Is the Restoration Ideal relevant?

[DanielRB]

Peace, All :wave:

I've been reading some history about the RM, and was thinking: is the restoration ideal still relevant? That is, to unite all Christians as "Christians Only" and cast off all man-made creeds and practices? Or is it a pipe dream? Have RM Churches simply become one denomination (or several--Church of Christ, Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, etc.) among many?

Should the restoration ideal be persued today, or are the RM churches content with the status quo of many different denominations?

In Christ,

Daniel

[cremi]

I think uniting all Christians is a great idea. Can that only be done through the RM? Or should it only be done by the RM. I used to think so...now I don't so much now.

[DanielRB]

Peace, Cremi :wave:

I think uniting all Christians is a great idea. Can that only be done through the RM? Or should it only be done by the RM. I used to think so...now I don't so much now.

I agree that it can be done through other means than the historical Restoration Movement. However, I would think that if unity of believers is to be achieved, it would look something very similar to the RM. I don't think anyone has to even hear of Alexander Campbell or Barton W. Stone; but I would think that the ideas that they espoused--summed up in the slogans we all know--would be very similar to any current or future unity movement.

I've noticed that denominational loyalty is not as much as it once was, and people are flocking to "non-denominational" Churches. The only thing that makes me think that this is slightly different from the RM ideal is that often these "non-denominational" Churches have some strong held opinions on certain non-essentials. For example, many are very dispensational and pro-Israel--and if you don't buy the party line, you will be made to think you're very close to being a heretic (if not a full-blown one).

I'm not saying that RM Churches don't sometmes (perhaps oftentimes) emphasize non-essentials; but the RM ideal seems to discourage it.

In Christ,

Daniel

[AJB4]

Well, it's hardly a unity of believers anymore, since it's divided into many sub-groups. It's basically become just like any other denomination now, which was exactly what they were trying to avoid.

Growing up in the non-instrumental CoC, I had no idea that other RM churches would've existed (heck, I didn't even know what the RM was back then), but it seems that apart from mine, about 29 or so others exist (or so I read).....makes you think.

[Mick116]

The Open/"Plymouth" Brethren have similar ideals - rejecting denominational names, they prefer to be known simply as "Christians" or "believers".

I think the main differences between brethren and RM churches are in the areas of eschatology and the meaning of baptism.

[DanielRB]

Peace, Mick :wave:

The Open/"Plymouth" Brethren have similar ideals - rejecting denominational names, they prefer to be known simply as "Christians" or "believers".

I think the main differences between brethren and RM churches are in the areas of eschatology and the meaning of baptism.

Agreed. For a while (when I was just a baby) my family was involved in the "Closed" Plymouth Brethren. Eschatology is one of the prime distinctions, with the Brethren strongly dispensational (heck, they invented it!), but the RM churches generally amillinial.

There's also a different emphasis...for the Brethren, it seems like eschatology is central--dispensationalism is a key, core doctrine...for the RM, there's really not an emphasis on it. On the issue of baptism, the roles are reversed...it's core to the RM, but not really emphasized with the Bretheren. (Some branches, the "ultra-dispensationalists, even eschew it.)

In Christ,

Daniel