How about today? :wave:
Not unless you are Orthodox :P

[Tetzel]

They were actually part of our Church at one time. Look at a lot of the early works and the Councils. You will see what happened.
Personally I agree with you. It is a lot easier for me to see the papacy as patriarchs of the Western Church who started asserting claims to more and more authority than it is for me to imagine that a confederation of Patriarchates banded together to gain independence from Peter's succesors.

[ischus]

Not unless you are Orthodox :P
so communion is based upon theological and doctrinal criteria?

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

so communion is based upon theological and doctrinal criteria?Communion is the very body and blood of Christ. Sharing it with outsiders is forbidden. In the older days, pagans, and even catechumens, couldn't be in the main area of a church when it was taking place. Cast not pearls unto swine.

Also, communion is not a means to unify, but a symbol of unity. One cannot give communion to another who does not share the same basic truths.

[Jim Woodell]

That's the problem I had with a ministry at a local college called Christian Campus Fellowship. I was going to go this college but couldn't do to financial aid issues. I was reading up on this ministry's beliefs and it seemed to state that baptism was required for salvation. I tried to contact them about it but wasn't able to. I refuse to join a group that says any kind of works are required for salvation.

Can you be a Christian and not belong to a denomination? If so, what church would you be a member of? and how would you know what to do in worship to give God "a sacrifice of praise?"

In answer to the quote above, anyone who requires baptism as a work to please God has missed something. I am a member of the Church of Christ and I assist people in their submission to God by baptizing them in water. I work. They don't. When I baptize someone they surrender themselves into my hands and I lower them into the water backwards (that is very awkward when you think about it). The person being baptized gives up their right to breathe momentarily which symbolizes their complete surrender to God.

[doulon Kuriou]

An essential element of RM thought is in its name. Restoration. The New Testament church was begun on Pentecost. The RMs goal is to restore NT Christianity. How do we do this? We act like, organize ourselves like, worship like and believe like the church in the 1st century. How do we know how they lived and how they worshiped? We read and read and re-read our Bibles.



This is not an esoteric goal. It is possible today to be a part of the New Testament church.



How many churches are there?



Ephesians 1:22-23 (New King James Version)

22And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.





Ephesians 4:4-6 (New King James Version)

4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you[a] all.



Church= the body

# of bodies = 1

# of Churches=1



The big question is – are you a part of that body?

[Jim Woodell]

There is an interesting book that was written by Leroy Garrett entitled, The Sone-Campbell Movement, copyright 1981, published by College Press Publishing Company, that gives a little different perspective on the RM. The emphasis of this book is on the RM as a unity movement rather than restoration. It is worth reading.

[ReverentRob]

I refuse to join a group that says any kind of works are required for salvation.

Do you have to "believe" in Jesus to become a Christian? Do you have to repent of your sins? Do you have to confess Him as Lord? If so, aren't these "works" as you described baptism?

I am a minister in a christian church (Restoration Movement as you have called it) and have, of course, had these discussions a lot. I don't want to debate these things here, but I just want us to all use the same terms to mean the same thing. I don't consider baptism a work any more than I consider confession a work. They are both things that a person does, but they are also both things commanded in the New Testament. See Acts 2:38 and Romans 10:9 if you are wondering where. To me, all of these things (belief, repentance, confession, baptism) are all a part of conversion.

The Restoration Movement was an attempt to unify people under one name, Christian. The purpose may have been lost over time, but it is still my desire to do away with denominational names and divisions, and unify over the things that are truly important. The things I consider important are our beliefs about God, who Jesus is, the authority of the Bible, and the nature of salvation (not necessarily the method).

Incidentally, the two things that make "restoration" churches unique are baptism as a necessary part of the salvation process and the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper. I suppose that's a whole other debate!:preach:

[ReverentRob]

The following is the webpage that my college links to give information about the movement.


What college do you attend? The RM has some GREAT colleges, and a couple of pretty good seminaries for graduate training in ministry, etc. Where are you?:confused: